if teams are so good.. science teachers...
TRANSCRIPT
IF TEAMS ARE SO GOOD..
SCIENCE TEACHERS’ CONCEPTIONS
OF
TEAMS AND TEAMWORK
Thesis
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree
of
Doctor of Philosophy
School of Cultural and Language Studies in Education
Faculty of Education
Queensland University of Technology
By
Gregory Smith
Bachelor of Science
Diploma of Education
Master of Education (Science Education)
Submitted May, 2009
KEY WORDS
Science Teachers, Teams, Teamwork, Collaboration, Professional Standards,
Phenomenography, Secondary Schools, Science Departments, School Organisation
i
ABSTRACT
The focus of this study is the phenomenon of teams and teamwork. Currently the
Professional Standards of Queensland’s teachers state that teams are critical to teachers’
work. This study uses a phenomenographic approach to investigate science teachers’
conceptions of teams and teamwork in the science departments of fifteen Queensland State
secondary schools.
The research identifies eight conceptions of teams and teamwork. The research findings
suggest that the team represents a collective of science teachers bounded by the Science
Department and their current timetabled subject. Collaboration was found in the study to be
an activity that occurred between teachers in the same social space. The research
recognises a new category of relationship between teachers, designated as ‘ask-and-
receive’.
The research identifies a lack of teamwork within the science department and the school.
There appears to be no teaming with other subject departments. The research findings
highlight the non-supportive team and teamwork policies, procedures and structures in the
schools and identify the lack of recognition of the specialised skills of science teachers.
The implications for the schools and science teachers are considerable, as the current
Professional Standards of Education Queensland and the Queensland College of Teachers
provide benchmarks of knowledge and practice of teams and teamwork for teachers. The
research suggests that the professional standards relating to teams and teamwork cannot be
achieved in the present school environment.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables
List of Figures
Chapter One
1.1 Introduction 2
1.2 Background and Context to the Research 4
1.2.1 New Managerialism in Education and the Team 6
1.2.2 Teams and Education Queensland 10
1.2.3 Professional Standards 13
1.2.4 Science Teachers 16
1.3 Research Problem 21
1.4 Methodology 22
1.5 Themes in the Literature 24
1.6 Conclusion
25
Chapter Two
2.1 Introduction 27
2.2 School Organisation 29
2.2.1 The Formal Organisation 29
2.2.2 Schools as Complex Interactions 31
2.2.3 Positioning the Science Department 34
2.3 Collaboration 45
2.4 Teacher Identity 56
2.5 Teams 65
2.5.1 What is a Team? 67
2.5.2 Teamwork 74
2.5.3 Team Roles 80
2.5.4 Some Cautions 82
2.6 Teams in Education 84
2.6.1 What is a Teacher Team? 84
2.6.2 Teacher Work 88
2.7 Conclusion 95
Chapter Three
3.1 Introduction 99
3.2 Choosing the Research Approach 100
3.3 Phenomenography: approach and assumption 103
3.4 Ontology 105
3.5 Epistemology 107
3.6 Conceptions 109
3.7 Research Design 110
3.8 Research Methods 110
3.9 Sample Selection 113
3.10 Data Collection 116
3.11 Transcribing Data 117
3.12 Organising Data 117
3.13 Data Analysis 118
3.14 Familiarisation 119
3.15 Comparing, contrasting and grouping 119
3.16 Tentative Categories of Description 124
3.17 Declaring the Conceptions 124
3.18 Categories of Description 125
3.19 Trustworthiness and Dependability
126
Chapter Four
4.1 Introduction 130
4.2 Categories of Description 131
4.2.1 Overview of the Categories of Description 132
4.2.2 Details of the Categories of Description 133
4.3 Outcome Space
168
Chapter Five
5.1 Introduction 179
5.2 School Organisation and Policies 182
5.3 Science Department 191
5.4 Diversity 194
5.5 Sharing 196
5.6 Support 199
5.7 Coordinating Mechanism 200
5.8 Conflict 204
5.9 Is it a Team? 207
5.9.1 Team Elements 209
5.9.2 Team Processes 211
5.9.3 Team Skills 212
5.9.4 What about Collaboration? 214
5.10 Teacher’s Work: a reflection 217
5.11 Conclusion
219
Chapter Six
6.1 Introduction 221
6.2 Teams in Schools 222
6.2.1 Team and Teamwork ‘Assisting’ aspects of the Conceptions 225
6.2.1.1 Social Relations 225
6.2.1.2 Tasks 227
6.2.2 Teams and Teamwork ‘Impeding’ aspects of the
Conceptions
228
6.2.2.1 Non-social Relationships 230
6.2.2.2 School Policies and Procedures 231
6.2.2.3 Lack of School Policies and Structures 232
6.2.2.4 Vulnerability and Low Self-Efficacy 234
6.3 Implications 235
6.3.1 Teacher Teams 236
6.3.2 Science Teachers 237
6.3.3 Schools 239
6.4 Limitations of the Study 241
6.5 Theoretical Contribution 241
6.6 Building on the Current Study 243
Bibliography 246
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter Two
Table 2.2.1 Authority, Work and Social Relations 30
Table 2.2.3 Classification 41
Table 2.2.3.1 Classification and Framing 42
Table 2.3.1 Teacher Collaboration Benefits 51
Table 2.3.2 Collaboration Disadvantages 55
Table 2.5.1 Teams in the Workplace 72
Table 2.5.2 Understanding Teamwork 80
Table 2.6.2 Task Changes 90
Chapter Three
Table 3.9 Female Participants 114
Table 3.9.1 Male Participants 114
Table 3.15 Initial Groupings 121
Table 3.15.1 A Subsequent Grouping 122
Table 3.15.2 Linking Groupings 123
Table 3.15.3 Subject Identity Query 123
Chapter Four
Table 4.2.2 Category 1: Multiple Team Memberships 138
Table 4.2.2.1 Category 2: Ad hoc Sharing 141
Table 4.2.2.2 Category 3: Support 146
Table 4.2.2.3 Category 4: Diversity 149
Table 4.2.2.4 Category 5: Coordinating Mechanism 153
Table 4.2.2.5 Category 6: A Source of Conflict 159
Table 4.2.2.6 Category 7: Structures that Don’t Work 163
Table 4.2.2.7 Category 8: Incompatible 167
Table 4.3 Relational Matrix 169
Chapter Five
Table 5.9.1 Team Elements Comparison 209
Table 5.9.2 Team Processes 212
Table 5.9.3 Teamwork Skills 213
Table 5.9.4 Collaboration 215
LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter One
Figure 1.0 Chapter One Outline 2
Figure 1.2.1 The Beginning of Corporatisation 8
Figure 1.2.2 Teams and Education Queensland 10
Chapter Two
Figure 2.1 Chapter Two Outline 27
Figure 2.2.2 Multi-dimensional Web of Interaction 31
Figure 2.2.3 Pyramid of Hierarchy 35
Figure 2.2.3.1 Pyramid of Hierarchy: Subject Department 36
Figure 2.3.1 Teacher-Teacher Interaction Continuum 48
Figure 2.4 Teacher Identity Composite 60
Figure 2.5.1 Open Systems Model of Teams 70
Figure 2.5.1.1 Team Process Evolution Model 71
Figure 2.5.2 Teamwork Processes 76
Figure 2.6.2 TWF- Teacher Job Characteristics 89
Figure 2.6.2.1 TES-Teacher Experienced States 90
Figure 2.6.2.2 TWF-Teacher Work Framework 91
Chapter Three
Figure 3.1 Chapter Three Outline 100
Figure 3.3 Phenomenography 104
Figure 3.9 Participant Map 115
Chapter Four
Figure 4.1 Chapter Four Outline 130
Figure 4.2.2 Category 1: Multiple Team Memberships 134
Figure 4.2.2.1 Category 1: Multiple Team Memberships: Coexistence 137
Figure 4.2.2.2 Category 2: Ad hoc Sharing 139
Figure 4.2.2.3 Category 2: Ad hoc Sharing: Science Department 141
Figure 4.2.2.4 Category 2: Ad hoc Sharing: Timetabled Subject Team 142
Figure 4.2.2.5 Category 3: Support 144
Figure 4.2.2.6 Category 3: Support for Team Members 145
Figure 4.2.2.7 Category 4: Diversity 147
Figure 4.2.2.8 Category 4: Diversity Science Department 148
Figure 4.2.2.9 Category 5: Coordinating Mechanism 150
Figure 4.2.2.10 Category 5: Coordinating Mechanism Science Department 152
Figure 4.2.2.11 Category 6: Source of Conflict 154
Figure 4.2.2.12 Category 6: Conflict Science Department 158
Figure 4.2.2.13 Category 7: Teams Don’t Work 160
Figure 4.2.2.14 Category 7: Teams Don’t Work: Science Department 162
Figure 4.2.2.15 Category 8: Incompatible 164
Figure 4.2.2.16 Category 8: Incompatible: Science Department 166
Figure 4.2.2.17 Categories of Description Summary 168
Figure 4.3 Relational Aspects 170
Figure 4.3.1 The Outcome Space 171
Figure 4.3.2 Incompatibility 172
Figure 4.3.3 Don’t Work 173
Figure 4.3.4 Ad hoc Sharing 174
Figure 4.3.5 Support 174
Figure 4.3.6 Diversity 175
Figure 4.3.7 Conflict 176
Chapter Five
Figure 5.1 Chapter Five Outline 178
Figure 5.1.1 Team Conception 180
Chapter Six
Figure 6.1 Chapter Six Outline 222
Figure 6.2.1 Assisting Teams and Teamwork 225
Figure 6.2.2 Impeding teams and Teamwork 229
STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made. Signature Date
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
to all those who believe in me………..
- 1 -
Chapter One
If teams are so good ......, begins the quest to understand the riddle presented in the
title of this thesis. The quest for understanding teams in secondary schools began in
the context of implementing teacher teams when the researcher was a Head of
Science in a secondary school in Queensland. The researcher was instrumental in
developing a school curriculum not based in the key learning areas such as
mathematics, english, science and the arts as the basis for curriculum organisation,
but using the concepts of Environment, Community, Enterprise and Culture as
curriculum organisers. The reconceptualisation of the school organisation resulted
in the integration of the ‘traditional’ subject area knowledge and skills into the new
curriculum organiser framework. Teachers were required to work in teams as
individual subject specialists using their ‘traditional’ subject knowledge and skills.
This school organisation then morphed into a new model involving the Queensland
New Basics Project. The quest to understand teams in secondary schools had
begun.
The thesis has moved the researcher from an ‘objective’ world view to a world that
recognises the importance of the lived experiences of people. The research
approach has developed in the researcher an expanded world view where subject
and object are recognised as one in the use of the lived experiences of science
teachers as the empirical data in this study.
Chapter One consists of six sections (Figure 1.0) that present an overview of the
research.
The chapter begins with an introduction that outlines the context and the finding of
the study into science teachers’ conception of teams and teamwork. The
background and context are then presented through four subsections. These
subsections investigate the changes in Education Queensland under the influence
of corporatisation, known colloquially as ‘new managerialism’ and chart the
development of teachers working in teams to improve student outcomes.
- 2 -
Figure 1.0 Chapter One Outline
The background and context section of this chapter presents Queensland’s teacher
professional standards from Education Queensland and the Queensland College of
Teachers and concludes with the development of a view of the current work context
of science teachers.
The chapter then introduces the research problem and the research methodology. It
concludes by presenting the themes identified in the literature review.
1.1 Introduction
The purpose of this study is to identify the conceptions teachers hold of teams and
teamwork. Teams and teamwork are considered a unitary phenomenon in this
study, as they are defined as intertwined and interdependent in an interactive
sense.
Teams are recognised as critical aspects of teachers’ work in the professional
standards for teachers in Education Queensland (Education Queensland, 2005) and
The Queensland College of Teachers (Queensland College of Teachers, 2006).
Both organisations provide no explicit indication of team model(s) or their
implementation, organisation and maintenance in secondary schools. The lack of
explicit models and implementation, organisation and maintenance strategies can
be considered as a ‘black hole’, and one which has direct implications for teachers,
because published professional standards require teachers to demonstrate
knowledge and the practice of teams.
- 3 -
The research seeks to begin the process of understanding teams and teamwork in
secondary schools through the lived experiences of 23 science teachers in 15 State
secondary schools in Queensland.
A phenomenographic approach was used to create a theoretical model and
represent the different ways in which science teachers experience teams and
teamwork. Phenomenography is based on a non-dualist ontology that posits the
construction of descriptions through senses and experiences presented as reality in
the non-separation of subject and object.
The research findings reveal aspects of concern regarding school policy,
procedures and structures. The schools in the study are considered as ‘support
vacuums’ for teams and teamwork. Schools have policies and procedures that
enforce team membership, staffroom dislocation, maintenance of bureaucratic
structures and provide no common planning time. More concerning is the lack of
policies, procedures and structures to support teams. Science teachers experience
no formation, renewal and evolution processes for teams. The conceptions of teams
and teamwork present no team processes for teamwork, such as
adaptability/flexibility and group decision making/planning. There is no use of
teacher expertise in a teacher community-of-practice structure. Teachers do not
collaborate in identifying problems, seeking solutions and finding different ways of
doing things.
Given the school ‘support vacuum’ for teams, the science teachers in this study
developed their own model for teams and teamwork, as revealed through their
experiences. A team is presented as a collective bounded by the science
department and timetabled subjects. Teamwork is collaboration that occurs between
the timetabled subject team members, and is mediated by the social space. The
social space is generated out of teacher friendships. There are a number of
possibilities for members in these teams including science teachers who can be
members of the timetabled subject team, but not collaborators because they are
outside the social space. These science teachers have an ‘ask-and–receive’
relationship with other team members. This ‘ask-and-receive’ relationship also
exists in the larger science department team.
Science teachers in their conceptions of teams and teamwork present as
specialists in the science discourse, which provides a professional knowledge
authority and a meaningful role in their timetabled subject and science department.
- 4 -
The pedagogical and epistemological focus of the science teachers’ work is the
centre of their professional and team identity.
The next section will present the background and context of the study. Firstly, by
introducing the benefits of teams and teamwork in the workplace, it sets the context
in a space of new managerialism, where private management ideologies are
accepted into the education system. Teams and teamwork are positioned at the
centre of team orientated work place changes under the influences of new
managerialism.
Section 1.2 then charts the influence of corporatisation of education with reference
to the influences in the development of teacher teams as work place organisational
structures. Professional standards as part of the accountability changes of
managerialism is explored with reference to teacher teams and teamwork and
concludes that both Education Queensland (Education Queensland, 2005) and The
Queensland College of Teachers (Queensland College of Teachers, 2006) require
teachers to work in teams.
The context is then set through the positioning of science teachers, as their
professional identities are challenged by science curriculum reforms, increasing
accountability and negative community perceptions promulgated through the media.
1.2 Background and Context to the Research
Teams are a prominent organisational structure in our complex world. Evidence
from the daily newspapers or the television nightly news conveys the importance of
teams in sport. The world of commerce uses teams to improve customer
satisfaction, productivity, product/service quality and to enhance employee
satisfaction (Johnson, 1998).
Teams present organisational structures for arranging and regulating the way
people interact with each other in time and space. Teams as organisational
structures both increase the proximity of people and keep them apart. Structures
can shape actions and relationships, opening up opportunities for and imposing
constraints of agency (Hargreaves, Earl, Moore, & Manning, 2001). The
manufacturing world expounds the value, input, success of teams in productivity
gains. The large multi-national company Procter and Gamble in their team based
manufacturing plants boasted 30-40 percent productivity increases, directly
- 5 -
attributed to a team organisational framework. Zobal (1998) cites Katzenbach and
Smith (1993) where they report similar productivity gains in large multi-national
corporations including Motorola, AT&T, and Xerox. These major companies span
the globe with their manufacturing, commercial, research and development
activities. The team has apparently become key as a successful organisational
structure for success in the commercial world.
Some of Australia’s biggest companies, such as Westfarmers, Rio Tinto and GE
have recognised the importance of investing in teamwork to develop new solutions
to old problems (Winter, 2008). The Health sector is investing in multi-professional
teams to achieve high level outcomes (Scholes & Vaughan, 2002). Glassop (2002)
reports that teams in Australian industrial and commercial organisations have
positive outcomes for work places, such as increases in workplace productivity;
improvements to product/service quality; a reduced management structure; lower
levels of absenteeism; reduced employee turnover; and increased industrial
harmony. All these benefits ultimately lead to improved workplace performance. In
the Australian manufacturing sector, Cooney and Sohal (2004) conclude that teams
have many permutations and combinations, so there is no real dominant type of
team. What is clear is that the team as an organisational construct ensures
collective achievement for the benefit of both the individual and the organisation.
The team is an important organisational structure in our complex world (Johnson,
1998). Health, sport and education team literature indicates similar focus in the use
of teams.
In the corporate world the team, as an organisational framework, is one of the many
strategies used to gain a competitive edge and is regarded as the most effective
means of reacting to contemporary changes in the ‘corporate world. In relation to
teams in the corporate world, Zobal (1998) comments that ‘perhaps the main reason
that teams have become so popular, is due to their impressive track record’ (p.
237).
Teamwork is integral to new managerialism (Buchanan, 2000; Proctor & Mueller,
2000). Teamwork has connotations of ‘mutual support, conviviality, comradeship’
(Buchanan, 2000, p. 33). Teams are linked with job satisfaction and employee
retention. Teamwork can replace hierarchic management structures of an
organisation with social control and peer pressure, which is part of the culture
change envisaged within new managerial ideology. Finally, teamwork can lead to
- 6 -
better decision making and problem solving as a result of increased interaction to
share knowledge and skill (Buchanan, 2000). Organisations under ‘new
managerialism’ have undergone significant structural change developing
organisational networks and task focused teams, leading to flatter organisational
structures. These flatter horizontal organisations depend on team performance.
Teams are structures that allow organisations to develop ‘knowledge, share
information and build on each other's knowledge to create new knowledge and new
models rather than simply adapting models that already existed’ (Yeh, Smith,
Jennings & Castro, 2006, p.192).
1.2.1 New Managerialism in Education and the Team
The Australian schooling system is in a state of change under the influence of what
has been termed ‘new managerialism’. The changes to school organisational
structures are designed to increase networking and collegiality rather than
maintaining hierarchical systems. The Head Office function has changed from
control to policy formulation and dissemination with a considerable focus on output
and accountability (Harman, Beare & Berkley, 1991).
New managerialism as an ethos in education is based on the assumption that the
education sector should learn from the private sector. As, Hargreaves (1998)
states:
Corporate world encounters major crises and undergoes profound
transformations; human service organisations like hospitals and schools
should pay close attention (p.22).
Hargreaves suggests that organisations have more similarities than differences and
organisational performance can be improved by the application of generic principles
of management. This is a suggestion to education systems to follow the corporate
sector in establishing accountability standards, adopting management techniques
used in business, implementing teams, reorganisation to a free-market driven
competition system.
In Queensland, the corporate culture has induced applications of business
principles to school organisational structures. There have been, over the last twenty
years, changes in school funding guidelines, increased focus on output and
accountability, with devolution of control to school administrators and school
councils.
- 7 -
In the context of this study, one of the global market drivers of corporatisation found
in schooling policy is an emphasis on teamwork to solve problems and make
decisions that enhance educators’ abilities to work in changing environments.
Hargreaves (1998) asserts that the education system responds inappropriately by
leaving intact those structures in our schools that represent the bureaucratic
modernistic solutions of yesterday. He states they, ‘reinforce the crumbling edifice of
modernity, by defending departmentalism, re-asserting traditional school subjects’
(p. 33). This could be the case in the implementation of teams in the secondary
schools studied in this research. The Fifth Discipline (Senge, 1990) sets an agenda
for school team development, in learning organisations, as they foster systems
thinking, personal mastery, shared vision, team learning and mental models:
collegial view of practice. The collaboration of teachers through a community of
practice depicts an image of a school that values the complexity of the knowledge,
skill and the interrelationships of its staff. Both, Fullan (1993) and Hargreaves
(1994) highlight the importance of fostering pedagogic partnerships for teacher
learning. Teams are portrayed as the structure to enhance teacher-teacher
interactions.
Hargreaves (1999) also suggests that educational change can only occur when
individuals have opportunities to develop those skills necessary for working
collaboratively. He also proposes that a collaborative culture is an essential part of
any educational reform agenda. The link between school reform and collaborative
teamwork is highlighted in a holistic approach to school reform posited by Crowther
et al. (2000). Their studies into the successful revitalisation of schools indicate that a
cohesive professional community develops through processes of collegial learning,
where teachers work closely on matters of curriculum and instruction. In this context
teams become a structure of school revitalisation. Education Queensland seems to
conceptualise teams and teamwork as an instrument of teaching quality, whereby
increasing teacher collaboration improves the quality of teaching. At the same time
indicating teams and teamwork will contribute to school improvement by capturing
the complex knowledge and skills as team members work together.
There is, however, a conflicting view that ‘teachers are now being pressed, invited
and cajoled into ventures in 'collaboration', but the organisation of their daily work
often gives them scant reason for doing so’ (Little, 1990, p. 530). Teams in the
secondary schools in this study will provide some clarification of the role of teams
through the lived experiences of teachers.
- 8 -
Secondary schools in the study are considered to be bureaucratic structures with
vertical hierarchies. A change in bureaucratic nature of the power relations, for
example team implementation could have considerable influence on the
departmental structures of secondary schools. Queensland State secondary
schools have seen the influences of ‘new managerialism’ where schools and subject
departments have amalgamated and/or disappeared in the name of efficiency. The
business models applied to education reveal a view that teams are critical to the
work of teachers. This point is emphasised in both the Queensland College of
Teacher’s and Education Queensland’s teaching standards, where teachers
working teams is deemed a critical aspect of work and is afforded the status of
having its own “standard” (Education Queensland, 2005; Queensland College of
Teachers, 2006).
The incorporation of ‘new managerial’ practices occurred in the early 1980’s in
Queensland. Figure 1.2.1 presents the key reports and action plans. This not a
linear development, but represents a complex interaction of government agencies.
Figure 1.2.1
The Beginning of Corporatisation
- 9 -
The move towards corporatisation of education in Queensland began in 1985 with a
Queensland Government Report: Review of Queensland Business Regulations
(Queensland Government, 1985): known as the Savage Report. This report
signalled a shift to corporate-style management for all government departments
(Matheson, 1991). Education 2000: Issues and Options for the Future of Education
in Queensland (Education Queensland, 1985) was a response to the Savage
Report and suggested strategies to corporatise education and recommended a
review of school structures. The next move to corporatise came in the form of
restructuring schools in Focus on Schools: the Future Organisational of Educational
Services for Students (Education Queensland, 1990). This next step was a move to
a flatter administrative structure; students become clients; and Central Office control
changed to being a provider of centrally defined policy guidelines; and there was
devolution of decision making to schools, as implementers of mandated Central
Office policy.
Lingard, Knight and Porter (1993), consider the ‘business-inspired conceptions of
line management and shared management shaped by over-arching concerns of
efficiency and economy in the public sector’ (p. 4) leading to more collegial forms of
practice and democratisation of schools, through teacher participation in teams.
However, it remains conceptually possible that a team structure could change the
power relationships as constituted by the hierarchical positions within the school.
The teacher team could provide a source of conflict in school operation through
power sharing issues. Another possibility is that bureaucratic structures and power
remains intact, while teams are overlayed on the existing structure in a superficial
attempt to conform to Central Office policy. Finally, it is a possibility that teams are
completely ignored in the school structures. This research is designed to investigate
which of these possibilities eventuated, through a study of the experiences of
science teachers.
The implementation of teams can be seen as an outside imposition of a regulative
structure on teachers’ work. Smyth (2001) sees the implementation of teams in
schools as a change in social relations in the workplace; a form of socio-technical
engineering, that impacts directly on the day-to-day work of teachers. In spite of the
rhetoric of teams, collegiality and democratisation, Smyth (2001) concludes that
schools are being restructured as, ‘hierarchies diminish co-operation, foster
competitive individualism between schools, and in the end divert schools away from
their educative agenda by requiring them to be entrepreneurial and more like
- 10 -
businesses’ (p. 32). The business agenda is also obvious in the increase of a
performance culture, where having an excellent teaching record brings feelings of
vulnerability, cynicism and mistrust under a new set of performance criteria
(Gleeson & Husbands 2001).
1.2.2 Teams and Education Queensland
Education Queensland has set a strategic agenda to develop schools, where teams
and teamwork play a critical role in the work of teachers. According to Jim
Varghese, ex-Director General of Education (Education Queensland, 2002c,) the
journey to a culture of excellence would be achieved through ‘working together with
productive teamwork’ (p.2). This agenda follows the corporate model in the use of
teams as a collaborative strategy for improvement. Figure 1.2.2 charts the
interacting aspects of teacher teams in Education Queensland.
Figure 1.2.2
Teams and Education Queensland
- 11 -
The reforms most relevant to the implementation of ‘teacher teams’ are the New
Basics Project (Education Queensland, 1999), Destination 2010 (Education
Queensland, 2002a), Education and Training Reforms for the Future: ETRF
(Education Queensland, 2002b). The chronology of these reforms is not seen as
linear in development or implementation. It is however useful to approximate a
linear order, which begins with the New Basics Project and was conceptualised in
part out of The Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study (Lingard et al.,
2001). The Strategic Plan Queensland State Education-QSE 2010 (Education
Queensland, 2001) and Destination 2010 (Education Queensland, 2002a) began
the process of considering the ‘corporate type’ organisational frameworks of
Queensland State secondary school and their relationship to improve learning
outcomes of students. As a result Education Queensland schools developed as
performance driven learning organisations.
Education Queensland’s QSE-2010 (Education Queensland, 2002a) foreshadowed
changes in the structures of schools by stating:
Quality schools will divest themselves of traditional industrial age and bureaucratic restraints to reinvent as dynamic ‘learning organisations’ in learning communities (Education Queensland, 2002a, p. 7).
The current Strategic Plan: 2008-2012 (Education Queensland, 2008) has no
mention of teams or the communities of practice or learning organisations.
The New Basics Project encouraged schools to develop a curriculum that was not
organised on the Key Learning areas and was intended to improve academic
outcomes and problem-solving abilities of students, through the transdisciplinary
approach to curriculum development and implementation (Education Queensland,
1999). This could be considered as the first policy initiative that asked teachers from
different subject departments in the secondary schools in the New Basics Project to
work collaboratively to implement a cross-subject area curriculum.
The New Basics Project involved 38 Queensland state schools, investigating the
viability of a new framework for integrating what is taught with how it is taught,
assessed and reported. Anecdotal evidence indicates the need for effective teams
working in the implementation of this transdisciplinary approach. In a case study
presented in the New Basics Research Report (Education Queensland, 2004), 13
schools indicated the importance of a ‘shared ownership’ approach to changes in
curriculum and pedagogy. These schools also highlighted the need for a
- 12 -
relationship with ‘collaborative processes’. The case study makes no explicit
mention of teachers working in teams, designing or implementing the New Basics
Project curriculum.
In the midst of the messages of transdisciplinary curriculum and different school
organisational structures, Education Queensland released its Queensland State
Education-2010 document (Education Queensland, 2001). Out of this came
Destination 2010 (Education Queensland, 2002a): the Department’s action plan for
implementing the changes outlined in QSE-2010. Destination 2010 provides plans
to achieve outcomes for successful State education, and enact a new
managerialism agenda. Schools were provided with a School Improvement and
Accountability Framework (Education Queensland, 2002) which set targets as
percentages for the outcomes for Destination 2010. The framework was updated in
2008 (Education Queensland, 2008a), using the same managerial terms and
accountabilities.
The Education and Training Reforms for the Future (Education Queensland, 2002b)
acknowledged the need for a new approach to the middle years of schooling. The
Ministerial Advisory Council on Educational Reform Report (MACER, 2003)
redefines the middle years of schooling as the ‘Middle Phase’ of learning. The
Middle Phase of Learning is defined as early adolescence and is recognised (in
Queensland) as occurring between the ages of 9 and 14 years. Out of this came
four key strategic directions of middle schooling in Queensland, one of which
identified teacher teams as a structure for teaching and learning.
A later document, Middle Phase of Learning: A School Self-Audit, (Education
Queensland, 2004a) suggested:
teachers’ work as transdisciplinary teams, sharing in their care and planning a coordinated and integrated curriculum where appropriate; teams of teachers know and understand each of their students well [and], data is used collaboratively to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of teams ( p. 4).
These references to collaborative groups, shared responsibility and teacher teams
flag a fundamental change in the organisational framework of secondary school.
These fundamental changes appear to be based on the need for structures that
facilitate the use of teacher teams in the delivery opportunities for improved student
- 13 -
outcomes. The then, Director General of Education Queensland expresses similar
sentiments when he comments on the Middle Phase of Learning:
cross-curriculum planning is critical, not only to ensure that the essential skills are developed (numeracy and literacy), but so students aren’t overloaded and bored by repetition. This will ease the load of teachers and encourage trans-disciplinary learning (Smith, 2004, p.2).
The current School Improvement and Accountability Framework; Destination 2010
Action Plan: revised 2008 (Education Queensland, 2008a) indicates that the
workforce of teachers in Education Queensland will ‘use the Professional Standards
for Teachers (Education Queensland, 2005) as a framework for reflection, planning
and professional development to strengthen and extend the professional practice’
(p.7). Teams and teamwork are clearly on the agenda for State school secondary
teachers.
The reform agenda since 1985 has seen an increase in the corporatisation of
education in Queensland. In this process, moves to change school organisation to
encompass teachers working in teams have been gradual, often received as mixed
messages by secondary schools. The Queensland New Basics Project suggested
transdisciplinary teams, and then Middle Phase of Learning Report suggested
collaboration and the use of teams to deliver the curriculum. However, this was to
be achieved within the departmentalised structures of secondary schools.
Currently, teams and teamwork have become a part of teachers’ work through the
implementation of professional standards in Queensland secondary schools.
1.2.3 Professional Standards
Professional standards for teachers describe the skills, knowledge and values for
effective teaching. They:
capture key elements of teachers’ work, reflecting their growing expertise and professional aspirations and achievements. Standards make explicit the intuitive understandings and knowledge that characterise good teaching practice and enable this to be widely shared within the profession (Ministerial Council on Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, 2003, p. 2).
Queensland State school teachers have two sets of professional standards. The
first of these sets of standards is from the Queensland College of Teachers (QCT).
The Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (Queensland College of
Teachers, 2006) establish a set of benchmarks for entrance to and ongoing
- 14 -
membership of the profession and provide ‘critical aspect of relationships in
teachers’ works, both within and outside school’ (Makar, 2007, p.7).
Standard Nine in the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers requires
teachers to ‘contribute effectively to professional teams’ (QCT, 2006, p. 15). This
means teachers have to ‘actively contribute to a range of school-based and other
professional teams to enhance student learning, achieve school objectives and
improve the teaching and learning process’ (p. 15). The implication is that teachers
must know and understand:
• personal and team goal setting and management techniques; • communication, negotiation, time management, conflict resolution and
problem- solving techniques; • the principles of group dynamics; • the qualities of effective team members and characteristics of high
performing team; and • techniques for monitoring and reviewing team performance (p.15).
This list implies that teachers will be active and responsible team members, where
the team promotes collegial relationships to enhance teaching and learning, and
demonstrates collegial decision making. This study will reveal if any or all of these
aspects of the Queensland College of Teacher team requirement exist in the
experiences of science teachers.
Education Queensland has its own set of professional standards: Professional
Standards for Teachers (Education Queensland, 2005) which were developed as
part of the Queensland State Education - 2010 Strategy (Education Queensland,
2002a) and the Education and Training Reforms for the Future (Education
Queensland, 2002b). The Professional Standards for Teachers are generic and
define the knowledge, skills and abilities of all teachers. They describe what
teachers need to know and do to provide relevant and worthwhile learning
experiences for students.
Standard Eleven requires teachers to contribute to professional teams by ‘actively
engaging in collaborating and sharing with other personnel to provide the best
learning outcomes for students’ (Education Queensland, 2005, p.29). Teachers are
required to:
• Participate in a range of informal and formal professional teams in
accordance with personal expertise and interests, school priorities, position description and school-management structure;
- 15 -
• Contribute to determine the goals, roles and responsibilities of work teams, consistent with the school’s policies, procedures, planning frameworks and priorities;
• Use open and interactive communication processes to obtain and share information, solve problems, generate new ideas and evaluate issues relating to student learning experiences and outcomes, and key school objectives;
• Implement strategies for supporting and valuing the contributions of others; and
• Contribute to the monitoring and review of work teams with the aim of enhancing team performance and achieving agreed goals (p. 29).
In contributing to professional teams, teachers need to demonstrate knowledge and
understanding of the ‘principles of group dynamics including roles of team
members, teamwork, problem-solving and communication techniques’ (Education
Queensland, 2005, p.29). There are further requirements for teams in Standard
Twelve: Commit to Professional Practice. Teachers are required to participate in
school governance teams. There are also requirements for teachers to enhance
teaching and learning practice through contributing to learning communities and
involvement in collaborative curriculum planning, and learning and development
activities.
It is apparent from these two sets of standards that teams and teamwork are seen
as instruments of teaching quality, where increasing teacher collaboration improves
the quality of teaching and school improvement by capturing the complex
knowledge and skills as team members work together. These standards also have
defined what a team looks like in a school, and imply a direct relationship with those
models found in the corporate world. This relationship will be investigated in
Chapter Two.
Although neither Education Queensland nor the Queensland College of Teachers
provides any implementation, operational or maintenance strategies for teams and
teamwork in their teacher standards documents or any associated documentation,
there is clear expectation that teams and teamwork will be operationally evident in
secondary schools.
The Australian Science Teachers Association in the National Professional
Standards for Highly Accomplished Teachers of Science (Australian Science
Teachers Association, 2002) asks science teachers to work collegially within school
communities (Standard Eleven). The Association suggests science teachers work
collaboratively to ‘contribute to the development and evaluation of the science
- 16 -
curriculum and teaching program in their schools. They consistently encourage and
support their colleagues, collaborating in such activities as developing and testing
teaching strategies, designing curriculum programs and developing methods for
assessing students’ (p.29). This standard indicates an expectation that the
collaborative work of science teachers will improve the quality of teaching and
learning.
In summary, teaching in teams is expected and required as an organisational
structure for teaching in secondary schools. This study has been conceived to
construct an understanding of teams and teamwork through the lived experiences of
science teachers
1.2.4 Science Teachers
Science teachers are at the centre of this study, so the positioning of teaching
science in secondary schools provides a valuable insight into the contexts in which
science teachers find themselves. Science teachers are also required to work in
teams, as outlined in the previous section. The implementation of teams in
secondary schools could cause considerable changes in the work organisation of
science teachers. Science teachers are at the centre of this research and have
been the subject of considerable changes in their work.
New managerialism has affected teachers not only with notions of increased
collegiality or democratisation, but also inflexible working conditions, delegation of
responsibilities, low levels of trust (Mackenzie, 2007). Teachers are increasingly
being blamed for students’ poor performance. This represents a deficit view of
teacher capabilities by ‘blaming the victim’ (Valencia, 1997, p. x) for a system that,
in the view of O’Brien and Down (2002) is run down and is not delivering answers
to a wide range of social dysfunction issues. Teachers, in their view have received
no recognition for implementing continuous, badly organised and under-resourced
changes to their work
Science teachers are one of the many subject specialist teachers that are at the fore
front of these changes to their work as previously outlined. Science teachers have
additional pressures on their professional identity as they are, in the view of the
Australian Government, responsible for the economic future of the country, as
stated in Australia’s teachers: Australia’s Future Advancing Innovation, Science,
Technology and Mathematics Agenda for Action, (DEST, 2003),
- 17 -
A well-educated, flexible, creative and self-confident population is a key to achieving economic prosperity and social and civic engagement. Developing greater scientific awareness in the general population, inspiring more young people to take up careers that depend on excellence in science, technology and mathematics and building a culture of innovation in Australia’s schools are of the utmost importance if Australia and its people are to be successful in a global world (p.4).
The dependence on science as an important aspect for Australia’s future is not
argued, but it leaves science teachers open to considerable criticism, as there are
declining numbers of students choosing science, along with perceptions that in
international standardised science tests, the Australia’s science education system is
failing its students.
National and International testing of students provides an opportunity to blame
science teachers: questioning both professional integrity and pedagogical skills. The
release of the 2006 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) results caused
considerable backlash on teachers from government and the media. PISA assesses
the scientific literacy, mathematical literacy and reading literacy skills of 15-year-
olds. In 2006, the main focus of testing was on scientific literacy. ‘Although
Australia is one of the highest performers in scientific literacy, our students have
one of the lowest levels of interest in learning science. More than half of Australian
15-year-olds say they have little or no interest in learning about physics, chemistry
or biology. Levels of interest in science are particularly low in Queensland’
(Masters, 2008).
Queensland’s results prompted a media report in a major Queensland Daily
newspaper from the Queensland’s Premier suggesting that Queensland had an
‘increasingly poor academic performance’ and referred to the ‘state's ailing
education system’. The article then indicated that ‘even students from Russia and
the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan performed better’ (O’ Loan, 2008). This
reaction to the PISA results brought a response from the Education Minister, under
the headline: Poor teachers to blame for kids' bad marks, says Education Minister
(O’ Loan, 2008a). The article goes on to suggest the ‘ailing school system’ is linked
to the incapacity of universities to produce quality teachers.
The Australian Science Teachers Association claims that more support is needed if
Australian students are to keep up with their international counterparts. The
- 18 -
Association President declared that, ‘The status of science teachers and the status
of teachers in general has to be much higher’ (Turtle, 2008). Media reports such as
these outlined weigh heavily on the self-efficacy and professional image of science
teachers. There is a constant undercurrent suggesting that science teachers
themselves are responsible for the woes of the national science education system.
This view is reinforced by Mackenzie (2007) who, in her study into teacher morale
indicated that ‘teachers feel that the media impacts upon teacher morale with 81
percent of participants in agreement that media attention, which highlights and
dramatizes negative situations and ignores the successes of schools, leads to poor
teacher morale’ (p.97).
In a recent Australian Council of Deans of Science Report entitled: ‘Who’s Teaching
Science’ (Harris et al., 2005) the low status of science teachers was also recognised
as a negative factor affecting the science teaching profession. They also
acknowledge that science teachers have ‘a common love of science and a desire to
share this enthusiasm with young people’ (p. 10). In research with science teachers
and Heads of Science in Government and non-Government schools, Harris et al.,
(2005) concluded that the intrinsic rewards of teaching science are based on the
desire to teach science and an enjoyment of science.
Science teachers in Queensland are well qualified and take pride in the
achievement of their students as evidenced in the 2006 Teacher Qualifications
Survey of all Queensland state school teachers which found that ‘over 90 per cent
of teachers of science are qualified or have significant experience teaching in their
area’ (Education Queensland, 2007, p. 29). In spite of the passion, enthusiasm for
teaching science and the large number of qualified science teachers, science
teachers are still criticised for the problems in the science education.
Australian Government’s innovation statement: Australia’s Future: Advancing
Innovation, Science, Technology and Mathematics (DEST, 2003a) states that
quality teachers make a difference. It recounts the crisis in declining numbers of
students taking science in the senior schools around the country:
The absolute numbers of those studying physics and chemistry in Year 12 grew modestly over the last twenty-five years, reflecting strong growth in the number of students continuing to Year 12. However, historical highs were reached in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and since then there have been overall declines in the absolute numbers of students studying physics, chemistry and biology in
- 19 -
Year 12. Declines in the proportions of Year 12 students who complete studies in physics, chemistry and, to a greater extent, biology have been even more pronounced (p.13).
Queensland statistics for the senior subjects indicate the number of students taking
either Physics or Chemistry declined by 2 per cent to 22.5 percent between 2000
and 2006. Those students taking both Physics and Chemistry fell by 2.0 percent to
7.9 percent (Department of Education, Training and the Arts, 2008, p. 29). The
figures show a decline in Physics and Chemistry. There are no figures for junior
school science (grades 8-10) in Queensland since it is a compulsory subject. The
implication is that teachers could be at fault for the decline in senior science
numbers, not only in Queensland but across Australia.
The status of teachers has been eroded to a point where teachers feel themselves
devalued as professionals. Hicks (2003) and Mackenzie (2007) note a crisis in
teacher morale in Australia with teachers feeling undervalued, frustrated,
unappreciated and demoralized. Much of this decline they attribute to increased
work demands and a downgrading of the status of the profession in the eye of the
community.
The Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) in 2007 published a report
titled, Reimagining Science Education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s
future (Tytler, 2007). The report suggests that science education in Australia is in
crisis and requires immediate reform. It highlights the need to draw from
successful, evidence-based practices to reengage students in science, argues for
teacher-led change and indicates there is a failure of school science to respond to
the changing needs of students. Again, the implication is that science teachers have
not embraced the changing nature of science and that this has created a crisis in
Australian science education. The report calls for major curriculum reform and
emphasises that the current curriculum framework and teaching of science across
all states and territories turns students away from the discipline. In describing the
current situation it noted, ‘… curriculum and classroom practice are failing to excite
the interest of many, if not most, young people at a time when science is a driving
force behind so many developments and issues in contemporary society’ (Tytler,
2007, p.13): further evidence of a deficient view of science teachers’ abilities.
Despite the range of deficit-orientated reports on their work, Queensland science
teachers are involved in a major reform: The Queensland Curriculum, Assessment
- 20 -
and Reporting Framework (QCAR) (Queensland Studies Authority, 2005). This
reform has been partly due to suggestions that the curriculum is fragmented as
indicated in the Assessment and Reporting Framework Pilot Study (Education
Queensland, 2003).This fragmentation is interpreted by Freebody (2005) as
‘significant and haphazardly distributed discrepancies between what is included in
students’ studies in schools and what curriculum documents outline - gaps between
what is taught and what is supposed to be taught, according to the syllabus across
school years up to year 10’ (p. 4). In a background statement, the then Education
Queensland Assistant Deputy General (Curriculum) in a public forum about why
QCAR was needed, commented that ‘teachers’ choices and preferences leave gaps
in student learning’. There is a belief that there is ‘warrantable grounds for
uncluttering the curriculum by nominating and exemplifying essential learning areas’
(Freebody, 2005) and Education Queensland suggests there is ‘too much’ in the
curriculum, so some of the knowledge and skills in the science curriculum will need
to be cut. Science teachers’ professional identity is strongly aligned to the ‘science’
they teach; removing some science could be a direct threat to the essence of the
discipline and the passion and enthusiasm teachers hold for science.
Accountability is central to QCAR with mandatory year 3, 5, and 9 common
assessment tasks in science. They are designed to provide schools with a common
assessment model to support and improve teacher judgments of student
achievement. The reform also will provide ‘league table’-like information about
schools, teachers, parents and student achievements in science. This reform fits
into the National Testing schemes implemented by the Australian Government
known as NAPLAN: National Assessment Program-Literacy and Numeracy. The
data from testing students of years 3, 5, 7 and 9 are used to compare schools and
systems against national standards. Teacher’s work is under increasing pressure of
scrutiny and accountability.
In the light of the preceding evidence it could be interpreted that falling numbers in
science, poor external test scores and deficiencies in the science curriculum: the
crisis in science education is somehow the responsibility science teachers. This
leads to the possibility that the professional identities of science teachers can be
considered to be ’under pressure’ as this is the space occupied by science
teachers, as passionate and enthusiastic professionals.
- 21 -
The background and context of this study has been outlined with a brief introduction
to the benefits of teams and teamwork in the workplace. Then, a chronology of ‘new
managerialism’ influences on Education Queensland was achieved by briefly
charting the growth of the corporatisation of education with reference to the
development of teacher teams as work place organisational structures. Professional
standards have been presented as part of the accountability changes of
managerialism and explored with teacher teams and teamwork with reference to
both the Education Queensland and the Queensland College of Teachers
standards. These standards have explicit statements requiring teachers to work in
teams. The context was then set through the positioning of science teachers, as
their professional identities are challenged by science curriculum reforms,
increasing accountability and negative community perceptions promulgated through
the media.
The next section presents an introduction to the research approach:
phenomenography.
1.3 Research Problem
In the context of secondary schooling, teams and their associated teamwork are
required as an organisational structure for teaching. However, secondary schools in
the study are organised around subject departments, based on the current
Queensland Studies Authority Key Learning Area syllabus documents.
The research question centres on the experiences of teams and teamwork in
departmentalised Queensland secondary schools. The research seeks to create a
theoretical model that maps the qualitatively different ways science teachers
experience teams and teamwork.
The specific research question is therefore expressed as:
What are the conceptions of teams and teamwork held by science teachers
in Queensland secondary schools?
Three subsidiary questions are also addressed. They are:
What are the administrative policies, procedures or structures existing in the
secondary schools studied that support teams and teamwork?
- 22 -
How does the generated theoretical model of teams and teamwork compare
to the model presented in the professional standards?
Do the schools in the study exhibit any aspects of learning communities?
1.4 Methodology
This study is a qualitative enquiry into the conceptions of teams and teamwork held
by science teachers in Queensland secondary school science departments.
The phenomenographic approach is suited to the investigation of teams and
teamwork, which are considered as a unitary phenomenon. The data gathered in
the phenomenographic methodology is used to create theoretical models that map
the different ways the teachers experience teams and teamwork. Eight qualitatively
different conceptions have been identified and the relationships between them have
been clearly articulated. These relationships present a constructed description of
teams and teamwork, as presented by the lived experiences of science teachers.
Prosser and Trigwell (1997) indicate that phenomenography describes the
experiences and the variation in the way individuals experience a phenomenon. As
Marton and Booth (1997) suggest, the fundamental characteristic of the experience
of a particular phenomenon is, in ‘essence non-dualistic being neither physical or
psychological, located in neither people, nor the world and neither mind nor matter’
(p. 122).
A conception is a representation of the relationship between subject and object and
it is reflected in the descriptions of the experience of a phenomenon (Marton, 1981).
It is an individual’s experiences of phenomena that are the essence of
phenomenography, not the phenomenon or the individual. Marton and Booth (1997)
indicate, that:
in order to make sense of how people handle problems, situations, the worlds, we have to understand the way in which they experience the problem, the situations, the world that they are handling or in relation to which they are acting (p 111).
The conceptions of the qualitatively different experiences of phenomena can be
understood through description and are second-order in perspective. What is
described is not the phenomenon but facets of its sense from the perspective of
those who have experienced the phenomena.
- 23 -
Entwistle (1997) also suggests that phenomenography is more than just describing
conceptions. It is the identifying of conceptions and the investigation of these
conceptions to discover the underlying meanings and relationships between them.
Conceptions of a phenomenon vary between individuals and can be captured in
categories of description. These categories of description emerge from differences
within individuals and amongst individuals of their experiences of a phenomenon.
Marton (1981) believes there is a limited number ways in which different people
experience a certain phenomenon. Marton and Booth (1997) identified three criteria
for the quality of a set of categories of description:
Each category should reveal something distinct about the way of experiencing a phenomenon; each category should stand in a logical relationship with other categories; the number of categories in a set is determined by the extent of variation (p. 125).
The generation of the categories of description allows the identification of a
multiplicity of conceptions about the phenomenon. The set of categories of
description and the relationships between them form the outcome space in
phenomenographic research. The outcome space shows a complex of different
ways in which the phenomenon can be experienced. These experiences are
related because they are experiences of one aspect of reality. An outcome space
becomes a structural framework or a concept map within which the categories of
description highlight the existing conceptions. The outcome space will demonstrate
aspects of the relationships found between the different ways science teachers
understand teams and teamwork. The outcome space will be reviewed through an
iterative review process to test the data against the categories of description. This
will be done to ensure a stabilization of the outcome space. Marton (1986) says
that:
definitions of categories are tested against data, adjusted, retested and adjusted again. There is, however a decreasing rate of change, and eventually the whole system is stabilized (p.43).
The establishing of a stable outcome space allows the development of an
understanding of the conceptions teachers have of teams and teamwork.
The orientation of phenomenographic research focuses on the mapping of the
qualitatively different ways in which people experience, understand and
- 24 -
conceptualise the various aspects of the world around them (Marton, 1988;
Svensson, 1997).
In considering the delimitation of the phenomenon, Svennsson (1997) suggests that
‘phenomena always exist in a context and they may be delimited in different ways in
relation to the context’ (p.5). The context of this study is set and the methods are
described in detail in Chapter Three. The limitations of the study lie in the non-
generalisability of the findings.
The conceptions of teams and teamwork are revealed through the lived experiences
of a specific group of science teachers. Teachers are not identified and the
methodology does not allow attribution of conceptions to specific individuals. These
conceptions are then be compared with characteristics of teams and teamwork
found in the Education, Industry, Health and Sport literature presented in Chapter
Two.
The outcome of the study will provide a number of conceptions of teams and
teamwork as experienced by science teachers. The theoretical model generated for
the conceptions revealed in the study has direct relevance to science teachers.
Teacher Professional Standards contain teams and teamwork as critical aspect of
teachers’ work.
The study will present the current experiences of science teachers and has the
potential to contribute to the use of teams and teamwork in Queensland secondary
schools, as few studies have been situated in departmentalised secondary schools.
1.5 Themes in the Literature
A review of the literature on teams and teamwork in education reveals few studies
situated in departmentalised secondary schools. The same can be said for the
impact of work place organisational changes and modifications of teacher
professional identity in departmentalised secondary schools resulting from the
implementation of teams and teamwork.
The literature abounds in research of many dimensions of teams and teamwork.
These include: team-formation, renewal, evolution and maintenance; team member
roles; team environments; and teamwork–productivity and efficiency. There are
studies that consider teams and teamwork as systems by considering inputs,
- 25 -
throughputs and outputs. This research has lead to various models of teams and
teamwork that will be discussed in Chapter Two. Much of the team research over
the past ten years has focused on team member orientation, teamwork processes,
team member interpersonal relations, communication and team member
performance. These dimensions of teams and teamwork research are investigated
across many areas of human endeavour such as: Health Care, Sport, Education,
and Commercial and Industrial organisations.
The literature review also investigates the organisational structures of secondary
schools to position science departments within the organisational and political
aspects of the schools. The implementation of teams could bring considerable
changes in science teachers’ work, levels of collaboration, and teacher professional
identity. These aspects are investigated through the literature.
The literature seeks to understand the research relating to the positioning of science
teachers within the changing work demands of teams and teamwork as required by
two sets of professional standards.
1.6 Conclusion
There are six chapters in this thesis. In this chapter, the research problem and
associated research questions have been established with a discussion locating the
teams and teamwork in the corporate changes to Queensland education over the
past 20 years. Further sections reported the methodology used in data collection
and analysis, and the potential significance of the outcomes of this research.
A multidimensional examination of the literature relevant to teams and teamwork is
presented in Chapter Two. The origin and nature of the research design and
methodological approach are presented in Chapter Three. This chapter also
contains details and descriptions of the selection of participants. In addition, the
meaning of the key terms associated with the research method,
phenomenonography, is explained in Chapter Three, along with descriptions of the
methods of the data collection and analysis. Chapter Three concludes by
addressing issues relating to the validity and reliability of the study.
Chapter Four reveals the eight categories of description that emerge from the data
analysis and the structural and referential aspects of these categories are
explicated. This chapter highlights the commonalities and differences between the
categories of description through the use of quotations identified from the interview
- 26 -
transcripts. The outcome space of the study is constructed from the eight
categories of description and is a diagrammatic representation. Chapter Four
describes the range of conceptions constituting the outcome space of this study.
Chapter Five compares and contrasts associated literature relating to teachers’
conceptions of teams and teamwork, and reviews the relevant literature with the
results of the study. The chapter presents a theoretical model for teams and
teamwork based on the lived experiences of science teachers. It then explores the
similarities and differences, highlighting emerging knowledge in the context of the
literature to enable possible explanations for the presented theoretical model.
The final chapter, Chapter Six discusses the insights into teams and teamwork as
presented through the lived experiences of science teachers. These insights provide
a context for informing team implementation processes in schools. Finally,
implications for further research into the nature of teams and teamwork provide the
last section of this thesis.
Education Queensland has set an agenda for teachers working in teams in
Queensland State secondary schools in the two sets of professional standards. The
implementation of teams could substantially re-structure the nature of teacher-
teacher interaction and teacher organisation for the job of teaching. This thesis,
through its methodology recognises the need for greater understanding and
recognition of the importance of teachers by using teacher lived experiences as a
data source. This deeper understanding of teacher experiences can become a basis
for informing the implementation of teacher teams and the associated restructuring
of schools. It also may provide the basis for arguments that resist team oriented
school restructuring.
The research seeks to develop some understanding of teacher conceptions of
teams in Queensland State secondary schools.
- 27 -
Chapter Two
2.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to present an overview of the academic literature
appropriate to the concepts of team and teamwork as it relates to science teachers
in secondary schools. A number of diverse fields of literature are investigated, as
teams and teamwork present a fundamental change in the organisation of science
teacher’s work.
The chapter begins with an exploration of the academic literature pertaining to
school organisation, collaboration and identity, and then shifts to the teams,
teamwork for Sport, Health, Industry/Commerce and Education (Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1 Chapter Two Outline
The study is set in departmentalised state secondary schools in Queensland. This
chapter reviews five distinct, yet related but connected fields of the literature. The
fields of the literature are connected through the experiences science teachers have
of teams and teamwork. The choice of these fields was determined by the need to
- 28 -
understand the lived experiences of teams and teamwork as presented by science
teachers in the participating secondary schools. There are six subsections as
outlined in Figure 2.1.
The first section of Chapter Two considers the current organisation of the
participating secondary schools. The participating secondary schools are
recognised as formal organisations with a ‘classic’ hierarchical structure. The
secondary schools are also identified as places of complexity where the interactions
of the components of the schools are often indeterminate. This section concludes by
positioning of the science department as an independent political and organisational
entity within the school.
Collaboration is a key aspect in implementing and maintaining teams in many work
and social situations; an investigation of collaboration is presented in the next
section of Chapter Two. In the analysis of the participant data it became obvious
that the constructed professional identity of the science teachers was a key aspect
in the experiences of teams and teamwork. An investigation of teacher identity
provides the next section of this chapter.
The academic literature drawn from teams and teamwork provides a central focus of
the research and is presented in the next section of this chapter. The section
provides four subsections: What is a Team? Teamwork, Team Roles and Some
Cautions (Figure 2.1). The first subsection brings together literature from various
field of human endeavour, such as Sport, Health, and Industry/Commerce and
presents a number of key aspects and models for teams and teamwork. Teamwork
is presented in the next subsection and develops an understanding of key aspects
that define teamwork through various models to be used in later chapters. Team
roles play a part in understanding teams and teamwork, and are presented in a
subsequent section. The last subsection in the teams segment of Chapter Two
offers ‘some cautions’ relating to teams and teamwork in the work place.
Teams in Education are afforded the next section of Chapter Two. This section
contains two subsections. The first deals with the definition of teacher teams and
the second presents a model for teacher work that has relevance in the work place
as a framework for viewing changes that arise with team implementation.
The last section of Chapter Two provides a summary of the literature findings.
- 29 -
2.2 School Organisation
The development of an understanding of a secondary school organisation is central
to the thesis, as the use of teams and a focus on teamwork changes the
interactional scope of teacher’s work and positions of both the science department
and science teachers within the school.
2.2.1 The Formal Organisation
Secondary schools can be considered, as Tyler (1988) suggests, as ‘a localised
administrative entity concerned with the face-to-face instruction of the young,
usually at a single site’ (p. 50). Secondary schools in his view are organisations that
have formal organisational elements, with a focus on face-to-face practices of
teaching and are considered as rationally articulated entities that contain formal
structures. It follows that these formal structures are made up of elements which
have both formal and informal aspects. The formal elements have associated
spatial and temporal dimensions provided by school subject departments.
The basis of this approach to the school organisation recognises the school as a
system with structure and element relationships that are cohesive and ordered
(Parsons, 1971 cited Tyler, 1988, p. 31). The formal elements of a secondary school
can be described as rational, linear and often mechanistic characterised in the
divisions of labour, hierarchy, and formal rules. This view of organisations can be
considered to be based on Taylor’s (1911) pre-occupation with organisational
efficiency with minimal cost. Taylor’s model is considered to be rational-scientific or
bureaucratic where work allocation, planning and supervision has a distinct linear
set of processes. Weber (1947) perceived efficiency as a result of the control of
human activity in a bureaucratic structure: formal and informal elements. As with
Taylor, bureaucracy was characterized by specialisations and divisions of labour
and a hierarchy of positions with graded authority ordered by rules. Sinden et al.,
(2004) in their research into school bureaucratic structures, recognise the structures
in schools as formalised and centralised. Formalised structures are those that codify
a set of rules, procedures and policies. Schools, as formal organisations, are
characterised ‘by a functional division of adult labour into specialist tasks: teaching
roles defined by subject matter’ (Lee et al., 1993, p.173).
In describing schools, Davis & Sumara (2000) evoke a metaphor for schools that
encompasses aspects of Euclidian geometry, where they suggest: ‘In schools,
Euclid is present in the grids used to lay out the curriculum, order of the school day,
- 30 -
organise learners in rooms, structure their experiences...’, they continue to assert
that ‘narrative of control, predictability and efficiency’ (p. 824) are ‘the discourse of
schools’. This metaphor reinforces the formal rational organisation of secondary
schools.
The ‘discourse of schools’ apparent in the fifteen secondary schools studied is
considered to be bureaucratic where formal elements are central to the schools
organisation. The formal elements of the schools can be better represented using
an internal structural model. The internal structural model allows the regrouping of
above elements using the organisational dimensions of: authority, teachers’ work,
and the social relations (Lee et al., 1993). This reorganisation is presented in Table
2.2.1.
Table 2.2.1 Authority, Work and Social Relations
Adapted from Lee et al. (1993).
Organisation dimensions Critical aspect Authority Governance structures: State Government Legislative requirements, Federal
Government priorities, funding guidelines Nature of the administration Values and beliefs: cultural system Teacher empowerment Queensland Studies Authority (QSA) Teacher credentials: Queensland College of Teachers, National Teacher Registration Board. Occupational, Health and & Safety guidelines
Teacher work Timetable structure Subject discipline Curriculum documents Curriculum organisation Queensland Studies Authority (QSA) Student groupings Teacher and student numbers Teacher professionalism Teacher self-efficacy Resources Behaviour management procedures Occupational, Health and & Safety guidelines
Social relations Social structures Staffroom allocation Staff-staff relations: in departments Staff-staff relations between subject departments Staff-student relations Student-student relations. Collegiality: social and academic
This is not an exhaustive list but provides some insight into the complex world of
secondary school teachers. This organisational structure brings to the rational
bureaucratic model the importance of social relations in secondary schools. These
could be considered as informal elements to teachers’ work such as: teacher-
teacher interactions, student-teacher interactions and social group interactions. The
use of ‘informal’ as a description in a sense devalues the importance of the social
relation so prevalent in secondary schools. The critical aspects presented in Table
- 31 -
2.2.1 highlight a number of external influences on Queensland secondary state
school teachers, but more importantly it sets a framework for the discussions about
teacher experiences of teams in secondary schools. The implementation of teams in
secondary schools will change the formal organisational dimensions. In considering
the dimension of teachers’ work, it is possible that teams will affect the timetable
structure, coherence of the subject discipline and teacher efficacy.
It could be that the experiences of teams and teamwork in the secondary schools
studied express both positive and negative influences on school authority, teacher
work and social relations.
Schools as a formal hierarchical organisation pay little attention to the interactions
between the formal elements already outlined. The next section investigates
through the literature the complex nature of the interactions of the formal elements
of secondary schools.
2.2.2 Schools as Complex Interactions.
Secondary schools as complex organisations draw attention to the interaction
between teachers as an essential component of teamwork in schools.
Secondary schools exhibit many features of complex systems as they are ‘dynamic
and unpredictable’ (Morrison, 2005, p. 316). Complexity is demonstrated in the
interaction of agents and structures in non-linear relationships that produce new and
unpredictable outcomes (Manson, 2001). In Queensland secondary schools the
diversity and dynamic nature of interactions between the organisational structures,
groups and individuals is present in any school at any moment during the school
day, with unpredictable outcomes. These interactions in a school can be visualised
as a multi-dimensional web (Goermer, 1999).The multi-dimensional web is
presented in Figure 2.2.2.
Figure 2.2.2 Multi-dimensional Web of Interaction
- 32 -
The web visualisation for a secondary school suggests the threads of the web can
be considered the structures and teachers, where the intersections between the
threads are the interactions between individuals, structures and/or subject
departments (Figure 2.2.2). In the context of the study the diagram depicts two
subject departmental structures in a school.
The individual webs show threads and intersections within each department. The
intersections are a visual metaphor for teacher-teacher interactions. The web
visualisation also suggests intersections between teachers in different departments,
as the two webs interact. This visualisation serves to exemplify the complex nature
of the range of possible teacher-teacher interactions over a multitude of time
frames. It also provides an insight into implications to teacher-teacher interactions
that could result from team implementation, as teams will have a profound affect on
the threads and interactions of the web.
The organisational structures of the secondary schools in the study are based on
subject departments, timetabled classes and chronological class groupings. The
teacher interactions of a secondary school often centre on the different groups
found within the school. These groups are considered to be components of the web.
The web visualisation embraces a range of interactional aspects of teachers’ work
including: chronological classes, subject specialist classes and teacher-defined
social sub-groups. The web provides visualisation for teacher-teacher interactions
that may be considered as inter-group or intra-group, as there may or may not be
intersections. This web of interaction underscores the complex nature of the
possibilities of interactions and the unpredictable nature of the outcomes of such
interactions. The web visualisation becomes even more complex as teachers may
belong to more than one group or subject area and interact with many different
individuals or environments within the school. There is a multiplicity of teacher
interactions with structures in secondary schools.
Teaching staff in the secondary schools participating in the study are organised by
subject speciality into subject departments. The teachers in this study are members
of the science department. The majority of these teachers are also in the same
staffroom: the science staffroom. This proximity and science discourse will have
implications for the levels of teacher-teacher interactions and the nature of
outcomes of any interaction. As the web is multidimensional and represents
teacher-teacher and teacher-structure interactions in the school a small disturbance
- 33 -
may have major effect on the web, and could contribute to a significant change in
the levels of interactions in the school.
This visualisation presents the secondary school as a complex web of interactions
and is important to the thesis, as the implementation of teams could provide
disruption or enhance the established web of complex interactions; they could
generate new solutions to old problems or be completely dysfunctional and
generate considerable challenge to the professional identity of staff. In this ‘web of
interaction’ there is no proportionality between cause and effect: it is non-linear. This
means the outcome is not predictable (Weick, 1979), so team implementation could
enhance or disrupt schools. What ever the outcome of the team and teamwork work
place changes in the secondary schools, it is said to emerge from the interactions of
all the components of the school.
Emergence is a characteristic of interaction between teachers that allows a school
to adapt and learn, so the organisation can change and modify its internal structures
and interrelationships in order to better achieve its goals better. This emergent
characteristic implies a learning or cognitive change through interrelationships in the
system (Medd, 2002). The notion of emergence through the interaction of teachers
has direct relevance to the importance of teams in secondary schools. The notion of
emergence is the basis of the concepts of learning organisations (Senge, 1990) and
communities of practice (Wenger, 1998). This would appear to be the premise on
which teams have been introduced into secondary schools through both sets of
professional standards in Queensland.
Learning organisations and communities of practice develop and maintain complex
networks, providing systems with the potential to adapt to change. This view of a
school credits it as a place of shared participation between teachers (Lave &
Wenger, 1991).
Wenger (1998) sees a community of practice as a shared repertoire that includes:
routines, work, tools, ways of doing things, stories, gestures, symbols, genres, actions or concepts that the community has produced of adopted in the course of its existence, and which have become part of its practice. The repertoire combines both reflective and participative aspects. It includes the discourse by which members create meaningful statements about the world, as well as the styles by which they express their forms of membership and their identities as members (p. 83).
- 34 -
The description provides a view of the interactions of teachers, their emergent
action and collaborative products. This presupposes a need for coherence in a
school between teachers achieved by mutual engagement. As, Wenger (1998)
suggests:
Practice does not exist in the abstract. It exists because people are engaged in actions whose meanings they negotiate with one another…Practice resides in a community of people and the relations of mutual engagement by which they can do whatever they do. Membership and community of practice is therefore a matter of mutual engagement. That is what defines a community (p. 73).
Learning organisation theory provides a similar view of the importance of teacher-
teacher interaction, where a learning environment is characterised by a bottom-up
and layer-free structure where teachers engage with each other to create
professional communities of practice.
Teams can provide structural characteristics that facilitate learning and community
building, allowing a school, through the interaction of the teachers, to construct new
knowledge (Fleener, 1995). The issue of mutual agreement in the involvement of
teachers in teams and its associated teamwork is important, as the personal
interpretative frame of teachers may conflict with the notion of collaboration in a
team. This will be explored in a subsequent section.
The notions of the interaction of teachers are important to the emergent processes
of collaboration in teams, and emerge from the complex interactions of teachers.
Complexity provides an insight into the possibilities of adaption and change in
schools as a participative process. This notion is presented as one of the reasons
expressed in the professional standards for the use of teams in schools.
The schools in the study are departmentalised, where the science department is a
unitary entity in the secondary schools studied. The positioning of the science
departments is explored in the next section.
2.2.3 Positioning the Science Department
In developing an understanding of the positioning of science teachers and their work
in secondary schools, it is useful to look firstly at the authority structures of the
secondary schools in the study. These formalised authority structures are depicted
by a ‘pyramid of hierarchy’ (Figure 2.2.3). This representation indicates teachers are
supervised by the Heads of Departments, who in turn are supervised by the Deputy
Principals, who report to the Principal. However, in considering the fifteen sample
schools the ‘pyramid of hierarchy’ representation of school centralised authority is
- 35 -
modified to include the senior management team (SMT) and the executive
management team (EMT). These management teams have been included to
represent the complex nature of the school authority structures, their associated
boundaries and the place of the science department in the studied schools more
accurately.
Figure 2.2.3 Pyramid of Hierarchy
The pyramid of hierarchy (Figure 2.2.3) indicates the use of management teams in
which the Principal, Deputy Principal, Heads of Department participate at the
exclusion of teachers. The pyramid of hierarchy also depicts the vertical nature of
the boundaries of the schools, where power and control (Bernstein, 2000) is vested
in the institutional hierarchy. This representation of the institutional hierarchy
provides no view of the position of the subject departments in a secondary school.
An understanding of the positioning of the subject departments is essential to the
thesis, as the participant teachers are situated within science departments.
In the secondary schools the subject departments are the administrative units into
which secondary or high schools are divided (Lee et. al., 1993). Siskin (1994)
recognises the position of subject departments by indicating that they occupy one
crucial organisational position of power within the school, namely ‘affecting what
and how teachers teach’ (p. 5). This position is expanded by Blenkin et al., (1997) in
considering subject department from a micro-political perspective, where the subject
department empower teachers with a sense of common identity in their ‘space,
epistemology and pedagogy’ (p. 222). Consequently, subject departments can be
acknowledged as significant organisational and political divisions within secondary
schools, where the department provides a place for social interactions, support and
a teacher’s identity. The department, is seen as ‘a formally sanctioned
- 36 -
administrative unit and has the authority to command and dispense far more
tangible rewards and sanctions’ (Siskin, 1994, p. 114).
This thesis positions the subject department as a formal structure for teachers in
secondary schools. In the development of the notion of a ‘pyramid of hierarchy’, the
departments form the operational and structural base of the secondary school
(Figure 2.2.3.1).
Figure 2.2.3.1 Pyramid of Hierarchy: Subject Department
The pyramid of hierarchy: subject department (Figure 2.2.3.1) depicts subject
departments as formal entities between which are horizontal boundaries. These
subject departments are made up of specialised formal and social elements:
teachers and students in specialised settings. These subject departments mirror
Queensland’s Key Learning Areas (KLA’s): The Arts, English, Health and Physical
Education, Mathematics, Science, Studies of Society and Environment and
Technology.
The horizontally bounded subject departments are considered to be apart of the
discourse of the secondary curriculum, where they provide a specialised discourse
space and develop their unique identity. This identity has its own internal rules and
associated specialised voice (Tyler, 1988; Bernstein, 2000). The subject department
- 37 -
identities and rules are taken to be real, authentic and can be considered to be an
integral part of the integrity of the specialisation.
Secondary schools and their subject departments can be considered as complex
systems of social interaction that occur within and between boundaries to enact the
curriculum. The ‘boundaries are socially constructed between different social
groups; boundaries are produced between different school subjects’ (Bourne, 2003,
p. 497). Siskin (1994) considers that boundaries around science departments are
set by teachers in the science community, as they describe themselves by what
they teach. This makes no claim of the historical nature of secondary schools and is
considered an omission. Science teachers, Siskin suggests, share a similar set of
norms, values and perspectives based on their subject discipline. They demonstrate
this in a ‘choice of words, the structure of their arguments, or the goals they hold’
(p.153). Siskin contends these are demonstrations of science teachers’ professional
identity. These ideas of the boundary nature of subject departments are pursued
through the work of Basil Bernstein.
Basil Bernstein, a renowned Sociologist, provides a structuralist view of boundaries.
Bernstein’s theories examine the maintenance and construction of the power,
control and identity generated through the boundaries in secondary schools and
provides insight into the boundary space maintenance. In Bernstein’s (1971) earlier
work he notes: ‘curriculum defines what counts as valid knowledge, pedagogy
defines what counts as a valid transmission of knowledge and evaluation defines
what counts as a valid realisation of the knowledge on the part of what is taught’
(p.85). This statement has direct implications for the organisation of teachers in
subject departments. In science departments codes are constructed through rules of
recognition and realisation about knowledge, pedagogy, recontextualising
processes and the evaluation of pedagogic practices in the teaching of science. The
corollary also may be true: the rules of recognition and realisation define what is and
is not science.
The code as a regulative principle also selects teacher realisations and evokes
contexts in the practice of a particular subject or subject departments in secondary
schools. It follows that these codes are ‘inseparable from the concepts of illegitimate
and legitimate communication, and presupposes a hierarchy in forms of
communication and their demarcation’ (Bernstein, 1990, p.15). These codes are
‘regulative principles, tacitly acquired and select and integrate relative meanings’
(p.14) and ‘culturally determined positioning devices’ (Bernstein, 1990, p.13).
- 38 -
Stadovnik (1995) suggests the concept of code is central to schools and refers to
the regulating principle as various message systems, especially in relation to
curriculum and pedagogy. Curriculum and pedagogy as a message system,
combined with the evaluation processes, constitutes the structure and processes of
subject departments’ knowledge, transmission and practice in secondary schools.
The pedagogic discourse is a principle of recontextualising. This principle selectively
appropriates, relocates and refocuses official knowledge. Bernstein (1996, p.116)
views the pedagogic discourse as, ‘discourse arising out of action of a group of
specialised agents operating in specialised setting in terms of their interests, often
competing interest of this setting’. This has significance for the secondary school
where subject departments are made up of specialised agents: teachers and
students and specialised settings: Science, English or Home Economics
classrooms, all with a specialised interest.
The work of science teachers can also be considered in terms of the relationships
between teacher agency and structures in the science department. Structure of the
science department and /or the school refers to the timetabled subjects, vertical and
horizontal positioning of the teachers and department in the school: the organising
of resources. Agency refers to actions that are part of the obligations of being a
science teacher. These obligations carry degrees of authority and autonomy, which
are enabled through structural interaction (Willmott, 1999). Agency is therefore the
ability of teachers to pursue the goals they value. This view of a relational
interaction between agency and structure provides a useful foreground for the
positioning of science teachers. The relational nature of agency suggests both
tension and an improved relationship with structures through the complexities of
obligations, authority and autonomy.
The obligations of science teachers can be considered as the boundaries and
limitations imposed by the organisational dimensions of authority and teacher work
(Lee et. al., 1993). The boundaries and limitations are structural, but are historically
and socially constructed within the school organisation. Science teachers have their
science department that defines and possibly limits interaction within the school.
There are also different subject disciplines within the science department that may
provide conflict between the obligations and boundaries of teamwork within the
department. The structure of the social relationships within and between
departments increases the complexity of interaction with relationships that imply
- 39 -
obligations that could reinforce or negate any team initiatives in a science
department.
Authority comes from not only the specialist knowledge of science teaching, but also
the ability to reconceptualise official science knowledge in the syllabus documents,
status and skills in the classroom. There are moral and ethical aspects of authority
in the classroom practices of teachers to guide and develop learning in their
students. These are considered to be an aspect of the science teachers’
pedagogical discourse.
Autonomy is considered to be the ability of teachers to determine and pursue their
interests. This is best demonstrated in the decisions teachers make for themselves,
within their classes and the science department. However, this brings
considerations of compliance or non-conformity to the changes imposed by
teamwork. The notion of science teacher autonomy would seem to have
considerable implications for any teamwork based science department
organisational structure. However, teams provide the webs of interaction that could
assist teachers in the development of ‘cells’ of autonomy and innovation, where the
team could provide a structure for consensual self-directing teaching programs, or a
structure of interaction defined by a set of collaboratively designed teaching
materials. The innovative view of the organisational value of teams is considered a
key reason for teams being explicit in current teacher professional standards.
However, there is also a possibility that the autonomy and authority of science
teachers could be challenged by school policies that impose team membership.
Restructuring of science teachers’ work through a team structure could change the
contingency of their agency. This could lead to reconceptualisations of their
obligations, authority and autonomy. The implementation of teams and teamwork
will cause reconstruction of the teacher’s agency. There will be changes in the
obligations, authority and autonomy of teachers in their science departments.
Teams also will change structures between the teachers and within the science
department. The insights presented through the lived experiences of science
teachers will bring clarification to these issues.
In subject departments, teachers through their agency select meanings relevant to
their pedagogical practice and consequently highlight those that are irrelevant to
that particular subject area. The meanings teachers construct for their subject
- 40 -
specialisations create boundaries between the subject areas in secondary schools
and are reinforced by the concepts of legitimate and illegitimate communication.
This positioning of teachers in subject specialisations could lead to a regulation of
practice through the power, classification and recognition of the communicative
rules between the subjects. The specialisation has a dimension of control within a
particular subject department, where there is a realisation of legitimate
communication rules with the framing of that subject’s pedagogical practice. The
Bernsteinian view of the subject department will have application in the discussions
of teachers’ conceptions of teams. It is likely that the boundaries between subject
departments found in secondary school restrict teacher-teacher collaboration in
cross-departmental teams.
In applying the Bernsteinian view the specialised discourse of science in secondary
schools has its own specific identity and its own specific boundaries. Bernstein
indicates that this specific identity is created, maintained and reproduced only if the
insulation between the subject areas is preserved, and thus the social order when
he states: ’It is the strength of the insulation that creates a space in which the
category can become specific’ (Bernstein, 1990, p.23). The production,
maintenance and reproduction of the pedagogic discourse of secondary science
have a social identity constituted by the social relations generated through the
insulated practices of science teaching within a science department. These
practices could affect the ability of teamwork to operate within and between
departments.
Pedagogic discourse introduces the classification and framing concepts to highlight
the power and control and privilege of specialised knowledge: ‘distribution of power
and the principle of control translate into classificatory and framing principles,
regulating the structures, interactions and communicative contexts’ (Bernstein,
1990, p.41). Classification (C) refers to the degree of boundary maintenance
between contexts (Bernstein, 1971). The concept of classification is used in this
thesis to highlight the boundaries between secondary subject departments and
indicates the extent to which subject areas are structurally distinct (Dowling, 1999).
A school’s structural organisation can be considered to have a strong classification
when the curriculum is highly differentiated and separated into traditional subject
departments. It also can be assumed that subject areas with strong classifications
have well defined boundaries where the rules of realisation and recognition maintain
- 41 -
the boundaries. Weak classification refers to a curriculum that is integrated and in
which the boundaries between subjects are not so well defined.
The research literature presents little on classification as a concept for
understanding the secondary teacher’s perspective of working in subject
departments or teams. What is consistent across studies of secondary school
subject departments is the notion of power and control that creates and maintains
boundaries between subjects. The communicative practices bounded in the
pedagogic practices of subject areas reveal relations of control. Classification and
framing can be applied to different levels of the secondary school and provide a tool
of analysis and description of the discursive, instructional, organisational and
interactional practices present in the experiences of teachers in secondary schools.
The implications for secondary schools suggest staffs are strongly associated with
the pedagogical discourse of their department: its knowledge and organisational
structures.
Bernstein (1990) provides some insight into the relationships between teacher work,
departmentalisation, classification and the possible implications for teamwork in
secondary schools. The following Table (2.2.3) has been adapted to elucidate the
relationship.
Table 2.2.3 Classification
(Adapted from Bernstein, 1990, p. 51)
Classification Pedagogic Practice Implied Collegial Relationship Description Code
Very strong ++ C Practice is the results of isolated actions
Isolated teacher
Strong + C Practice is with other teachers in the subject area
Group of teachers within a subject area
Less strong C Practice is with teachers from different subject areas
Team of teachers, maintaining specialisations
and skills Weak - C Practice is integrated across
subject areas Integration of teacher with
various skills
Table 2.2.3 represents the links between classification and modalities of pedagogic
practice. The table presents a subject department with very strong classification
(++C), as a department where teachers practice in isolation. At the other end of the
scale, a department that has weak (–C) classification will have teachers that work
across subject areas in a collaborative integrated approach. Table 2.2.3 also
- 42 -
provides a code-practice relationship that could be useful in discussing the
conceptions teachers’ hold of teams and teamwork in their respective science
departments.
Framing (F), the second concept is related to the transmission of knowledge
through pedagogic practices and is about ‘who controls what’ (Bernstein, 2000, p.
12). At a subject department and teacher level framing posits a control over the
selection, sequencing, pacing and criteria of communication in the relationship
between the teachers and students (Bernstein, 1971).
Subject departments can be categorised by their strong/weak framing and
classification. These concepts can be combined to produce a classification–framing
matrix (Table 2.2.3.1). This matrix indicates five possible codes of control in the
pedagogical practice of teachers in subject departments (Table 2.2.3.1). The codes
range from very strong classification and framing (++C ++F) to weak classification
and framing (-C -F).
Table 2.2.3.1 Classification and Framing
Adapted from Bernstein (1990, p. 51)
Implied collegial relationship Subject Department Collegial Practice Code Classification Practice Framing
Practice ++C ++F
Isolated teachers Individual control Alienating, individualistic
+C +F
Group of teachers within a subject area
Individual control Individualistic, minimal interaction, except for social
C -F
Teachers working to maintain specialisations and skills
Individual control, minimal negotiation
Teachers, maintaining specialisations and skills, minimal negotiation of tasks, strong social
-C +F
Integration of some teacher skills
Negotiated Integration of teacher skills, collective negotiation with tasks
-C -F
Integration, assimilation of teacher with skills as a whole
Integrated, negotiated
Dispersed departments, unified collegial practice
The Table 2.2.3.1 suggests the practice of subject departments that are coded as
++C++F is alienating and individualistic: teachers work in isolation. A coding of –C-F
suggests the subject department has been dispersed and the sequencing, pacing
and pedagogical practice has been integrated and negotiated between teachers and
students.
The linking of classification and framing for teacher and subject department
pedagogical practice provides a descriptive matrix for discussions of the
- 43 -
conceptions teachers’ hold of teams and teamwork in their science departments.
The code of ++C++F could inform the teacher’s conception of teams and teamwork,
as could that of –C-F, as these codes describe pedagogical collegial practices of
teachers. Tyler (2004) recognises that re-contextualisation and its associated
communicative order are strongly linked. The changes due to teacher re-
contextualisation of their work (working in teams) could lead to instability, as the
communicative order is disrupted. Simply put, if the communication order is
disrupted by the re-contextualising of teacher work there is a strong possibility of
destabilisation of the subject department environment.
The discourse of science in secondary schools through its specialised knowledge,
interests and settings has rules of order, relation and identity. Science in secondary
schools more specifically may be considered as being legitimised by the ‘autonomy
of knowledge’ (Stadovnik, 1995, p.11). The discourse of school science can be
considered to be a social construction, where the shared understanding is
‘embedded in, enabled by and constrained by the social phenomenon of language;
caught in layers of history and tradition; confined by well established boundaries of
acceptability’ (Davis & Sumara, 2000, p.832). These sentiments find resonance in
the earlier work of Vygotsky (1978) with social construction a process of
internalisation that modifies structure and function of understanding. A
conceptualisation through the window of teachers’ work provides a discourse
organisationally based on teacher collegiality and the responsibility for science
pedagogical values and norms (Talbert and Maclaughlin, 2001).
These aspects of school science discourse are prior to and conditions for the
transmission of the knowledge and skills of science. This thesis considers the
school science discourse defined as a science pedagogical discourse, as it
assumes a reconceptualisation of the official science knowledge and associated
pedagogical devices and practices. In Queensland secondary schools the official
science knowledge is currently defined by Queensland Studies Authority Science
syllabus documents: Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Marine Studies, Multistrand
Science and Year 1-10 Science Syllabus.
Science departments in secondary schools have their own pedagogical discourse. It
follows that the specialised pedagogic discourse appears to be the ultimate device
for the normalisation of teacher professional identities, as it is grounded in situated
- 44 -
action and interpretation of science (Tyler, 2004). The implementation of teacher
teams could provide considerable disruption to the pedagogic discourse of teachers.
Melville and Wallace (2007) take the view that school science departments present
a metaphorical duality where the department is conceptualised as a learning
community and an organisation concurrently: both community and organisation at
the same time. The science department provides an administrative entity, based in
the vertical structure of the school hierarchy. Wildy and Wallace (2004) describe it
as ‘a tightly organised and orderly place of work’ (p. 109). As a community, the
department provides horizontal links with teachers characterised by the sharing of
values and norms that are based around the science subject discipline. Hence, it
defines the boundaries of that science department community. The science
department as a community highlights the importance of social relationships
between staff. It is the ‘primary site of social interaction’ (Siskin, 1994, p.5), a place
for the development of ‘frequent and close relationships’ where the connections
could have the opportunity to ’shape and reshape their own teaching’ (p.95).
The science department has a central role in the personal/professional lives of
science teachers. ‘It is our contention that teachers in this departmental community
identify themselves primarily as teachers of science. This identification is founded
on their university education in the sciences, an understanding of the language of
science and a common view of the place of science in society and education. This
shared sense of identity is foundational to their work as a community’ (Melville and
Wallace, 2007, p. 1202).
The conceptions teachers hold of teams and teamwork will be influenced by the
classification and framing of the subject departments. Sharing a set of values and
norms based around the science subject discipline could well be disrupted by the
implementation of teams in the schools studied. It is also possible that the strength
of the science pedagogical discourse in the subject department will resist the team
discourse. This could be evident in the lived experiences of teachers, as the
research attempts to ascertain the conceptions teachers’ hold of teamwork and
teams
The professional standards of Queensland teachers imply that teachers will
increase their collaborative work as a result of teamwork and hints that this
collaboration will develop emergent solutions to old problems, when they say:
- 45 -
• Use open and interactive communication processes to obtain and share information, solve problems, generate new ideas and evaluate issues relating to student learning experiences and outcomes, and key school objectives; and
• Implement strategies for supporting and valuing the contributions of others (Education Queensland, 2005, p.29).
The following section investigates the collaborative work of teachers, as it has a
central position in understanding science teachers’ experiences of teams and
teamwork.
2.3 Collaboration
Collaborative practices are beneficial to Queensland secondary schools. The
collaborative endeavour between teachers allows the school to develop aspects of a
professional learning community and become an emergent organisation. The
encouragement of collaboration across all disciplines would seem to enhance the
richness of any secondary school. These notions are implied from both sets of
current professional standards and follows from the complex interactive view of
secondary schools outlined in the previous section. This is the position taken in the
current professional standards.
The Queensland College of Teachers (2006) indicate that they expect teachers to
‘actively contribute to a range of school-based and other professional teams to
enhance student learning, achieve school objectives and improve the teaching and
learning process’ (p. 15): suggesting that teacher collaboration is central to teacher
teams in secondary schools.
Education Queensland in their professional standards makes an explicit link
between professional teams and teacher collaboration, when they suggest Standard
Eleven: Contribute to professional teams ‘covers the requirements for the teacher to
be actively engaged in collaborating and sharing’ (p.29).
Collaboration, it could be argued, is an important aspect of the emergent
understandings of teachers in a learning organisation or communities of practice.
These emergent understandings could be considered the basis for the development
of a schools’ culture as suggested by the professional standards. The
encouragement and facilitation of teacher collaborative relationships, in order to
learn from each other, to diversify their knowledge and skill, construct social
identities beyond specialist knowledge and collectively solve problems are clearly a
valuable goal for any secondary school and is a requirement of both sets of
professional standards. The concept of teachers collaborating to make meaning of
- 46 -
the complex interactions between the school, employing authorities, students,
teachers and the school community is not just an ideal or a ‘pie in the sky ‘notion. If
one accepts the importance of collaboration in secondary education, then
developing an understanding of collaboration through the literature is essential to
the development of the thesis, as teamwork is in essence a collaborative activity.
Collaboration in any social or work environment has many different definitions and
brings many different images to individuals (Collins et al., 1999). Prins (2001)
defines collaboration as: ‘a group of people working together, because of their
memberships in a group’ (p. 2). Hall (2001) expands the view of collaboration to
encompass social connections by indicating collaboration is ‘a philosophical basis
for action: it is clearly associated with relatedness, connectedness, affinity and
mutuality’ (p. 329). This definition has resonance with definitions of teams and
teamwork, developed later in this thesis.
In considering the act of collaboration, Schrage (1995) views it as a ‘ process of
shared creation: two or more individuals with complementary skills interacting to
create a shared understanding that none had previously possessed or could have
come to on their own. Collaboration creates a shared meaning about a process, a
product, or an event’ (p.45). In the context of teaching in secondary schools this
shared meaning might be demonstrated by activities such as jointly constructed
assessment tasks, reconceptualisation of syllabus documents to produce school
work programs or even cross subject department pedagogical teaching activities. In
applying the above definitions to secondary school science departments, it is
evident that collaboration can be considered as a process between two or more
people. The thread of communications between teachers is essential in the
collaborative process.
Communication is a critical aspect of any collaborative activity. The critical nature of
communication is expressed by Mintzberg et al., (1996):
Collaboration is fundamentally a communicative process, one that includes nonverbal, experiential and emotional communication. It is not something that can be mandated, programmed, formalized. To foster good collaboration, help people learn to be responsible and responsive communicators, and enable people to work face to face on the issues (p. 70).
In investigations into organisational collaboration, Bradbury (2001) highlights the
essential nature of the language exchange that occurs between collaborating
- 47 -
individuals. The language exchange in collaborative activities generates a mutual
understanding. These language exchanges are often negotiations that are based on
formal and informal processes in which a dialogue is the essential ingredient.
There is a need for ‘heedful interaction’ between individuals (Druskatt and
Pescosolido, 2002). These interactions are characterised by behaviours that
demonstrate considerate, conscientious, purposeful communications. An effective
communication process is characterised by open and constructive interactions that
can stimulate innovative thinking. The communication process should be matched
by a cooperative-supportive process which is enacted through mindful actions of the
collaborating teachers. The interaction required for this level of collaboration would
suggest an individual needs to develop a collaborative ‘state of mind’ (Collins et al.,
1999) through trust, capability and the willingness to learn from the experience of
colleagues.
This psychological perspective of collaboration implies shared mental models of the
sense of psychological ownership, where a state of mind exists that changes the
individual’s relationship with work by strengthening feelings of responsibility and
influence.
The interactions between teachers can be considered, as the action of
collaboration and the glue of these interactions is the communication between
individuals to develop understanding. However, interactions and communications
between teachers do not in essence make collaboration. In the secondary school
context the interaction can be ‘reduced to little more than individuals working
autonomously in the presence of others’ (Donato, 2004, p.285). The differentiation
between collaboration and interaction brings an image of a continuum in the daily
work of teachers. Collaboration could be demonstrated in the experiences of
teachers by teamwork, or could be isolated and individualistic. These two examples
represent either end of a continuum. The continuum of interaction suggests teacher
professional relationships may be able to be categorised as weak, strong or all
points in between interactions. Little (1990) indicates that strong-weak interactions
continually exist and they align with a teacher interdependence-independent
continuum, as depicted in Figure 2.3.1.
- 48 -
Figure 2.3.1 Teacher-Teacher Interaction Continuum
(Adapted from Little, 1990, p. 513)
The Figure 2.3.1 sets out a visual representation of patterns of teacher-teacher
interaction. The model indicates that storytelling and scanning demonstrate weak
collegial interactions and teamwork is at the opposite end of the continuum.
Storytelling and scanning are superficial interactions usually characterised by social
or personal interests. The sharing activity can be characterised by the routine open
exchanges of opinions, ideas and pedagogical methods. This is not advice giving or
assistance seeking as these are seen as periodic and fragmented interactions. Joint
work or a working group presupposes time, organisation, and resources for teacher-
teacher interactions to achieve a particular outcome. This model of teacher-teacher
interaction makes no claims at this stage about the personal friendship dispositions
that will certainly effect the professional interactions of teachers. The effect of
teacher friendships will become evident through the experiences of teachers in
teams.
The teacher-teacher interaction continuum has a reciprocal alignment with the ideas
of classification suggested by Bernstein (1990). In his framework, very strong
classification (++C) represents the isolated teacher and pedagogical practice. This
very strong classification demonstrates a reciprocal relationship with teacher-
teacher interactions, as they are classified as weak interaction between colleagues:
independent and isolated. Teachers working in teams presuppose interdependence
with a strong collaborative ethos according to the teacher-teacher interaction model.
- 49 -
Little (1990) in her research into teacher collegial relations recognises
weak/independent positioning depicted in the model by suggesting that ‘ perhaps
the single most pervasive expectation amongst teachers is that colleagues will give
one another help and advice when asked. Yet, experience would suggest, teachers
carefully preserved the boundary between offering advice when asked and
interfering in unwarranted ways in other teachers’ work’ (p. 515). This observation
could well be a professional identity issue, where asking for help has implications for
the quality of one’s own teaching practice. An implication Little (1990) appreciates
by identifying the rarity of questions about the business of teaching in schools. She
also alludes to the fact that teaching practice discussions often become difficult to
separate from judgements about the competence of teachers. These types of
teacher-teacher interactions may manage to jeopardise teacher’s self-esteem and
professional standing.
In accepting the teacher-teacher interaction continuum the implementation of teams
in secondary schools will have a fundamental impact on the levels of teacher-
teacher interaction. It follows that teachers in teams could well have major changes
in levels of communication, self-esteem and professional identity in their teacher
practices due to the increased interactions with colleagues and changing social
networks. There is also a possibility that the levels of interaction between teachers
does not change with teams, and teamwork is limited and at worst non-existent.
There is however another possibility: that teachers will not change their levels of
interaction and ignore team directives from the school administration.
The perspective of an emergent process can be applied to collaboration, as it can
enhance the creation of knowledge. Styhre et al., (2002) conclude that this process
of knowledge creation in organisations emerges from interpersonal relationships,
the abilities of individuals to communicate and to make sense of complex realities.
Knowledge creation is a complex concept that encompasses individual skills,
experienced know-how, and capabilities that can be enacted at an individual,
subject department or school level. They also make the point that knowledge or
knowing is a highly interpersonal and socially grounded concept by suggesting:
‘knowledge is personal in so much as it involves mental settings, thoughts and
previous experience’ (p. 507). Similar sentiments applied to learning in
organisations are expressed by Weick and Westley (1999) when they indicate:
learning is embedded in relationships or relating. By this we mean that learning is not an inherited property of an individual or an organisation, but rather resides in the quality and the nature of the relationships between levels of consciousness within the individual (p. 196).
- 50 -
The implications for schools, it would seem, relate to the levels of teacher-teacher
interaction. It could be that strong levels of interaction provide opportunities for
teachers to engage in knowledge development. This could be achieved though the
use of teams, an implication also drawn from the professional standards already
presented. To this end, knowledge and learning in schools or subject departments is
the outcome of continuous conversation and exchanges of ideas between teachers.
This is a critical personal and organisational outcome of collaboration. The
implications for secondary schools are clear: the quality of teacher learning and
knowledge development in the school or subject departments resides in the quality
and the nature of the relationships that have been developed within the subject
department. These notions of teacher knowledge and collegial learning could be
represented in the experiences of the participant science teachers.
The teacher professional standards seem to accept Choo’s (1998) ideas of
organisational knowledge that are, ‘rooted in expertise and experience of individual
members, the organisation in the knowledge takes on meaning and purpose’ (p.5),
and Spender’s (1996) assertion that knowledge is one of the most important
resources for organisation. It is also reasonable to assume that schools run the risk
of losing much of the expertise and knowledge diversity held by the staff collective
when there is limited collaboration within and between subject departments or
teachers. In essence the lack of collaboration inhibits the communication necessary
to solve problems. The need for collaboration on a school wide front is essential to
make better use of the diverse range of the problem solving knowledge and skills
held by teachers in the organisation, a point made clearly in the ‘team standards’ for
Queensland teachers. Collaboration is important, as a collaborative staff is happy,
resilient and is more responsive to internally generated changes through a
collaborative ownership of such changes (Nias et al., 1989). Teacher teams could
provide the structure that will enhance opportunities for teacher collaborations.
The essence of collaboration is found in the interrelationships generated through the
interaction of the staff, even though they have different opinions, different
assumptions that could well challenge the collaboration concept. The common
culture that accrues out of collaboration suggests collegiality could enhance the
emergence of new ideas and new perceptions. Collaboration between teachers is
an ‘articulating principle of action, planning, culture, development, organisation and
research’ (Hargreaves, 1994, p. 245). Collaboration in secondary schools claims
benefits for teachers. Since collaboration has been linked to teams and teamwork in
- 51 -
this section, Table 2.3.1 links the benefits of teacher collaborations to representative
experiences teachers might have through teamwork.
Table 2.3.1
Teacher Collaboration Benefits (Adapted from Hargreaves, 1994, p. 245–7, Johnson, 2003, p.342, and Baker et. al., 2005, p.240)
Teacher Collaboration
Benefit
Elaboration Experiences in Teamwork
Moral support Strengthens resolve,
permits vulnerability sharing,
supports failure, and supports change
Emotional and psychological benefits associated with working closely with colleagues in teams.
Morale maintenance and development
Feelings of collegiality,
trust, openness, personal sharing and
professional sharing
Positive teachers’ feelings about their planning, discussing, and working in teams.
Improves effectiveness and efficiency
Elimination of duplication
Removal of redundancy
Insight into identification and strategies to improve efficiencies/effectiveness, and
reallocate tasks
Reduces overload sharing burdens and pressures Recognising, planning and sharing the load
across the team, sharing information, and providing assistance.
Establishes boundaries
reduces uncertainty about what
can be reasonably achieved
Setting commonly agreed boundaries,
boundary maintenance, and
collective decision making
Promotes confidence
strengthens teachers’ confidence to learn and develop innovations
Developing and sharing of innovations,
adopting innovations, and
delaying or resisting innovations
Promotes teacher reflection
increases teachers’ opportunities
to learn from each other
Providing a structure for reflection, listening effectively, and asking questions.
Teacher learning continuous improvement
Encourages teachers to see change not as a task to be completed, but as an unending process of continuous improvement
teachers feel better about themselves and their work,
take opportunities to learn from each other.
Part of a ‘professional learning community’, with shared responsibility for ongoing teacher professional development
Time, place and framework for monitoring and adjusting performance,
providing and accepting feedback,
Openly sharing ideas,
Observing lesson,
Seeking mutually agreeable solutions,
Considering different ways of doing things,
Identifying problems,
Seeking solutions, and
Understanding decisions
- 52 -
The benefits of collaborations as described in the summary presented in Table 2.3.1
are linked to possible teacher experiences of working in a team. This provides a
framework for discussion of teachers’ experiences of teams and teamwork in the
science departments studied. If, in the conceptions of teachers, the experiences and
elaborations are obvious from the data analysis then it follows that teamwork could
be supplying benefits to teachers through the collaborative processes already
outlined.
Collaboration in secondary schools can provide opportunities for teachers to come
together with their own expertise, experiences and teaching styles to provide
opportunities to learn. When teachers collaborate with each other about the practice
of teaching, they observe each other’s lessons and frequently offer constructive
feedback and critiques. The value of teachers reflecting on the practice of teaching
is highlighted by Fullan (1982) by suggesting that, ‘the lack of opportunity for
teachers to reflect, interact with each other, share, learn, and develop on-the-job,
makes it unlikely that significant changes will occur’ (p. 118).
The collegial view of practice is congruent with the concept of the learning
organisation and a community of learners, where a school and the constituted
subject departments demonstrate emergence through the complex interactions of its
staff. The value of this learning within and between subject areas could see schools
take on the dimensions of a community of practice. Collaborating teachers through
a community of practice depicts an image of a school that values the complexity of
the knowledge, skill and the interrelations of its staff. Schools have unique cultures
and can be considered as communities of practice.
Fullan (1993) and Hargreaves (1994) make valid points about the significance of
collaboration and collegiality to schools and teachers. They discuss teacher
development taking place most effectively in schools where a culture of
collaboration is demonstrated through the fostering of pedagogic partnerships.
These pedagogical partnerships can not only counter professional isolation, but also
contribute to the enhancement of classroom practice. Teachers working closely on
matters of curriculum and instruction find themselves better equipped for the
classroom, especially in this age of technological complexity (Mintzberg et al.,
1996).
In a practical view of research into collaboration in schools, Ellis (1990) presents the
view that using structured ‘lateral’ communication is a necessary condition for
- 53 -
teachers to learn to implement strategies in complex classroom situations. The
implication of ‘lateral’ communication would indicate a cross subject-discipline
communication strategy. Teachers collaborating in professional communities,
Visscher and Witziers (2004) indicate, are better able to understand complexities in
curriculum. This collaboration could make complex tasks of curriculum development
more manageable and bring diversity to the developmental process. However, they
point out that this organisational structure has issues with the present teacher
culture in many secondary schools, such as the culture of ‘norms of privacy’ and
subject based social identities. Teachers in secondary schools who collaborate
require sophisticated relationship skills. The language of different subject-based
teachers could be an issue in the development of collaboration between teachers in
different departments, even between different subjects within secondary school
departments. They can communicate with a collaborative ‘state of mind’, but the use
and interpretation of language could be an issue when one considers the
epistemological grounding of the different discipline areas. Teachers in the science
department with many subjects: Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Multistrand Science
and Marine Studies may not have the common language to collaborate with each
other, even though they are in the same subject department. The experiences of
teachers in the ‘science department team’ could elucidate this issue of collaboration
with the science department.
Teacher collaboration to develop teacher learning and knowledge development has
been used as the basis of team and teamwork school restructuring activities. Smyth
(1991) provides an economic rationalist dimension where, collaborative work of
teachers can produce the creative connections required for the economic future. A
reason for collaboration and collegiality being back on the education agenda,
according to Smyth it may be that: ‘the widespread re-kindled interest in teacher
collaboration is neither incidental nor accidental, but that it is part of a broader
strategy (deliberate or otherwise), to harness teachers’ work to do the work of
economic reconstructions’ (p. 324). This sentiment has been strong in Australia at
Federal and State Government levels. The Federal Government’s: Backing
Australia’s Ability an Innovation Action Plan for the Future (DEST, 2001) clearly sets
this agenda for teachers. These agendas are enacted through mandated centralised
education systems, as have been described in the introduction. It would seem
education systems are using policy options to mandate collaboration. The view of
mandating collaboration would suggest a paradox, ‘where teachers are encouraged
to engage in collaboration with their colleagues, and at the same moment there is a
- 54 -
move towards standardisation and centralisation of the curriculum’ (Smyth, 1991,
p.327). The most notable example of this is the Federal Governments push to
implement a National Curriculum (National Curriculum, 2008). In the draft principles
for the national curriculum there is a clear direction that the curriculum should ‘make
clear to teachers what has to be taught’ (p.3). The first subjects to be developed will
be English, Mathematics, Science and History.
Johnson (2003) in examining schools’ efforts to promote greater collaboration
between teachers concludes that schools in Australia have been actively
encouraged to ‘restructure’ themselves to become more collaborative organisations
so that they can better meet the challenges posed by increased marketisation,
competition, and public accountability: a pointer to the manipulation of teacher work
as a managerialism tool of control.
Teachers are being urged to collaborate more, and yet there could be less for them
to collaborate about. The push for teams in secondary schools can be conceived as
contrived collegiality, to provide structures for teacher collaboration.
Furthermore, teacher collaboration is not without its problems. Johnson (2003)
reports teacher dissatisfaction with collaboration. The areas of dissatisfaction are:
work intensification, loss of autonomy, interpersonal conflict and factionalism. Table
2.3.1 sets out these areas of dissatisfaction and links these to possible experiences
of teachers working in teams. This linking could provide a valuable insight to the
collaborative work of teachers in their teams.
- 55 -
Table 2.3.2 Collaboration Disadvantages
Adapted from Johnson, 2003, p.348
Teacher disadvantage Elaboration Experiences in teamwork
Work intensification The need to meet more frequently with colleagues to discuss and plan collaboratively placed an added work burden on teachers.
More frequent meetings, and added work burdens
Loss of autonomy Teachers feeling constrained,
teachers feel pressured to conform, and
loss of independence and autonomy
Pressure to conform within their team,
teaming was used as an administrative strategy to achieve conformity, and
implicit norms and explicit decisions about working in teams
Interpersonal conflict Awareness of the dissatisfaction of some teachers,
being highly critical of ‘white anters’, ‘dissenters’, ‘resistors’, ‘back stabbers’, and ‘blockers’.
Negative and undermining behaviours on colleagues in the team
Factionalism Divisive competition between collaborating teachers that it seemed to foster.
Teams developing a divisive competitive spirit between teams
The disadvantages of collaborations as described in Table 2.3.2 are linked to
possible teacher experiences of working in a team, such as increasing workloads,
loss of autonomy, splintering or factionalism in the staff and the possibility of an
increase in interpersonal conflict. These disadvantages of collaboration also provide
a framework for understanding teachers’ experiences of teams and teamwork in
their science departments. If, in the conceptions of teachers, the experiences and
elaborations presented above are evident from the data analysis then it follows that
teamwork could be supplying disadvantages to teachers through the collaborative
processes already outlined.
Little (1990) recognises that teacher collaborations can be natural, yet are rare in
schools. They can be considered to be natural when they come out of the need to
solve problems or in circumstances where teachers have a common goal. She
further states that ‘teachers do not have other motives for seeking one another out,
but argue that they are unlikely to sustain a pattern of significant ‘out of classroom’
involvement in the absence of independent work-related interests’ (p.523). It could
be that teams in schools do provide the structure, goals and motivation to sustain
- 56 -
the collaborative ventures related to teacher teamwork. The education system in
Queensland has declared an increasing role of collaboration in the professional
standards and teamwork. As secondary schools moving toward greater
collaboration, it is important not to lose the passion and enthusiasm of the
individual. The extremes of collaboration can lead to an uncritical conformity with an
unthinking acceptance of the latest solution and suppression of individual dissent.
The capacity to think and work independently is essential to any educational reform
(Fullan, 1997).
However, teamwork in secondary schools could be considered as a central
expression of the new work relationships that effectively produces a formal control
over teacher-teacher interactions in the course of their work. Teacher experiences
of teams and teamwork in the participating schools will provide insights into their
collaborative interactions: how they work individually and collectively. It will bring to
light the nature and extent to which the collective work of teams has redefined
science teachers’ place in the school, science department and construction of their
professional identity.
2.4 Teacher Identity
The role of teacher professional identity as a function of the social and
epistemological construct of the science department has been developed in the
positioning of the science department within the school. In a broader sense the
effect of new managerialism in schools has had considerable influence on teacher
identity. The promises of increases in democratisation have not appeared, but
teachers experience inflexible working conditions, delegation of responsibilities and
low levels of trust (Mackenzie, 2007). Such views weigh heavily on the self-efficacy
and professional image of teachers and in particular science teachers (as outlined in
Chapter One). There is an undercurrent suggesting teachers are responsible for the
woes of the science education system. Harris et al., (2005) also point out that
science teachers teach science because they have ‘a common love of science and
a desire to share this enthusiasm with young people’ (p.10), and teacher
perceptions of the intrinsic rewards for teaching science are based on the desire to
teach science and an enjoyment of science.
The role of self-belief according to Bandura (1994) posits that a strong sense of self-
efficacy enhances a sense of accomplishment and wellbeing. Teachers with a belief
(strong self-efficacy) in their capabilities approach difficult tasks as challenges to be
- 57 -
mastered rather than as threats to be avoided. They approach threatening situations
with a belief in their capabilities to achieve and generate feelings of personal
accomplishments that reduces stress and lowers vulnerability.
Teachers have the ability to influence their lives and work environment, while being
shaped by the social and individual interactions of their school, department and
outside interaction with the environment (Bourdieu, 1977). These aspects of
teacher’s work are considered as a science teacher’s agency and are made up of
obligations, authority and autonomy (Vongalis-Macrow, 2007). In other words
science teacher agency is made up of actions that are part of the obligations of the
position of science teacher. This position carries degrees of authority and autonomy
which are enabled through structural interaction within the department (Archer,
1996). Teachers demonstrate this agency in the classroom, staffroom and the
science department, as it is an expression of their professional identity.
Science teachers’ authority and identity come from their ability to teach the
specialist knowledge in the discourse of science. This professional knowledge
authority of a teacher as a knowledge specialist, allows teachers to pursue a
meaningful role with freedom and passion (Britzman, 2000).
Teachers work in a system that mediates their agency. Such structural mediators
include: policy mandates, new syllabus documents, subjects and class allocations.
Teachers are considered as active agents, where ‘their actions are mediated by the
structural elements of their setting’ (Lasky, 2005). Teacher capabilities are
influenced or mediated by events or structures in their lives. Those who doubt their
capabilities shy away from difficult tasks which they view as threats. These threats
could be conceived as teacher obligations, authority perceptions or classroom
autonomy. Often people with low self efficacy are slow to recover their sense of
efficacy following failure or setbacks (Bandura, 1994). Bandura’s idea of low self-
efficacy could explain why some teachers choose to collaborate or not within their
work environment.
Teacher identities are constructed from the technical and emotional aspects of
teaching and also their personal lives. The identity construction is a result of the
personal experiences of teachers in the social, cultural and institutional world
(Hargreaves, 1994; Nias, 1996). The interaction between the structure (relations
between power and status) and agency (personal influence to pursue goals)
influences how teachers see themselves. This ‘self’ is a composite of teachers’
- 58 -
personal, situated and professional identity. The ‘valued self’ produces choice in
the work of teaching. In science this is enacted through their classroom organisation
and styles of their teaching: pedagogical discourse. Science teachers’ professional
identity is constituted in part by the accepting or rejecting of possibilities in the
constructed pedagogical discourse or the level of teacher-teacher interaction
perceived relevant to their pedagogical discourse. This way of thinking and acting is
‘patterned into practices and sets of practices’ (Coldron & Smith, 1999, p.713). The
patterned practices become part of the traditions of the teacher and also interact
actively with the structures of the school and science department. In this a teacher’s
agency can be constrained or mediated by the range of choices culturally
embedded in the science department or school traditions and practices. It is also
likely that agency will be challenged when the traditions and practices are also
challenged. A science teacher’s range of choice is determined by his or her
perceptions about the array of possibilities. These possibilities are conveyed
through the discourse of science and their reconceptualisation of the official
knowledge of science and the pedagogical discourse of science. This understanding
has direct implications as teachers re-organise their work to accommodate the
implementation of teams.
Teachers’ professional identity can be defined as a representation teacher’s hold of
themselves as teachers (Gohier et al., 2007). Teachers and their identity can be
defined by their relationship ‘ to the teaching occupation as a professional
specialised in teaching and learning, to teaching responsibilities, to students and
colleagues, to the teachers’ community in general, and to all other actors of the
school system as a social institution’ (Gohier et al., 2007, p. 143). Teams and the
associated teamwork will bring changes in teaching responsibilities and the
associated teacher identity relationships.
The science education literature suggests that science teachers experience science
as a primary aspect of their professional identity (Little, 1993; Talbert, 1995).
Science teachers work in social contexts and institutional frameworks within their
departments. The science teacher’s identity from this socio-cultural perspective is
shaped and negotiated through the multifaceted everyday activities of practice. Yet,
science teachers in Queensland secondary schools teach a range of subjects from
Junior Science to possibly Senior Chemistry or Physics. The process of science
teachers’ professional identities formation is dynamic and interactive, as they work
- 59 -
on reconceptualising official knowledge of their particular science discipline to their
pedagogic discourse.
The secondary schools in the study are departmentalised organisational structures,
where teacher work is based in subject departments. The implication of this, as
Enyedy et al., (2006) highlight, is that professional identity is closely related to
subject based identity. Teachers’ conceptions of teams could present the
construction of different identities as they work with other subject departments or
work with other teachers in different timetabled subject combinations. When
teachers’ professional identify is based on and within a subject, they could perceive
teachers of other subjects as fundamentally different. The development of teams
within the science departments or between subject departments could suffer from
this perception of difference and create difficulties in the collaborative work
demanded by teamwork.
Day (1999) acknowledges teacher identity as the result of the struggle between a
personal idealised vision and the strong socialising forces of the school’s culture.
Taking this point and applying it to the science departments, the dynamic nature of
the constructed identity can be considered as a result of the socialising forces of the
department that reinforces the boundaries between other departments. These
boundaries could reinforce the ‘difference’ between subject departments in
secondary schools or the perception of ‘difference’ could promulgate conflict
between teachers in a subject department, as they teach different subjects. In
subsequent work, Day et al., (2006) reveal that ‘for secondary school teachers,
subject and its status are related more closely to identity’ (p.611).
Day et al., (2006) conceptualise teacher identity as a ‘composite of the interactions
between personal, professional and situational factors’ (p. 149). The identities are
as follows.
Professional: as constituted around what is a good teacher and classroom
practitioner. This takes into account competing and conflicting elements
such as school policies, national education policies, teacher roles and
responsibilities, and work load.
Situated: as relates directly to school, subject departments and classroom.
It relates to the immediate working context.
- 60 -
Personal: is based in the life outside school. This aspect relates to family
and friends. (p. 149).
The ‘composite identity’ is represented in Figure 2.4
Figure 2.4 Teacher Identity Composite (Day et al., 2006, p. 151)
Figure 2.4 represents the overlapping aspects of the composite view of identity. The
teacher identity composite indicates that the dimensions of personal, professional
and situated identity aspects combine to provide a composite teacher identity. The
interaction between these dimensions of identity ‘contributed to teachers’ sense of
commitment: a manifestation of belief and motivation, agency: an ability/resolve to
pursue one’s own goals, well being: a state of feeling happy and resilience: the
ability of an individual to withstand or recover quickly from difficult conditions related
to self-efficacy’ (Day et al., 2006, p. 185). The ‘composite identity’ provides a useful
model in considering the notion of ‘balance’ in the dimensions of the identity. If all
the overlapping aspects of a teacher’s identity are equal it could be considered as in
balance, and when one of these dimensions is dominant it could cause positive or
negative impacts on identity. There is a possibility that one or more of these
dimensions could dominate over the others. This could occur with variations in
science teachers’ work as a result of team implementation, such as: dealing with
colleagues, new work organisation, opportunities to contribute to teaching and
learning. The ‘balance adjustments’ are dynamic processes that entail sense-
making and (re)interpretation of the changing dominance of any of the three
dimensions of teacher identity. In the everyday work of science teachers this
dynamic interplay can produce tensions that teachers manage. As, Day et al.,
- 61 -
(2006) indicate, ‘teachers will define themselves not only through their past and
current identities as personal and social histories and current roles but through their
beliefs and values about the kind of teacher they hope to be in the inevitably
changing political, social, institutional and personal circumstances’ (p. 611) and that
their identity will be affected by changes in policy, organisational and personal
aspects of their work.
This view highlights the dynamic nature of professional, situated and personal
dimensions of identity and acknowledges implications that could be evident with
changes in the structural reorganisation resulting from team implementation.
In the departmentally organised structures of the secondary schools studied the
development of teams with the associated identity change within the science
departments or between subject departments could create difficulties in the
collaborative work demanded in teamwork. Earlier work of Wenger (1998) points to
five aspects of identity: personal history, experience in existing practices,
memberships in communities, nexus of multiple memberships, and interaction with
local contexts. This perspective on identity adds a richness to the understanding as
it recognises that identity is ‘neither individualistic nor abstractly institutional or
societal. It does justice to the lived experience of identity while recognizing its
societal character: it is the social, the cultural, and the historical with a human face’
(Wenger, 1998, p. 145). The notion of lived experience of teachers in teams is at the
centre of this thesis. These lived experiences could present conflict, vulnerability
and stress to the professional identity of teachers in science, as teams present an
additional dimension to the multiple aspects of their constructed identity. Linking this
notion with the previously discussed ideas from Day et al., (2006), there is a
possibility that team implementation will present considerable influence to science
teacher identity.
This thesis makes no investigation of the history of the participant science teachers
but accepts that teacher’s individual and collective histories will be represented in
the experiences teachers have of teams. But, one should recognise, as Grossman
and Stodolsky (1995) indicate, that ‘while gaining the subject-matter knowledge
required for teaching, prospective secondary teachers are also being socialised into
a particular view of the world, as seen through a disciplinary sense’ (p. 9).
In the context of teamwork in science departments the dynamic interplay of the
agency, identity (personal, situated and professional) and teacher work is critical to
- 62 -
the thesis, as the dimensions of teacher’s identity are subject to a number of
positive and negative influences through policies and procedures applied to the
everyday work of science teachers.
In a model of teacher job characteristics (Hackman & Oldham ,1980; Pounder,1999)
there is presented a number of aspects of the science teacher’s every day work that
could be affected by the use of teams and teamwork in schools. These aspects
include: dealing with others, skill variety, task identity, task significance,
autonomy/discretion, and feedback from teaching and feedback from others. Each
of these aspects of science teacher work has personal, situated and professional
identity dimensions that could be affected by teamwork and teams (these aspects
will be developed in a subsequent section).
The relationship between science teachers’ experiences of teams and teamwork
within the context of the existing cultural practices of the science departments is
also an important consideration in the research, as change in the culture will affect
teachers’ constructed identity. Science teachers’ situated identity is bound in
memberships of multiple communities based on subjects taught, social groups and
staffroom allocations, with their respective cultural practices. It could be that
teachers in departments as individuals are comfortable with their multiple roles and
the subsequent constructed identity. A disruption to the multiplicity of roles in their
work such as teaching non-trained subjects, moving staffrooms, being put in teams,
or being made to collaborate with other subject departments, could provide a source
of teacher conflict, stress and could even increase teachers’ levels of vulnerability in
the social, cultural and political aspects of everyday situations. It is also possible
that this type of externally imposed uncertainty and restructuring could have the
power and control to re-establish and renegotiate the professional and situated
dimensions of identity that could lead to the reconceptualisation of the pedagogic
discourse (Sachs, 2001). In the context of the possible effects of modifying teachers
work, and so professional identity, Lasky (2005) recognises that ‘notions of identity
are inextricably interlaced with their beliefs about the right ways to be a teacher, and
the purposes of schooling’ and concludes that,
One of the most powerful enduring elements of participants’ agency was their unwillingness to change their identity as individuals working in a human-centred profession, which required making real connections with their students. This suggests that mediational systems may have limited influence on changing individuals’ long held notions of professionalism (p.913).
- 63 -
Teamwork and teams can be considered a modification in science teachers’ work.
Day et al., (2006) propose a number of strategies teachers adopt, either consciously
or unconsciously to manage such tensions. They include:
accommodating by adjusting one or more components;
tolerating any imbalance caused by the new circumstances;
subjugating one or more dimensions to accommodate the needs of others;
resisting any change;
re-evaluating existing identity;
accepting the imbalance positively;
engaging with one or more components with full commitment;
refocussing from one component to another; and
adapting to the new situation in a positive way.
This list provides an insight into the possible experiences science teachers may
present in their conceptions of teams and teamwork. Such experiences may
indicate teamwork induced tensions present in the science teachers participating in
the study.
Teachers may manage the tensions of agency, structure and identity by using one
or more of these strategies. Such strategies impact on teachers’ sense of self, self-
efficacy and vulnerability. Kelchtermans and Ballet (2002) call these strategies
micro-political action. In a later work, Kelchtermans (2005) acknowledges a
‘repertoire of micro-political strategies and tactics teachers manages to skilfully and
effectively apply in order to influence the situation (resist and protect or proactively
change it)’ (p. 1004). Micro-politics in this sense refers to the ‘use of formal and
informal power by individuals and groups to achieve their goals in organisations’
(Blase, 1991, p.11).
A teacher’s identity has a direct role in the decisions teachers make in resolving
tensions and contradictions in their practice. The process of resolving contradictions
and tensions draws on their constructed identity and in considering the discourse of
science teaching, teachers are making decisions about classroom practice,
communication relationships with colleagues and social networking. These aspects
of science teachers’ everyday work are vulnerable to contradictions and tensions
brought with any change in professional, situated or personal dimensions of identity.
- 64 -
Kelchtermans (1996) study of teacher career narratives, concludes that vulnerability
is a structural condition in education where it is ‘always one of feeling that one’s
professional identity and moral integrity as part of being a ‘proper teacher’ are
questioned and that valued workplace conditions are hereby threatened or lost.
Coping with this vulnerability therefore implies political actions aimed at (re)gaining
the social recognition of one’s professional self and restoring the necessary work-
place conditions for a good job performance’ (p.319).
Teacher vulnerability can result from lack of agency, where teachers do not feel in
control and mediated by the structural aspects of the school. Teachers in a science
department working in teams as a policy mandate could experience vulnerability, as
this mediated agency might conflict with their professional values and beliefs or
sense of a competent self.
Teachers experiencing sharing, support and openness are willingly to open
themselves to the possibility of embarrassment, loss, or emotional pain because
they believe that they, another individual, or a situation will benefit from this
openness. With trust in teacher colleagues comes feeling of a environment where
risk taking is possible without the loss of face (Lasky, 2005).
Conversely, vulnerability can also develop due to feelings of powerlessness,
betrayal or defencelessness in situations of sharing and collaborative work.
Teachers in a collaborative environment ‘may have no direct control, believe they
have no direct control over factors that affect their immediate context, or feel they
are being ‘‘forced’’ to act in ways that are inconsistent with their core beliefs and
values. Rather than willingly opening themselves up emotionally in such situations,
they may in fact withdraw, or close themselves off in a defensive or protective
stance or engage in micro-political strategies to minimise the disruption to their
professional, situated or personal identities.
Flores and Day (2006) acknowledge that teacher identity will contribute to teachers’
self-efficacy, motivation, commitment and job satisfaction. It also follows that a
disruption of identity will cause contradictions and tensions in these aspects of
science teachers’ work. Flores and Day (2006) cite Kelchterman’s (1996) study of
Belgian teachers that report teacher feelings of vulnerability when their professional
identity is questioned by departmental policy changes. Similar findings were
reported in England by Jeffrey and Woods (1996) suggesting that professional
uncertainty, confusion, inadequacy, anxiety, blame and shame are experienced by
- 65 -
teachers when they are unable to achieve ideals or targets imposed by others.
Vulnerability also is generated by teacher uncertainty about their role in the new
work organisational structure. Role ambiguity can be regarded as a workplace
uncertainty under which teachers need to make judgements about their own identity
(Munthe, 2003). Authority, obligations and autonomy become uncertain as the level
of role ambiguity increase, thus destabilising teacher professional identity.
The focus on teams and teamwork as part of the reform agenda of Education
Queensland has implications to the constructed identity and the pedagogical
discourse of science teachers. Implications for changes in identity through the
manipulation of collaboration in using of teams could create conflicts and tensions in
the everyday work of teachers. As Lasky (2005) point outs ‘reform mandates affect
teachers’ experiences of professional vulnerability, particularly when policies are
accompanied with new tools (e.g. curricula or accountability practices) and
expectations for teaching’ (p. 899).
2.5 Teams
The history of our world is rich with examples of the collective endeavour: groups
working to achieve a goal. When one ponders the creation of the great pyramids of
Egypt or the development of vast telecommunication networks, it becomes apparent
these achievements have used combinations of specific skills in varied ways to
achieve their goal. One finds collective endeavour in the animal, plant and microbial
world: coral polyps and algae or legume plants and bacteria both collaborate in a
mutually dependent relationship. Great ape families, prides of lions, all demonstrate
a collective behaviour for many and varied reasons. In the human arena, firemen
fighting fires, soldiers in combat situations, sports teams playing at their best, all
purport to work in teams. The collective effort is tapping into something much larger
than the individual. There is an ability to harness the energy and intelligence of the
individuals focused as a collective.
Teams span private and public life, work and play: a context for today's world.
Teams are increasingly used to streamline processes, enhance participation, and
improve quality (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). It follows that teams are becoming a
primary building block of most organisations (McGrath, 1997). The most obvious
place to uncover teams is in sport, yet teams are found in diverse fields such as
education, religion, science, manufacturing, and health (Baker et al., 2005).
- 66 -
The business world has moved, as part of a ‘new managerialism’ competitive
strategy, to using teams of workers in order to capitalise on a wider spectrum of
talent in workers to create, share and utilise information. Organisations have
undergone significant structural change to develop organisational teams producing
a flatter horizontal organisational structure. The pressure in business to develop
teams has come partly from a rapidly changing business world, where organisations
must speed up their learning processes. This learning is consistent with the notions
of emergence, where the interactions of the components of the system adapt
quickly to complex changing environments. Teams provide a structure for learning
and sharing information, which builds on individuals’ knowledge to create new
knowledge and new models of practice (Yeh et al., 2006). On the world stage
Fortune magazine reports on the multinational company Sony and its revitalisation
through decentralised teams, using the theme: Sony United (Useem, 2006). Some
of Australia’s biggest companies, such as Westfarmers, Rio Tinto and GE have
recognised the importance of investing in teamwork across boundaries within their
organisations. The boundaries are between ‘silos’ within the organisation. They
have recognised the importance of the silos, as this is where the specialist
knowledge resides. This teamwork-across-boundaries has the propensity to develop
new solutions to old problems (Winter, 2008). Glassop (2002), in researching
Australian industrial and commercial organisations, reports that teams have positive
outcomes for work places. They increase workplace productivity; improve
product/service quality; require a reduced management structure; lower levels of
absenteeism; reduced employee turnover; and increased industrial harmony. All
these benefits ultimately lead to improved workplace performance. In the Australian
manufacturing sector, Cooney and Sohal (2004) conclude that teams have many
permutations and combinations, so there is no real dominant type of team, or
common teamwork practice. What is clear is that the team seems to be an
organisational construct for ensuring collective achievement for both the benefit of
the individual and the organisation. The team is an important organisational
structure in our complex world (Johnson, 1998).
The literature acknowledges the prevalence of teams in society, but reflects only
marginal agreement concerning the definition of teams. The variance in definitions
is due ‘in part to the diversity of team types. Teams carry a variety of purposes
(learning, producing a product, solving problems, gaining acceptance), forms
(virtual, co-located), and sizes and longevity’ (Baker et al., 2005, p. 235). The next
section develops, through the literature from Commerce, Sport, Health and
- 67 -
Education, working definitions for a team and teamwork that will be used in the
discussion of the revealed science teacher experiences of teams and teamwork.
2.5.1 What is a Team?
Current understanding of teamwork in the industrial world comes from research
conducted by the London-based Tavistock Institute in the 1950’s using Durham
Coal miners (Procter & Mueller, 2000). Procter and Mueller conclude that coal
miners developed ‘composite autonomous working groups’ now commonly referred
to as teams. This conceptualisation of the team had its roots in spontaneous,
intuitive responses to adverse working conditions, where teams of miners
developed unique solutions to problems of survival. Out of these beginnings, teams
in industry and business have been viewed as entities within an organisation with a
specific range of technical skills and a social identity component. It follows that
teams have a role as organisational structures that satisfy the social and technical
aspects of work. This construct will be pursued through the literature to develop the
notion of a team as a basic organisational unit that provides collaborative structures
to satisfy social and technical aspects of a work place.
If the team is a basic organisational unit, then a definition of a team would seem
essential. However, a team definition seems to be elusive and in the literature is
defined with considerable imprecision. The questions of what actually constitutes a
team is often answered in trying to measure its efficiency, the impact on a
workplace, work activity and even the behaviours team members exhibit or the roles
they play in the team.
The Oxford dictionary defines teams in the following ways:
‘a set of draught animals…. harnessed together, to draw together’
The quotation brings a mental picture of single entities grouped together working for
a common goal. This imagery could alsobe interpreted as the animals toiling away
for the master’s benefit. A more useful definition from the same source describes a
team as: ‘a number of persons associated in some joint action, especially forming a
side in a match, for example in football match or a tug-a-war’.
The sport imagery aside, Katzenbach and Smith (1993) define teams as ‘small
groups of people committed to a common purpose, who possess complementary
skills and who have agreed on specific performance goals for which the team holds
itself mutually accountable’ (p.21).
These definitions in essence focus on interrelationships, collaboration, and
accountability in a context of a team activity. Lawler (1996) and Cohen and Bailey
- 68 -
(1997) expand on these definitions by using an activity-based approach in an
industrial context, by defining team types as:
parallel or problem-solving teams, where employees participate on part-time
team activities, in addition to their normal work;
process teams, where employees are permanently committed to the team
and actively participate in the work process;
project teams, where employees participate full-time in the team, but only
for the duration of the project; and
Management teams, where middle and senior managers work to control
organisations.
Teams as a function of activity are most obvious in the world of the sport. The world
of sport has a range of teams all based on a particular activity, with the need for
joint action to achieve a goal: usually winning. Investigating the sport team, and
using Rugby Union as an example, one often sees the forwards doing the hard
physical work in the tight encounters and the backs scoring the tries and thus
receiving the applause. On the surface, this could seem unequal in task difficulty
and recognition and yet, they achieve the goal together. It is an agreed goal, to win
the game. Team members have individual specialisations, the forwards and backs
have specialised functions within the game, and work together. This collective effort
value-adds to the individual, expressed as the team engages together to achieve
the team’s goal. This example highlights the importance of interdependence,
collaboration and a complex range of skills that are used by individuals to achieve a
common goal. The world of cycling provides another sporting example. Lance
Armstrong a world renowned multiple winner of the Tour de France in his book, It's
Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life believes that cycle racing ‘is almost the
ultimate team sport’ and ‘ team mates are critical in cycling. I had eight of them on
the Motorola squad and I needed every one of them. On a severe climb I could save
30 percent of my energy to ride behind a colleague. You don’t win a road race on
your own. You need your team mates’ (Armstrong & Jenkins, 2002, p.53).
Teams are prevalent in our society, teamwork has been identified as an important
life skill, and to this end the Canadian Government produced a major report titled
Adult Literacy and Life Skills: New Frameworks for Assessment (ALL) Project
(Baker et al., 2005). This report identifies four common characteristics of a team:
Two or more individuals; A shared or common goal(s); Task interdependency; and
- 69 -
A desired productive outcome(s) (p.235).
These characteristics served as a basis for developing a working definition of team:
A team consists of two or more individuals who must interact to achieve one or more common goals that are directed toward the accomplishment of a productive outcome(s) (p.235).
This definition implies teamwork as having the ‘characteristics of task
interdependency and shared goals that team members must collectively decide:
team goals (team decision making) and work cooperatively (coordination) to achieve
these goals’ (Baker et al., 2005, p.235).
Cannon-Bowers et al. (1995) propose a team as an organisational unit made up of
two or more people who interact dynamically with adaptability, and who share
common goals and purposes. This definition again highlights collaboration,
interrelationship and interdependence of individuals in a team, as recurring themes
in the team literature.
These themes of teams are mirrored in the Health Care industry where operating
theatres use teams of highly skilled individuals working interdependently to achieve
the goal: a successful operation. Teams are the essential functional unit in
emergency departments, trauma response and chronic disease management.
Health Care teams have key characteristics: clear goals, clinical and administrative
components, division of labour, training of all team members, and effective
communication. Grumbach and Bodenheimer (2004) in their research into teams
and primary health care conclude that both physicians and non-physician
professionals working together in teams demonstrate improved patient outcomes.
Mueller (1994) recognises teams as an organisational unit responsible for well-
defined output targets within an organisation. This can be considered as a systems
approach to a team definition. Mueller in previous work with Purcell (Mueller &
Purcell, 1992) investigating high productivity teams suggests teams are defined by
the fact they have a common task. The common task is achieved through members
collaborating in their own workspace. Members of the team organise their own tasks
to achieve team-defined goal. The team is encouraged to organise themselves
(work methods and time) and to develop a highly skilled mode of operation. Manz
and Sims (1986) bring self- reflective behaviours to the definition of a team, as an
essential construct for development of the individual, the team and the organisation.
- 70 -
Schermerhorn et al. (1995) expand the systems view of teams by developing a
linear sequence to describe a team and its work. They propose an open systems
approach that describes the linear processes of a team as: inputs, throughputs and
outputs (see Figure 2.5.1).
Figure 2.5.1
Open Systems Model of Teams Adapted from Schermerhorn et al. (1995, p.117)
The open system model of teams relates inputs, throughput and outputs. The team
participates in activities and tasks processes (throughputs) to produce outputs: the
objectives of the team. Team processes refer to the understanding of goals, a sense
of unity, cooperation, communication, commitment and interdependence: ‘teams are
composed of individuals who as team members to plan, organise and coordinate
the activities of the team for goal attainment (Pineda & Lerner, 2006). The outputs
are ‘those outcomes which satisfy organisational or personal goals, or which are
compared to pre-determined criteria’ (Schermerhorn et al., 1995, p.124).
Yeh et al. (2006) formulate a pyramid based 3-dimensional team model. The
pyramid shape emphasises the base on which the team sits (renewal, development,
formation) and the pinnacle (team goal). The model supports the importance of ‘the
development of team role assignments, team relationships, team process evolution,
and experiences’ (p.196) of a team.
- 71 -
Figure 2.5.1.1 Team Process Evolution Model
Adapted from Yeh et al. 2006, p. 194 Sources: Belbin Team Role model (1981, 1993), Andia’s (1998) Team Pyramid Model,
Thompson et al., (2000)
Figure 2.5.1.1 illustrates a 3-dimensional team model and indicates that teams in
organisations are based on formation, development and renewal in the context of
the organisational environment. The diagram also identifies that defined team roles
are strongly associated with the vision, values and mission of the team.
Goyal (2005) takes a different tack by developing a team definition through a
commitment to the benefit of the collective. The collection of individuals: the team,
engage in a dynamic and functional relationship by their agreement to mutual and
combined benefit. This view of the team could be used to verify if a team actually
exists through the existence of a group of individual experiences of mutual and
combined effort in the workplace. This brings the notion of intentionality into the
team sphere, where the benefits of an activity intentionally lead to experiences that
are team experiences. Intentionality, as conscious support and engagement for
team activity also could confirm the existence of a team and teamwork.
Kay et al. (2006) describe elements of teams in the work place. This description
along with elements from previous definitions provides a summary of teams in the
- 72 -
workplace. These elements are independent of the team task: they are considered
to be generic. They are team leadership, mutual performance monitoring, backup,
adaptability and team orientation, combining these with team aspects from Baker et
al. (2005), Cannon-Bowers et al. (1995) and Yeh et al. (2006) a working model is
developed in Table 2.5. It presents elaborations and experience markers that will be
used to test the existence of teams in Chapter Five.
Table 2.5.1 Teams in the Workplace
(adapted from Baker et al., 2005; Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995; Kay et al., 2006; Yeh et al. 2006)
Element Elaboration Experience markers
Team Leadership Ability to direct and coordinate other team members’ activities, Assess team performance, assign tasks, develop team knowledge and skills, motivate Team members, plan and organise, and establish a positive atmosphere
Facilitate team problem solving, Provide performance expectations and acceptable interaction patterns Synchronise and combine individual team member contributions
Mutual performance monitoring Ability to develop common understandings of the team environment, and Apply appropriate task strategies to accurately monitor team mate performance.
Identifying mistakes and lapses in other team members’ actions
Backup Ability to anticipate other team members’ needs through accurate knowledge about their responsibilities, Ability to shift workload among members to achieve balance during high periods of workload or pressure
Recognition of workload distribution problem in the team, and Shifting work to underutilised team members
Adaptability Ability to adjust strategies based on information gathered from the environment Reallocation of intra-team resources Altering a course of action or team repertoire in response to changing conditions (internal or external).
Identify cues of change, assign meaning to it, and develop a new plan to deal with it
Team orientation Propensity to take others’ into account during group interaction Belief in importance of team goal over individual members’ goals.
Increased task involvement, information sharing, strategising, and goal setting
Table 2.5.1 presents a distillation of many of the aspects of the team previously
discussed. This distillation of the team presents a team model that describes the
elements, elaborations and experience markers of teams. This framework provides
- 73 -
for the studying a window in which to view the conceptions teachers has of teams.
This framework will provide an understanding of the conceptions expressed by
science teachers through their lived experiences. Collaboration is central to teams.
Collaboration is a key outcome in using teams as a basic organising unit. A team is
a ‘design mechanism’ that will promote effective collaboration between individuals
(Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2002) to cross ‘cultural boundaries’. They use the cultural
term in the sense that individuals in a team are from a different culture, each with
their own behaviours, perceptions, technical skills and knowledge that they bring to
the team. Teams are made up of individuals. These individuals, who have
complementary skills, must be able to work together to achieve a common purpose.
In the teams’ common purpose, individuals hold themselves collectively responsible:
an aspect of personal skill and responsibility for a team outcome (Katzenbach &
Smith, 1992). Thompson and Wallace (1996) expand the personal skill and
responsibility notion to propose the importance of functional flexibility of team
members in their team definition. They also propose the normative aspect of teams,
as teams develop changes in social attitudes and behaviours in their members. This
social aspect of a team in an industrialised society has connotations of mutual
support, mateship, and conviviality (Buchanan, 2000).
A common thread reappears: teams are made up of individuals who collaborate to
achieve some defined goal or task. The notion of collaboration leads to the
suggestion that teams are more than just a collection of individuals with a common
goal. Teams exhibit purposeful cooperation and collaboration between the
individuals of differing skills and knowledge.
Interaction and recognition of individual needs is included in the team definition
outlined by Lembke and Wilson (1998). They advocate a team as an extension of
an individual need to be a part of a structure that provides a cognitive and emotional
alignment. This, they suggest is achieved through the social identification with the
team and brings to the team a process of alignment or re-alignment in behaviours
through cognitive and emotion change in individuals. This alignment and social
identification with the team is indicated when they state: ‘team behaviour becomes
visible through the strong in-group and out-group bias, which is the result of the
cognitive change. In the organisational context, social identification applies to
behaviour where there is interdependence of tasks’ (p. 939).
- 74 -
The cognitive alignment or situated learning occurs through the interdependence of
team members and an adoption of a social identity related to the team. This concept
of cognitive alignment is pursued in the work of Zhuge (2003) where, there is an
indication of the importance of cognitive co-operation of individuals through the
team definition of particular tasks. The corollary could be that individuals learn in a
team through the processes of co-operation and communication while engaging in
particular tasks.
Studies in the Health Care industry (Ingram and Descombe, 1999) and the
Construction industry (Walker, 1996) found co-operation and communication are
essential components of team member interaction and learning. In their studies of
teams, Wallace and Huckman (1999) conclude that a team may be defined as:
‘activity to realise a common purpose is shared among all members in such a way
as to maximise their individual contribution to its achievement’ (p. 198).
In summary, teams are organisational structures that are defined as groups of
individuals with differing knowledge and skills that cooperate, collaborate to achieve
an outcome that is shared and for which members feel personally responsible. The
literature indicates teams are defined by their characteristics: team leadership,
mutual performance monitoring, backup, adaptability and team orientation. Teams
have processes that lead to teamwork.
Teams are a functional unit of an organisation.
2.5.2 Teamwork
Teamwork in a most basic view is the work of teams, but Ingram and Descombe
(1999) present a more complicated view, when they argue:
both academics and practitioners perceive teamworking to be an important means of effecting work, but difficult to achieve. Both these see that teamworking can help achieve the objectives of groups, and reinforce the theories that socialization is a powerful force in humans. Camaraderie, especially at operational level, is a great source of work satisfaction and helps get the work done’ (p. 21).
This sentiment is also expressed by Procter and Mueller (2000) in their book
Teamworking.
Teams are complex and diverse. It follows that the definition of teamwork will mirror
that same complexity and diversity. It is likely that the complexity and diversity of
teams is compounded by the levels of teamwork practiced within an organisation: a
suggestion of a level of engagement with teamwork in a team could be viewed on a
- 75 -
continuum. Various definitions of teams have indicated a number of characteristics
that indicate a team. Team characteristics can inform the definition of teamwork.
The following are a list of teamwork attributes generated from previous team
definitions. These attributes are aspects of teams that could indicate demonstration
of teamwork.
Interdependence, collaboration and cooperation;
Degree of change as a result of teamworking, changes in frequency/volume
and topics of communication, extent of cooperation and interest level of
work;
Collective task control, team deciding the order of the work;
Individuals have a role in the team, specific roles(Belbin,1981;1993);
Collective role clarity, clarity of duties and responsibilities;
Cognitive alignment;
Skill and knowledge variety, using a full range of skills;
Social perceptions of being part of the team: social identity; and
Levels and use of communication.
Each of these statements on its own would not define teamwork but grouping them
together produces a notion of teamwork and could be used as an indicator of the
degree to which teamwork is occurring within a team. The list of teamwork attributes
can be re-organised into the three dimensions of cognition, skills and attitudes.
Cognition is used in the sense that it describes the shared task models, the learning
of a team and the norms of the team developed through teamwork. Skills of the
team members not only refer to a knowledge dimension but also behavioural
attributes that are exhibited when team members are demonstrating teamwork.
These include adaptability, shared awareness, mutual performance monitoring,
motivating each other, communication, interpersonal coordination and conflict
resolution. The dimension of attitudes of team members is demonstrated by a
shared vision, mutual trust, a collective orientation and a view of the importance of
teamwork (Canon-Bowers et al., 1995). They also suggest that the team members
must be committed to the team. There are three types of competencies that are
central for teamwork: team knowledge, team skills, and team attitudes.
The definition of teamwork is elusive. Yet, it is clear that some common threads
about teamwork are emerging. Teamwork can be seen as a set of behaviours and
- 76 -
skills of interaction that are dependent on communication, collaboration,
interconnectedness of purpose and demonstration of team specific competencies.
Teamwork can be presented as a process based on team member interaction.
O’Neill et al., (1997) uses a systems approach in defining teamwork. They advocate
the use of a five dimensional approach: adaptability (the ability to recognise
problems and respond), coordination, decision-making, interpersonal (interacting
cooperatively of team members) and leadership (providing a structure and direction)
to define teamwork. Another process view of teamwork is presented by Pineda and
Lerner (2006) that builds on the previous idea of process as it focuses on team
member activity and links it to the team outcome (Figure 2.5.2).
Figure 2.5.2 Teamwork Processes
(adapted from Pineda & Lerner, 2006, p.185)
The ‘processes’ understanding of teamwork, expressed in Figure 2.5.2,
acknowledges three components: transition, action and interpersonal. It also makes
the claim that each process leads to a team outcome: perception of goal attainment,
satisfaction with team experiences and perception of skill improvement and
understanding of teamwork. The corollary suggests that if the team outcome is
achieved, then the transition, action and interpersonal processes are working. The
- 77 -
positive associations between teamwork and outcomes could be used to investigate
the conceptions teachers have of teams. This can be achieved through the reverse
application of the positive associations. Using, for example the perceptions of no
goal attainment, if in the experiences of teachers there is perception of no goal
attainment, then it would follow that there could be problems with the transition
processes in the team.
The team development outcome (perception of skill improvement and
understanding of teamwork) represents an enhancement of teamwork skills and
knowledge. The Figure 2.5.2 also posits a positive relationship with interpersonal
processes. It could be that engaging interpersonal processes such as team building
activities can enhance the perceptions of enhancing teamwork, but might not foster
a greater sense of goal attainment. This logic could help understand the
conceptions teachers hold of teams and teamwork as expressed through their lived
experiences in their respective science departments.
Knowledge sharing is an important aspect of the processes of teamwork. Teamwork
processes can be regarded as a co-operative problem-solving process that exists
within a supportive environment. At the ‘knowledge level, team members can gain
knowledge from each other and can make abstractions and analogies between
problems, and use past experiences and skills’ (Zhuge, 2002, p.23). This does not
suggest that individuals only learn in teams or that individuals do not learn from their
environments, but that teamwork facilitates a ‘situated cognition’ necessary for the
teamwork.
Shared or situated cognition is necessary for team members to work together. The
shared understanding is achieved by individuals as they perceive, encode, store,
and retrieve knowledge and skills (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995). Their definition of a
‘shared mental model’ describes the extent to which a group of individuals
possesses a similar cognitive representation of some situation or phenomenon. This
could be considered as a team mental model. However, Langan-Fox et al. (2001)
suggest ‘the notion of a shared mental model is distinct from that of a ‘team mental
model’, in that the latter refers to shared cognition in a team as a collective, not
shared cognition among dyads of individuals’ and a ’team mental model does not
allow for the notion of multiple levels or sets of shared knowledge, rather it refers to
the overall degree of similarity between the mental models of individual team
- 78 -
members’ (p.100). What is important is that there is a process in which team
members develop a shared mental model that is demonstrated in how team
members connect to each other in the workplace and build better working
relationships. As Weick (1995) proposes this could also be described as sense
making: ‘more than interpretation, but a creation of meaning’ (p.8).
The development of shared mental models also recognises the complex emergent
nature of team members’ understanding and relationships in the team. The shared
mental models of the team do not happen by osmosis: they are generated in the
interaction associated with activity by words and vocabularies (Weick, 1995) and the
phrases and conversations used by team members. This enhances a need for
working with team members to develop teamwork and is best demonstrated in
sporting teams where training focuses on the teamwork necessary for the
incorporation of game knowledge and skill for an effective team. The findings of
Smith-Jentsch et al. (2001) show that training guides team members toward
understanding and adopting an expert model of teamwork, designated by the
organisation to function as a normative frame of reference. Hirschfield et al. (2006)
propose that for team members to function well together in performing team tasks,
they must individually master the processes of teamwork and report that team
members who achieve ‘greater individual mastery of designated teamwork
knowledge facilitate better team task proficiency and greater teamwork
effectiveness’(p.473).
The literature presents teamwork as communication between team members, and
argues that communication is a critical demonstration of teamwork. Ingram and
Descombe‘s (1999) study into teamwork in the hospitality industry recognises
communication is central to teamwork. Communication between self and others, as
a core aspect of teamwork, involves ‘the exchange of clear and accurate information
and the ability to clarify or acknowledge the receipt of information’ (Murray et al.,
2005, p.238).
Similar sentiments are expressed by Parker et al. (2005) in stressing the importance
of interpersonal relations and communication skills such as participation in
discussion, listening and coping with difference in teamwork.
The importance of communication emphasises interpersonal skills as a function of
teamwork (Barlex, 1994). Barlex advocates for interpersonal skills that are important
in any demonstration of teamwork. They include: communication, leadership,
- 79 -
sympathy-empathy and reliability. Styhre et al. (2002) go further to suggest that care
is an important factor in the dynamic and complex web of human interactions that
make up teamwork. They state: ‘Care is the basic human property of being able to
continuously direct attention towards other human beings’ (p. 504).
When individuals interact with care there is an establishment of mechanisms that
allow open and non-demanding relationships to be established. They also advocate
that care brings together sense-making concepts such as culture and emotions that
underlies the relational quality inherent in teamwork.
Murray et al. (2005) present core team skills: the skills of teamwork, as four
competencies: ‘communication, interpersonal relations (which includes cooperation
and dealing with conflict), group decision making/planning, and
adaptability/flexibility’ (p.237). These core skills (Table 2.5.2) can be considered as
a summary and will be used as a discussion framework in Chapter Five.
Communication and interpersonal relation skills have been outlined in previous
sections. Group Decision Making/Planning skills refer to the ability of team members
to gather and integrate information, to use logic and judgment, identify and articulate
possible alternatives, select solutions, and evaluate the consequences.
Adaptability/Flexibility refers to the ‘process by which team members use
information gathered from the task environment to adjust strategies through the use
of compensatory behaviour and reallocation of intra-team resources’ (Murray et al.,
2005, p.239).
The definition of teamwork has shown to be elusive, as it has a multidimensional
complexity. This thesis uses a framework that has been developed from the work of
Cannon-Bowers et al. (1995), Murray et al. (2005), O’ Neill et al. (1997) and Parker
et al. (2005) to provide a working model for the understanding of teacher
conceptions of teams and teamwork.
This framework is presented as teamwork skills in Table 2.5.2. This model provides
a set of teamwork experiences linked to the four teamwork skills: group decision
making/planning, adaptability/flexibility, interpersonal relations and communication.
- 80 -
Table 2.5.2 Understanding Teamwork
adapted from Cannon-Bowers et al. (1995), Murray et al. (2005), O’ Neill et al. (1997) and Parker et al. (2005)
Teamwork Skills Team Member Experiences
Group decision making/Planning
Identifying problems Shared understanding Defining shared mental models
Gathering information, Evaluating information, Sharing information/knowledge
Understanding decisions, Setting goals Understanding and adopting
Adaptability/Flexibility Provide assistance Re-allocate tasks
Provide feedback Accept feedback
Monitor performance, Adjust performance
Interpersonal relations
Share work Seek mutually agreeable solutions, Consider different ways of doing things
Manage disputes, Influence disputes
Communication Ask questions Listen effectively Participating in discussions
Provide clear and accurate information, Acknowledge requests for information
Openly share ideas, Pay attention to non-verbal behaviours
What makes this culminating representation of teamwork most useful is the
elaborations of experiences of the team members as they demonstrate teamwork.
This embodiment of the complex nature of teamwork provides a useful approach to
the thesis discussions, as the relationships outlined between skill and experience
presents a framework for understanding teachers’ conceptions of teamwork in
schools. Murray et al., (2005) sum up teamwork when they say: ‘team members
must know how and when to use these competencies to function effectively within
the team. Second, we propose that communication spans each of the three core
areas; it is the glue that holds the team together’ (p. 240).
Teamwork is the act of working in a team. Teamwork can be described as a
collaborative activity, where communication is the key to this collaborative human
activity. When individuals in a team participate in teamwork they use interpersonal
skills to develop a team identity and an understanding of the team and its task.
2.5.3 Team Roles
The complex and dynamic definitions of teams and teamwork can be further
enhanced by an investigation of the roles of the team members. The team consists
of members who demonstrate teamwork in varying degrees. The quest to
understand levels of interaction has the world of business and industry investing
considerable time and money in defining the members’ roles in a team.
- 81 -
The definition of team roles in Paris et al. (2000) provides a starting point in
suggesting the importance an integration of cognitive and behavioural aspects so
team members can adapt to their roles.
Previous definitions of teamwork and teams suggest cognitive, behavioural,
effective attributes of teamwork, which can be dissected into specific roles for
individuals in a team. The team role can be interpreted as a style of behaviour of a
team member. Parker (1991) uses a model of four team member styles: contributor
(the task orientated team member), the collaborator (the member that sees the
vision and mission), and the communicator (an effective listener), supporter
(provides the information for the team).
Torrington et al., (1985) and Pritchard and Stanton (1999), have used general terms
to define the roles of team members. They see individuals exhibiting task orientated
and social/emotional behaviours. Task orientated behaviours concentrate on
getting things done; seeking information or posing solutions and the social and
emotional orientated behaviours are those that maintain the team processes by
supporting others and assisting to maintain positive emotional environments.
Magerison and McCann (1990, 1995) take a slightly different view in their analysis
of team roles. They look at the types of work that must be done in the team and
posit that team roles are: innovating, promoting, developing, organising, producing,
inspecting and maintaining. They do not suggest that one member is responsible
for one job, but indicate a team member may carry out one or more of these
functions. They pursue them to categorise individual teamwork types: explorer-
promoter, assessor-developer, thruster-organiser, concluder-producer, control-
inspector, upholder-maintainer, reporter-adviser, creator-innovator and a linker.
These behavioural categories broadly agree with Belbin’s behavioural categories.
Belbin (1981) contends that each member of the team contributes towards
achieving the team’s objective. The team goal is achieved through members
performing functional roles as determined by their professional and/or technical
knowledge. The team roles according to Belbin are determined by an individual’s
characteristic pattern of behaviour within the team. Belbin (1993) developed his
work by expanding links between team members, their specific role within the team.
Belbin advocates that a range of complementary behaviours make effective
teamwork. He groups these behaviours so they might be used to describe
characteristic patterns of behaviour of one team member interacting with another.
These patterns define a team role for that particular team member. He defines eight
- 82 -
different roles: plant, resource investigator, co-ordinator, shaper, and
monitor/evaluator, teamworker, implementer, completer/finisher. He also suggested
a ninth role could be added, that of the specialist, a person to provide professional
technical expertise. Prichard and Stanton (1999) in their research using the Belbin’s
model of team roles have suggested that teams have performed significantly more
consistently at a higher level when the team balance was present. They conclude
that if a combination of individual team roles and technical skills are present in a
team, there will be a demonstration of a high level collaborative effort.
In research into the introduction of teamwork in a Social Security Department, Rowe
(1996) found that there was a challenge in producing a balanced team. He
suggests, the problem of balance is not only the team member profile matching the
needs of the team, but also the population demographic may not contain team
members, with the required prerequisites.
The importance of team roles highlights the need for a variety of behaviours that
centre on the cooperative and collaborative complex interactions of humans with the
members of the team. It also highlights the complex, dynamic and multilevel nature
of teamwork.
Mourkogiannis (2007) writing in the Business Week Online recognises the
importance of having the right people in a team. He posits four archetypes:
magicians, warriors, sovereigns and lovers are necessary in a team. Magicians are
the rational but imaginative people, where lovers are obsessed with feelings and
human relations. The sovereigns are the emotional and imaginative people who
focus on the big picture, while the warriors are the rational and pragmatic who want
critical pathways to achieve.
2.5.4 Some Cautions
It is appropriate to recognise, as does Sinclair (1992), that not all in the world of
teams is glowing with empathy and collaboration. There is a tyranny that team
ideologies can exercise in organisations. The control that team members exert over
each other is much more powerful than any bureaucratic system. This point takes
some relevance in the prospects of the strength of the science education discourse
and professional identify possessed by science teachers. In using Bernstein’s
notions of classification (as previously discussed), it could be that the
implementation of teams is not realised due to the strong classification of the
- 83 -
science discourse and/or the science teacher’s professional identity. It also could be
that, as Sinclair (1992) argues: teams are frequently used to camouflage coercion
under the pretence of maintaining cohesion or conceal conflicts under the guise of
consensus’ (p. 408).
Marchington (2000), urges caution in recognising that teams may not be the
panacea for curing all ills of an organisation, but accepts that teamwork does lead to
higher levels of job satisfaction in stating that: ‘teamwork is likely to be found in
situations where it is not possible to organise work in ways that can deliver greater
control or empowerment for employees …(and)….teamwork, can fail to measure up
to expectations that employees have about control of their work place’ (p. 70).
Parris and Vickers (2005) used the individual phenomenological teamwork
experiences of workers in Public Administration organisations to understand the use
of rhetoric around teams and organisations. They suggest that ‘ the language
surrounding teams is frequently rhetorical and designed to convince those in
organisations that teams are good; indeed, that using teams is the only way to
successfully structure organisations these days’ (p.280). They conclude that the
rhetoric of teams did not match the reality of the experiences of team members.
They highlight: ‘We found that these team members, rather than experiencing the
sense of a belonging and support they were led to expect, described a real sense of
isolation, disconnection and alienation. Finally, and unexpectedly, we discovered
these respondents’ reported experiences including resignation and sadness’
(p.294). The experiences of workers were analysed by Kamoche (1995) and it was
concluded that teamwork is just a totemistic device that has been created by the
employing organisation to create and legitimise the desired patterns of power and
social relations.
Management is one of the driving forces in team implementation. Management
ideas can be conceived as fashion, in that, like fashion trends they come and go.
Yet, teams and teamwork have a long history and Buchanan (2000) acknowledges
benefits to the collective endeavour in stating:
despite criticism, the concept of teamwork appears to have survived as a management idea for almost half a century. Clearly the concept has considerably more resilience and durability (p. 27).
- 84 -
2.6 Teams in Education
The review of the team literature indicates many aspects of teams and teamwork.
They include:
effective structures to enhance collaboration;
require high levels of communication;
are vehicles for learning organisation;
have defined behaviours associated with the team;
have a high level of interrelatedness;
have tasks and outcomes; and
have cognitive alignment generated through interaction.
These aspects also are recognised through the study of teams in education
literature.
Teams in education provide an organisational structure to enhance teacher
opportunities to engage in collaboration.
Fisher (2007), in his research into business team models and their application to
fine arts education, concludes that learning from ‘the successful team practices of
the business world, more can be achieved through effective teamwork, resulting in
more unified arts education programs and a more focused vision for quality arts
education in our schools from which students will ultimately benefit’ (p.29). Team-
based structures in schools have become progressively more attractive because
teamwork is frequently considered the best way to deliver superior performance
(Park et al., 2005). These are the same outcomes of teams that have been
espoused through previous sections of this thesis.
2.6.1 What is a Teacher Team?
The literature on teams in education suffers from the same imprecision found in the
definitions of teams and teamwork in other spheres of endeavour. This ambiguity
stems from the different meanings attributed to teams and teamwork, as these
mean different things to practitioners and researchers across different school
settings (Welch et al., 1999). Teaching in a team occurs in many different contexts
and schools. It is evident that the ideal is to provide ’a structure for assembling
teachers with diverse backgrounds perspectives, disciplines and expertise needed
for tasks’ (Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2002, p. 44). However, teams in schools are
- 85 -
multidimensional and diverse in their purpose. The following list suggests names
and functions for teams in schools. They include:
management teams: involved with administrative issues;
instructional teams: based on subject matter and promote teacher
effectiveness;
interdisciplinary teams: teacher from different subject areas collaborating in
teaching an learning;
pedagogic teams: based on teachers who teach the same class;
informational teams: members exchange information necessary for the
teaching job;
instrumental teams: members provide practical support for each other;
emotional team: members social support that provides encouraging words
and sympathetic understanding; and
appraisal teams: members providing assistance in making sense of problem
situations.
This list does little to define a ‘team’, even though it presents a list of possible teams
in a school setting. Definition is elusive as all teams have different specific
characteristics identified in the team literature. Eisen (2000) argues that, ‘no two
teams are exactly alike because they operate along a continuum representing
countless variations in goals, team membership and member’s relationships’ (p.9).
The purpose of the team in education provides an organisational framework that
allows the establishment of an atmosphere where sharing of ideas and the
professionalism of individuals can be respected (Schamber, 1999). Teamwork in
schools can enact a framework of collaboration. Bauwens and Hourcade (1995)
define a collaborative instructional configuration of teamwork in suggesting, teams
are ‘a restructuring of teaching procedures in which two or more educators
possessing distinct sets of skills work in a co-active and coordinated fashion to
jointly teach academically and behaviourally heterogeneous groups of students in
educationally integrated settings, that is in general classrooms’ (p. 46). This idea of
collaboration leads to the possibility in secondary schools for some reorganisation of
the teaching and learning organisational structures of teachers’ work. Park et al.,
(2005) make the point that teacher teams may function to reinvigorate schools, as
they may:
serve to counter effects of conventional institutional structures and bureaucratic management thinking that assure operational stability and
- 86 -
predictability, but deter change initiatives and synergies that strengthen performance. Teams populated by interconnected, trusting and committed teachers involved in cooperative decision making can enable changes that enhance the praxis of professionals and student outcomes and, concurrently, provide the social support and intrinsic organizational rewards that encourage a more collectivistic culture and reinforce the desire to engage, and continue membership in the organisation (p.463).
The collectivistic and collaborative culture has a major benefit in allowing multiple
perspectives of teachers to participate in solving school problems. The complex
interaction of differing teacher perspectives serves to develop emergent solutions to
the everyday issues of teacher work. However, the collaborative culture in schools
can have deleterious effects and members can find themselves in difficult positions
when their own professional identity conflicts with the team or team roles
(Schamber, 1999).
There is continuum of collaboration identified by Little (2002) where teachers move
from isolation to different degrees of interdependence and collegiality. The use of
teams in secondary schools may assist in developing degrees of interdependence
between teachers. Building teams that are connected to the larger school
community could also increase a sense of belonging. The sense of belonging
reduces stress, isolation and feelings of alienation (Joyce et al., 1999).
Hargreaves (2000) proposes that ‘cultures of collaboration are not just self-
indulgent teacher luxury but also have positive and systemic connections to
teachers’ sense of efficacy about being able to make a difference with the students’
(p. 164).
Collegial professionals can build strong professional cultures of collaborative
practice to develop a common purpose and to cope with uncertainty and complexity
(Hargreaves, 2000). Imants et al., (2001) emphasise the importance of teams in
developing collaborative teacher practice:
Teacher empowerment and integration of fragmented structures in schools can be promoted by creating autonomous and self-regulating teams. Both collegial and the collaborative features of the school culture are conditions that support teacher learning and commitment, and the provision of a supportive and innovative work environment, should be emphasized. Instead of creating a new isolated structure at the school level, the challenge is to promote linking structures in which the classroom level and the school level are closely connected and are treated as interdependent contacts for teacher learning and innovation (p. 303).
- 87 -
The benefit of the team is the organisational framework for collegiality and an
opportunity for collaboration between subject areas (Maeroff, 1993). Conely and
Muncey (1999) make the point that teacher teams emphasise a network of control,
authority and communication, as opposed to a hierarchical structure of control found
in most secondary schools in Queensland. They state that teams are ‘aimed
towards increasing collaboration as well as being assertive as participative leaders
in the school’ (p.47). The strength of teams in schools would seem to be in the
organisational framework that allows collaboration, learning and interaction across
subject discipline areas.
Foley (2001) suggests that these horizontal structures are an alternative to the
traditional hierarchical organisation. The justification for this statement alludes to the
recognition of schools as complex organisations where there is growing student
diversity within modern educational environments. She argues that, ‘collaborative-
based programming is a culmination or outcome of colleagues and others working
as a team to provide educational opportunities to a diverse student population’
(p.12).
Foley, in her research, has built on the collaboration definitions of Friend and Cook
(2000) by suggesting that six characteristics of collaboration are demonstrated in
teams. These characteristics are: active and close participation in tasks; each
person has equal power in the decision making; working towards a common goal;
each person sharing in the decision making processes; individuals sharing in the
accountability for the outcomes of the decision; sharing of resources. The same
characteristics were presented in the teamwork section of this study which dealt
with non-educational teams and mirror those developed in the collaboration section.
The collaborative process in a secondary school gives opportunities for greater
awareness of different priorities, different means of achieving the same end through
recognition of diverse knowledge and skills available in schools (Cranmer, 1999).
Such opportunities for collective learning increasingly involving staff could lead to
the transfer of classroom ideas. Schamber (1999) also recognises the supportive
role that teams play in schools by suggesting, ‘the whole is greater than the sum of
its parts’ (p. 18): a sentiment apparent from all the team literature. Literature on
industrial, health and sport aspects of teams indicate that a team is a group of
individuals with differing knowledge and skills that cooperates, collaborates and
communicates. A synergistic message seems to be unfolding for teacher teams in
- 88 -
schools through this literature. The argument for teams as an organisational
structure to promote collaborative practice is certainly a strong one. Eisen (2000)
develops the importance of relationships between teachers in teams by suggesting
that teachers are ‘attracted to teaming precisely because it creates a social context
among peers that promotes professional development opportunities and diminishes
the isolation of the teaching profession’ (p.11). A recurring theme, social identity and
sharing are essential aspects of the team.
Collaborative work between teachers can also be seen in the peer coaching notions
of Joyce and Showers (1996). They add to the argument that teams can provide
opportunities to enhance staff development, especially in the implementation of new
strategies.
Teacher teams are presented with the same characteristics as those in the previous
team and teamwork section of the chapter. These same characteristics from the
literature match those present in the professional Standards Eleven and Twelve for
Education Queensland and Standard Nine for The Queensland College of
Teachers.
2.6.2 Teacher Work
The work of teachers is complex and demanding. This is evident, as Education
Queensland articulates the roles of teachers as ‘tutor, instructor, mentor, learning
theorist, curriculum planner and expert, assessor, curriculum writer, assignment
marker, editor and student councillor’ (Queensland State Education, 1999, p.17).
The major challenges to the nature of teachers’ complex work in a postmodern
system include a ‘need to be skilled practitioners who can work both collaboratively
and independently: have the ability to solve complex practical and theoretical
problems: be able to reflect on their practice in order to develop quality learning
opportunities for the students and a professional more able to cope with rapid social
and technological change’ (Sachs, 1997, p. 261).
In the previous section of this thesis the view of Lee et al. (1993) presents critical
aspects of teacher work. This view lacked the detail of teacher experiences relative
to their everyday work. An investigation through the literature of teachers’ work will
assist in understanding the positioning of teams in school science departments.
Hackman and Oldham (1980) present an analysis of job characteristics and its
relationship to work redesign in their seminal book, Work Redesign. The book
- 89 -
proceeds from a premise of person-job relationship centrality in understanding the
work place. The model proposes that any job should possess certain characteristics
that create conditions for work motivation, satisfaction and performance. They
propose a relationship between core job characteristics, critical psychological states
and work related outcomes. The relationship posits that core job characteristics
affect a variety of personal and work outcomes via their effects on three
psychological states of employees. The job characteristic model is used by Pounder
(1999) as a framework in a comparison study of teamed and non-teamed teachers.
The Pounder, Hackman and Oldham models are combined into a Teacher Work
Framework. The Teacher Work Framework (TWF) posits relationships between
Teacher Job Characteristics (TJC), Teacher Experienced States (TES) and Teacher
Outcomes (TO). Teacher Job Characteristic (TJC) is represented in Figure 2.6.2.
This figure and the next two (Figure 2.6.2.1 and Figure 2.6.2.2) presents the
dimensions of each aspect of the TJC. The positioning of the dimensions in each of
the diagrams is meant to reflect the relationality to the central theme.
Figure 2.6.2 TJC- Teacher Job Characteristics
Teacher Job Characteristics (TJC) is the first aspect of the Teacher Work
Framework (TWF). TJC is defined by seven dimensions: dealing with others, skill
variety, task identity, task significance, and autonomy/discretion, feedback from
teaching and feedback from others. Each of these dimensions is defined by the
- 90 -
elaborations presented in Figure 2.6.2. The dimension ‘dealing with others’ is
defined by those with whom teachers interact in their everyday work: students,
parents, teachers within the subject department and teachers in other departments.
This job characteristic view of teacher work will be affected by the implementation of
teacher teams in schools. The changes in the nature of the work will be reflected in
the teachers’ experiences.
The second aspect of the Teacher Work Framework (TWF) is the Teacher
Experienced States (TES). These, Hackman and Oldham (1980) describe as critical
psychological states that promote high-performance motivation and satisfaction at
work. The states have five dimensions and are illustrated in Figure 2.6.2.1. The
dimensions include: meaningfulness of the teaching and teacher organisation,
personal responsibility for the outcome of the work, knowledge of teaching results of
teaching, knowledge of students and knowledge of colleagues’ work.
Figure 2.6.2.1
TES- Teacher Experienced States
The experienced states of teachers are central to teacher professional identity and
self-efficacy. The redesign of teacher work to a more collaborative mode through
the implementation of teacher teams could change the ‘experienced states’ of
teachers and change the way teachers view their work.
- 91 -
Teacher Job Characteristics and Teacher Experienced States come together in
Figure 2.6.2.2 that describes the Teacher Work Framework (TWF). The TWF posits
the relationships between teacher job characteristics, experienced states and
teacher outcomes.
Figure 2.6.2.2
Teacher Work Framework (adapted from: Hackman and Oldham, 1980, p. 90; Pounder, 1999, p.330)
- 92 -
The TWF indicates a dynamic interactive relationship between Teacher Job
Characteristics, Teacher Experienced States and Teacher Outcomes (Hackman
and Oldham, 1980; Pounder, 1999). The posited dynamic interactive relationship
suggests a complex and non-linear relationship where changes in the dimensions of
the TJC and/or the TES will have effects on the TO, thus enhancing the complex
interactive nature of teachers’ work. The TWF also indicates the moderator effects
of: pedagogical knowledge and skill, individual growth needs and context
satisfaction. As moderators, these will provide influence on the dynamic nature of
the relationship. If there are changes in TJC, then TES will be affecting and so will
the teacher outcomes. The converse is also apparent. If a teacher experiences a
change in the knowledge of colleagues’ work in different subjects, this will affect
teacher outcomes and will feed back to the TJC. This dynamic is important in the
discussion of teachers’ conceptions of teams, as it provides a relational insight into
the dynamic interactions experienced in teams in secondary schools. The TWF is
not a linear deterministic cause-effect relationship. It recognises the complex
interactions of everyday work where the dynamic interactions have both positive
and negative feedback loops that affect teacher outcomes. This dynamic becomes
important when teams are considered as a work redesign, as it alters the work
organisation system, and in some cases also could alter the nature of the teaching.
The complex dynamic interactive nature of teachers’ work is also recognised by
Wallace and Louden (1992) in their assertions about the ‘complexity of teachers’
work’ (p.518) by recognising teaching is not ‘a matter of applying a set of
generalisable skills to given situations’ (p.517), but patterns of practice that reflect
past and present experienced states. So, in line with the previous assertions of the
complex interactive nature of teachers’ work any change to one aspect of the
patterns of practice could flow through and affect many other aspects of teacher
work.
The job characteristics model of Hackman and Oldham (1980) is used by Markowitz
and Smylie (2004) to explore different work redesign reforms of the teacher
workforce. They looked at teacher workforce design as a part of the school reform
movement (Table 2.6.2). They suggested redesign can be a task reassignment or
redefinition with either a collective or individual orientation. This categorisation links
individual and collective changes in the work of teachers with task reassignment
and redefinition.
- 93 -
Table 2.6.2 Task Changes
(From Mayrowetz & Smylie, 2004, p.279)
Method Focus
Task reassignment Individual orientation Collective orientation
Mentor teacher Participative decision making
Lead teacher Teacher teams
Instructional coordinator
Task redefinition Teacher-researcher Collective teacher research
Communities of practice
Distributive leadership
The table relates two critical dimensions of teacher work redesign: whose work is
changed (individual or a collection of teachers) and in what way (task reassignment
or redefinition). Changes are presented as four models of work redesign, these are:
individual task reassignment, collective task reassignment, individual task
redefinition, and collective task redefinition. This categorisation situates the
implementation of teacher teams as a collective orientation that is a task
reassignment for teachers. It is true that some teacher work redesign could fit
across many of the cells in the table, as many changes are context dependent.
Mayrowetz & Smylie (2004) indicate ‘the creation of teacher teams within a school is
a collective redesign, but depending on the tasks performed, the effort could be
construed as either a reassignment or redefinition’ (p. 279).
Teams and participative decision making practices are considered as collective task
reassignment because this change places teachers in a group to perform work they
do not normally do or places teachers in a collaborative situation with others. It is
also worth recognising that collective orientation changes to teachers’ work could
also be considered as a collective task redefinition. The redesign might seek to
develop a community of practice, where teachers develop sharing practices in their
negotiated structures, relationships, norms and values (Wenger, 1998). This,
Mayrowetz and Smylie (2004) consider as a collective task redefinition. Wenger
distinguishes a community of practice from a team by arguing that a community of
practice is held together by a “shared knowledge and interest” rather than by the
need to complete a project within a set deadline.
- 94 -
There are examples of teacher task redefinition and reassignment that are apparent
in interdisciplinary teams responsible for curriculum development and
implementation in schools. The interdisciplinary team is defined as a group of
teachers from different subject disciplines, planning, working together and sharing
the same students for a significant part of the school day. These teams focus on
creating and implementing curriculum across subjects through coordinated lesson
plans, sharing and discussing student progress and solving problems and issues.
They endeavour to coordinate subjects around a central theme or issue (Mertens
and Flowers, 2003). Teachers work collaboratively and establish equitable
responsibilities for teamwork and the team goals (Flowers et al., 2002). It is worth
noting that the interdisciplinary team has become increasingly common in industry
and government (Derry et al., 1998). Lavin et al., (2001) pursue this sentiment in
recognising the importance of the interdisciplinary organisation in their health
practices review, by indicating interdisciplinary practice in health is a global
movement.
Interdisciplinary teams in secondary schools could provide a teacher work
organisational framework using the wide variety of expertise possessed by
teachers, as each teacher brings to the team a unique expertise, and diverse
perspectives that can be considered the basis for collaboration (Schneider &
Northcraft, 1999). Ivanitskaya et al., (2002), move the definition of the
interdisciplinary team to the student realm in suggesting an approach to teaching
and learning focuses on methodologies, interpretive tools, and language of several
disciplines around a central problem, issue or theme. There is a suggestion that this
approach allows students to engage in programs that are more likely to acquire
problem-solving perspectives to learning. This would suggest that interdisciplinary
education readily facilitates the development of structural knowledge: an
understanding of higher order relationships and organising principles. Ivanitskaya et
al., (2002), define structural knowledge as knowledge that promotes a learner’s
ability to assess the relationships among different perspectives and evokes a
deeper cognitive analysis. Interdisciplinary pedagogical methodologies have the
capacity to create meaningful connections across the knowledge of subject
disciplines. Interdisciplinary teams viewed by Wieseman and Moscovici (2003) in
their research into science education suggest the team develops through the
connections between disciplines and the integrity of the discipline remains. The
interdisciplinary team organisation has value in that it maintains the unique
- 95 -
characteristics and distinctions between disciplines and promotes collaboration
between teachers from differing subject disciplines.
The possibility of increased use of science teacher expertise in a team with other
teachers from different subject departments holds some promise for teacher
collaborative work and student learning across the school. It would also meet the
needs of both sets of Queensland professional standards and could encourage
secondary schools to be more collaborative within and between subject
departments.
Teams through the literature on Industry, Health, Sport and Education indicate they
have an important role to play as an organisational framework for collaborative
practice in schools. Yet, anecdotal evidence would suggest that the use of teams in
secondary schools is minimal in Queensland. Friedman (1997) reflects on the
disappointing record of teams in schools by recognising the contrast in experience
of manufacturing and service organisations, where the team approach has been
used to improve productivity, quality, innovation and motivation. This study assists
in unravelling of the issue of teams and teamwork in secondary schools. There are
no studies that seek to use science teachers’ experiences to construct conceptions
of teams and teamwork. These conceptions are collective representations of the
lived experiences of science teachers in their collective science departments and
schools across Queensland.
It also is important to reflect on the need to understand the significance teachers
attach to the work they do and the organisational structures in which they do it.
Knowledge of how science teachers work individually and collectively is important in
redefining teachers work in teams. The changing of school structures can be seen
as ‘ a contrived collegiality: the use of teams can be seen as nothing more than
policies that take the form of systems of restructuring the day to day business that
controls teachers’ (Smyth,1991 p. 336).
2.7 Conclusion
This chapter reviewed the literature pertaining to the teams and teamwork across
Sport, Commerce/Industry, Health Care and Education. It also investigated school
organisation, teacher identity and collaboration. These literature areas were chosen
as a result of the analysis of the data and have provided a framework for
understanding science teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork.
- 96 -
The chapter began by suggesting that the secondary schools in the study are formal
bureaucratic organisations with the formal elements of authority, work and social
relations. The next section expanded the school organisation with a notion of
complexity by suggesting schools were places of complex interactions. The section
considered schools as non-linear, where the prediction of outcomes in not
demonstrated as simple cause and effect relationships. There was a focus on the
notion of emergence with the possibility of adaption and change in schools due the
collaboration between teachers and subject departments. This section concluded
with speculation on or about the use of teacher teams in providing the structural
characteristics to facilitate teachers collaboratively constructing new solutions to old
problems.
The final part of the school organisation section presented the positioning of the
science department within the school. The science department was presented in a
pyramid of hierarchy with other horizontally bounded subject departments. The
boundary space positions the science department as providing a specialised
pedagogical discourse.
The next section of Chapter Two considered teacher interactions as the action of
collaboration, and then presented the benefits and disadvantages of collaboration
for teachers to provide a framework for discussing teachers’ experiences of teams
and teamwork. The benefits of collaboration included: teacher learning, promotion of
teacher reflection, promoting confidence, establishing boundaries and morale
maintenance and development. The disadvantages presented were: work
intensification, autonomy loss, interpersonal conflict and factionalism. This section
concluded with speculation about the effects of teams and teamwork might have on
the levels of collaboration between teachers.
The third section of this chapter presented the importance of teacher professional
identity. The section considered science teacher’s agency as obligations, authority
and autonomy that is bound by teacher specialist knowledge in the discourse of
science. It then reinforced the point that science teachers experience science as a
central focus of their professional identity. It also argued that the departmentalised
structure of the schools reinforced the science teacher professional identity. The
section concluded with speculation of the possible effects teams and teamwork
might have on science teacher professional identity.
- 97 -
The fourth section investigated, though the literature, the notion of ‘the team’. This
investigation proceeded through four subsections: What is a Team? Teamwork,
Team Roles and Some Cautions.
The first subsection presented a number of definitions of teams drawn from Sport,
Health Care and Commerce/Industry. This was achieved by identifying common
characteristics of teams in a number of team models. These included: an open
system and a team process models. It then culminated in a summary of team
characteristics, describing team elements, elaborations and team member
experience markers and will be used in Chapter Five to discuss the science
teachers’ conceptions of teams.
The literature in relation to teamwork and teamwork processes was presented in the
next subsection. This then concluded with a summary of teamwork skills linking the
skills of group decision making/planning, adaptability/flexibility, interpersonal
relations and communication to team member experiences of teamwork. This will be
also used in Chapter Five to discuss the conceptions presented by the participant
science teachers. The next subsection presented the importance of team roles in a
team. The final subsection offers cautions relating to teams and teamwork in the
workplace.
The final section of Chapter Two presented the literature focusing on teams in
education. It presented the literature in two subsections: the first presented the
difficulties in defining teams in Education and the second presented teacher work in
terms of teacher job characteristics. This section recognised the difficulties in
defining teams in Education but concluded that the team models described are
essentially the same as those described in the previous team section and marked
the point that these are the same team characteristics present in teams as
described in both sets of teacher professional standards for Queensland. The
section then explored a model for teacher work that allowed speculation on possible
changes to the nature of teacher work with team implementation. This was achieved
by the linking of teacher job characteristics, teacher experienced states and teacher
outcomes. The section then concluded by investigating the notions of task
reassignment and redefinition and the possible implications relating to team
implementation in secondary schools.
The following chapter will introduce the phenomenographic research approach. This
approach maps the qualitatively different ways in which participants experience the
unitary phenomenon of teams and teamwork. Chapter Three explicates the use of
- 98 -
phenomenography as an approach to investigate the phenomenon. It examines the
theoretical principles underpinning the use of the phenomenographic approach,
outlining the ontological and epistemological underpinnings of this approach.
- 99 -
Chapter Three
3.1 Introduction
The focus of this research study is to investigate the conceptions of teams and
teamwork held by science teachers in Queensland secondary school science
departments.
This chapter presents the theoretical aspects of research design, methodology and
procedures adopted for the investigation of teachers’ conceptions of the
phenomenon. The phenomenon at the centre of this study is teams and teamwork;
they are considered a unitary phenomenon. The data gathered through a
phenomenographic methodology can be used to create theoretical models to map
the different ways in which teachers understand teams and teamwork.
Marton (1988) describes the qualitative research method as a specialisation aimed
at the ‘mapping of the hidden world of thoughts about various aspects of the world
around us’ (p.180). Hasselgren and Beach (1997) provide a derivation of the term
phenomenography. They indicate that the ‘word phenomenography has its
etymological roots in the Greek phainomenon (appearance) and graphein
(description) rendering phenomenography as a description of appearances’ (p.
192).
The phenomenographic approach gathers qualitative data that involves the
participants exploring a particular phenomenon using a semi-structured interview
technique. There is an underlying assumption, that there is a limited and finite
number of ways in which participants can experience the phenomenon (Prosser &
Trigwell, 1997).
This chapter presents phenomenography as an approach that is particularly suited
to the research question. It also examines the theoretical underpinnings of
conceptions, as well as the ontological and epistemological assumption related to
this research approach. The structure of the chapter is presented in Figure 3.1.
- 100 -
Figure 3.1 Chapter Three Outline
This chapter provides an academic journey that begins with the research approach
and assumptions. It then moves to the ontology and epistemology of
phenomenography with an investigation of the nature of conceptions. A detailed
presentation of the research in terms of design, methods and sampling progresses
the journey to the data. The data sections deal with the transcribing and organising.
The next aspect presents the analysis that leads to the declaring of the categories
of description. The chapter journey through the phenomenographic investigation
concludes with an investigation of the validity and reliability of the research
approach.
3.2 Choosing the Research Approach
The purpose of this study is to identify the conceptions science teachers hold about
teams and the associated teamwork. The methodology is in essence qualitative, as
multi-method in focus, involving an interpreted, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomena in
- 101 -
terms of the meanings people bringing to them (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, p. 2).
The term research suggests a way of thinking and not just a set of skills. Research
can be characterised by the critical examining of ideas, developing and testing
theories, and seeking understanding and description of particular human activities
and experiences (Kumar, 1996). Phenomenography is the chosen approach in this
research study, as it is used to identify and map the qualitatively different ways in
which people experience the phenomena in the world around them (Marton, 1988).
Phenomena may be physical objects or abstract feelings, but each is considered as
‘it appears to us’ (Marton, 2000, p. 105). The earlier work of Marton (1994a)
outlines the purpose of phenomenographic research, as being able to identify:
the way (or different ways) in which we experience, or are aware of, the world around us. At the same time, phenomenography does not aim at capturing the full richness of the experience. Quite the contrary: phenomenography aims at a very specific level of description, corresponding to a level of experience believed to be critical as far as our capabilities to experience certain phenomena in certain ways (p.7).
Phenomenography has been used successfully to contribute to knowledge in
Education fields to identify the qualitatively different ways in which people
experience phenomena within different settings (Bruce, 1992, 1996; Gerber, 1993;
Herschell, 1997; Prosser & Trigwell, 1997). The approach has been used to gain
understanding of teachers’ conceptions of many aspects of teachers’ work. Such
research topics include: Beginning Teachers’ Conceptions of Competence
(Huntley, 2003), Understanding teacher commitment to changing times (Croswell,
2006) and Teacher conceptions of student engagement in learning: A
phenomenographic investigation (Irwin, 2006) and Teacher’s understandings of
pedagogic connectedness (Beutel, 2006). The research approach is highly
recognised and utilised in the researching of teachers’ conception of aspects of their
work.
The research will construct a theoretical model of the unitary phenomenon: teams
and teamwork, through an examination of teachers’ experiences. Conceptions
describe internal relations between the subject and the object or the person and the
phenomenon (Marton, 1994a). In this study, the object is the unitary phenomenon of
teams and teamwork and the subjects are the science teachers participating in the
study.
- 102 -
This study will focus on the qualitatively different ways in which teachers experience
the phenomenon of teams and teamwork. Through the examination of the teachers’
utterances it provides new and rich insights into the phenomenon (Dall’Alba, 2000).
There is currently little in the literature on teachers’ conceptions of teams and
teamwork expressed through their lived experiences.
The essence of constructing an understanding of teams and teamwork lies in
gaining an understanding of what teachers discern or do not discern about their
lived experiences of the phenomenon. The logical relations between the teachers’
conceptions assist the researcher to identity complex interactions of the teacher
understandings for use in developing possible recommendations for team
development in schools (Prosser et al., 2005).
Phenomenography does not seek to tag individual conceptions with individual
participants (Barnacle, 2005). Marton (1992) indicates that ‘our understanding of
the world is described in experiential terms, and if experiential descriptions depict
relations between the individual and the world, then we cannot say an individual has
a certain understanding’ (p. 260). The utterances of participants represent their
understanding of the phenomenon at that point in time, and represent their
constructed reality of the phenomenon.
Phenomenography explores the range of understanding present in a sample
population. It does not seek to attribute frequency to conceptions; this is out of the
scope of the research. This research approach allows the construction of a
theoretical model (Bruce, 1996; Cope, 2000) teams and teamwork in the secondary
schools studied. There are no such models of Queensland schools in existence.
Teams and the associated teamwork are the phenomenon at the focus of this study
and science teachers who teach science in Queensland secondary schools were
interviewed about their lived experiences of teams. The data generated though
interviews were analysed to discover understandings, images or themes reflected
within the interview transcripts. These were found to be implicit, un-thematised or
explicit expressions of the individuals’ relationship with the phenomenon. These are
considered the conceptions of the phenomenon and emerge from categories of
description. The categories of description describe the distinctiveness of the
variations in teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork. The final step is the
construction of the outcome space. The outcome space is a visual representation of
the conceptions and contains the limited number of qualitatively different and
- 103 -
logically interrelated ways in which the phenomenon is understood (Marton, 1993).
The outcome space contributes to the understanding of the phenomenon of ‘teams’
by exploring the interconnections between the teacher conceptions.
3.3 Phenomenography: approach and assumptions
The phenomenographic research approach was developed in the 1970s (Dall’Alba
& Hasselgren, 1996). It is distinguished from phenomenology because it is
concerned, not only with various ways a phenomenon is captured, but also its
functions, structure and essence. Phenomenographic research aims to describe the
differences in the conceptions, or the approaches to, a task or phenomenon.
Phenomenography focuses on describing qualitatively different ways in which a
phenomenon is experienced or understood (Marton, 1981, 1986, 1988, 1988a,
1990). In later work, Marton (1994a) defines it as ‘the empirical study of the limited
number of qualitatively different ways in which various phenomena, and aspects of
the world around us are experienced, conceptualised, understood, perceived’ (p.
4424). This quotation suggests that the data is empirical, captures experiences of a
phenomenon and shows limited variation. The thesis will use the words
experiencing conceptualisation, understanding, and perception interchangeably.
Francis (1996) suggests that phenomenography as a research approach should be
underpinned by a particular combination of aim and method and should also include
an investigation of the ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions
that underlie a research specialisation.
The relationships between the ontological, epistemological and methodological
assumptions of this research specialisation are outlined in the Figure 3.3.
- 104 -
Figure 3.3 Phenomenography
The figure: Phenomenography sets out the relationships between
phenomenography, theoretical perspective, ontology and epistemology. The
theoretical perspective is an interpretative research specialisation. This research
approach suggests a non-dualist view of reality that ontologically provides a range
of metaphysical positions. The research approach is qualitatively conducted by
semi-structured interview.
This research approach is not a focus on the nature of the phenomena or the
processes by which humans develop these perceptions and conceptions. Rather, it
aims to discover and describe the relationships humans have constructed with the
world around them.
Conceptions are considered to be ‘ways of experiencing’, ‘ways of conceptualising’,
‘ways of understanding’ or even ‘ways of perceiving and they are dynamic and
context dependent (Marton & Pang, 2005).
The nature of phenomenographic research is described as having four different
interrelated aspects. These aspects are relational, experiential, context-orientated
- 105 -
and qualitative (Marton, 1988). The phenomenographic study seeks to highlight
relationships between the objects and the subjects of the study. This relationship is
indicated by Marton (1988), when he says:
between the individual and aspects of the world around him or her….we are trying to describe the aspects of the world as they appear to the individual. This means we are adopting an experiential or second-order perspective… we are trying to characterise how they appear to people (p.181).
He also suggests that conceptions about a particular phenomenon are content-
based outcomes that have been constructed within people’s experiential
circumstances.
Phenomenography provides an opportunity to increase the understanding of socially
constructed knowledge, as it describes the conceptions developed and held by
people as a consequence of their perceptions and understandings (Marton, 1988).
The next section clarifies the ontological, epistemological and methodological
aspects of phenomenography.
3.4 Ontology
The research study is focused on the investigation of the conceptions of the teams
and teamwork held by secondary school science teachers. The research identifies a
‘collective anatomy of awareness’ of the teachers about the phenomenon (Marton &
Booth, 1997).
Ontology is the branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being or seeing
reality. Herschell (1997) points out that:
the nature of a particular tradition (in research) is closely related to its metaphysical beliefs about the relationships about the nature of reality and the nature of human knowledge gained from experiencing that reality (p.72).
Phenomenography and the associated understanding of conception is based on
non-dualist ontology (Marton, 1994a; Sjostrom & Dahlgren, 2002). There is no
differentiation between the physical objective world and a subjective world. These
worlds co-exist in time and space: it is both subjective and objective in nature
(Barnard et al., 1999). A non-dualist view of the world posits the construction of a
description through the senses and experiences and presents a reality as a non-
separation of subject and object. The conceptualisation of the world around us
creates the knowledge: it is our reality. This reality is in fact an internal construction
that presents both personal and collective knowledge of the world as conceptions.
The non-dualist stance has implications for this research approach as ‘there is no
way of arriving at a final description of anything, because a description relates what
- 106 -
that thing is for someone’ (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 101). In other words the reality
of one person is different from that of another and is not fixed in space and time.
This also suggests that the conception of phenomena will change with time, as input
and thought processes act on the experiences. Marton and Booth (1997) deal with
this by suggesting that there are in a population a limited number of ways a
phenomenon can be experienced. This is recognition of the social and cultural
constructions in the life experiences of humans.
Svensson (1997) suggests phenomenography does not have a set of metaphysical
assumptions on whether the nature of reality is materialistic or idealistic. However, it
does make assumptions about the process and nature of knowledge acquisition in
society and its research orientation, implementation and outcomes.
Phenomenography makes its own ontological, epistemological and methodological
assumptions. These fundamental assumptions are:
knowledge has a relational and holistic nature; conceptions are the central form of knowledge; scientific knowledge about conceptions is not true, but uncertain and
more or less fruitful; descriptions are fundamental to scientific knowledge about conceptions; scientific knowledge about conceptions is based on exploration of the
limitations and holistic meanings of objects as conceptualised; and scientific knowledge about conceptions is based on differentiation,
abstraction, reduction and comparison of meaning. (Svensson, 1997, p. 171).
Svensson (1994) in an earlier work argues that phenomenography ‘does not have
an articulated metaphysical function’ and that ‘metaphysical beliefs and ideas about
the nature of reality and the nature of knowledge do not come first’ (p.14). This may
or may not be the case; however it does highlight the ambiguity over the
metaphysical assumptions and the possible problem of not being able to identify the
researcher’s world view (Herschell, 1997). Researchers bring their world view to
their study, as it is part of being human. The benefit of the phenomenographic
approach is that it allows a range of metaphysical positions to be brought to the
research study. It is necessary for the researcher to declare his/her assumptions
about the nature of the phenomenon in the study, the subjects of the study and the
processes of the research methodology (Herschell, 1997).
In the study, the term ’team’ and ‘teamwork’ are used to describe the unitary object
of the study and assumes that this single phenomenon exists in the experiences of
teachers. It also is recognised that the experiences of ‘teams’ and ‘teamwork’ are
- 107 -
socially constructed, and have a contextual reality. At some stage in the
participants’ lives there are personal experiences where each individual is
considered to be aware and know they are aware of this particular phenomenon
(Matron, 1994).
A participant’s commitment to the open-ended inquiry is another ontological
assumption. The commitment is demonstrated by openness and truthfulness about
the experience of teams. To this end the study will depend on the researcher
developing a climate of openness and trust in this open-ended research study
(Davidson & Layder, 1994).
The aim of the research is to explore the teachers’ conceptions of teams. The study
requires a definition of the term ‘conception’. Svensson (1994) describes the term
‘concept’ as an abstract, linguistic unit related to understanding parts of the world
and ‘conception’ refers to the experienced meaning of a phenomenon. Johansson
et al., (1985) describe a conception as, ‘a way of seeing something, a qualitative
relationship between an individual and some phenomenon’ (p. 236).
Sandberg (1997) defines the term conception as people’s experience of a specific
aspect of reality. Marton and Booth (1997) view participant experiences as neither
subject nor object, but non-dualist. This emphasises the internally constructed
relationships between the participant and the world around them. This view is
highlighted when they point out that the ‘descriptions of experience are not
psychological and not physical. They are descriptions of the internal relationship
between persons and phenomena: ways in which a person experiences a given
phenomenon and ways in which a phenomenon is experienced by persons’ (p.122).
The research study focuses on the internal relationship between science teachers,
teams and teamwork in the ways an individual experiences the team phenomenon.
This relationship will be expressed as teachers’ conceptions.
3.5 Epistemology
A phenomenographic epistemological perspective suggests a linking between the
non-dualist ontology, the nature of participant experiences and their relationship to
knowledge. A phenomenographic perspective allows a shift away from the
challenge of existing conceptions of particular phenomenon to an awareness of the
variation in the conceptions of a particular phenomenon (Prosser & Trigwell, 1997).
- 108 -
Epistemology deals with understanding and explaining how humans know and what
humans know: a theory of knowledge that informs and is fixed in a theoretical
perspective. What is central is the knowledge generated in the variations of
experiences of the world. It is important to recognise that these variations of
experience can be described, communicated and understood (Sjostrom & Dahlgren,
2002).
Crotty (1998) suggests there are three ways of looking at the world, and making
sense of it. These three ways are objectivism, constructivism and subjectivism.
Phenomenography takes none of these views. The phenomenographic approach is
both subjective and objective as it contributes to a construction of meaning and is in
essence a non-dualistic. This methodology was chosen because the non-dualist
approach removes the thought-action dichotomy. Prosser and Trigwell (1997)
pursue this idea in suggesting the mind does not exist independently of the world
around it. Marton and Pang (1999) suggest that:
Phenomenography is thus about the description of things as they appear to us. Fundamental to an understanding of the phenomenographic approach is to realize that its epistemological stances is premised on the principle of intentionality , which affords a non-dualistic view of human cognition that depicts experience , as the internal relationship between human and the world. The aim of the research is to describe qualitatively different ways of experiencing various phenomena and is concerned with the second-order perspective, which orientated towards people’s ways of seeing the world around them (p.1).
Non-dualism is central to phenomenography. The non-dualist assumption in this
study suggests that the participant’s lived experiences have qualities of knowledge
because ‘assumptions about the nature of conceptions may be closely related to
assumptions about the nature of knowledge and thinking’ (Svensson, 1994, p.14).
Svensson also argues that the knowledge participants possess and express can be
described in terms of conceptions, that is, meanings and understandings of a
phenomenon. He describes these assumptions as:
Knowledge is assumed to be based on thinking. However, knowledge is also seen as dependent upon the world or reality external to the individual and external to human activity and thinking, that which the activity and thinking is directed towards. The most fundamental assumption is that knowledge and conceptions have a relational nature (p.14).
- 109 -
Knowledge in phenomenography is regarded as relational and created through
thinking about an external reality, a contrast with other approaches based on
empirical observations, facts or mental constructions.
In phenomenography, the conception is the way people express their
understandings of the world, and is the central form of knowledge. This knowledge
is dependent upon context and perspective, which highlights the relationship
between an individual and a phenomenon. It is assumed that the teachers in this
study have formed conceptions of teams from experiences within their social and
cultural environment. The meanings and understandings they have of teams and
teamwork are constituent elements of their conceptions.
The non-dualist view of the world is at odds with that of the positivists. Positivists
view the world as independent of consciousness and objective. This point has
relevance to the researcher and acknowledges that the participants’ versions of the
phenomena are their reality. Thus, the researcher must accept the range of
conceptions and bracket his own versions of the phenomenon, so as not to view the
data from his own perspectives. Bracketing is the process where the researcher
puts aside preconceived ideas of the phenomenon before examining the data
(Marton, 1994a). Bowden (2005) concludes that judgements on conceptions are
only made on the utterances of the participants.
3.6 Conceptions
The participants’ conceptions are at the centre of phenomenographic research.
Conceptions are considered to be ‘ways of experiencing’, ‘ways of conceptualising’,
‘ways of understanding’ or even ‘ways of perceiving and they are dynamic and
context dependent’ (Marton & Pong, 2005).
Conceptions are considered to have two parts: what and how. The what contains
the meaning, and describes what teachers describe teams and teamwork to be, and
the how refers to conceptualisations that facilitate the meaning of the phenomenon.
This draws on the notion of intentionality where ‘experience is of something, and its
conceptualisation is always the conception of something’ (Marton & Booth, 1997,
p.67). Put another way, a conception must have a related object; they coexist.
Marton and Pang (1999) indicate that a conception ‘contains both what aspects
which correspond to the object itself, and how aspects which relate to the act, and
can be couched in terms of a dynamic relationship between the two aspects of the
phenomenon, ie the structural aspect and referential (or meaning) aspect’ (p. 4).
- 110 -
The structural aspects in this study refer to the meanings science teachers attribute
to teams and teamwork. The referential aspects of the science teacher conceptions
are the component parts and their interrelationships.
This section has presented phenomenography as a qualitative approach that
considers conceptions as the central form of knowledge. In this it assumes a non-
dualist ontology and epistemology. The phenomenographic approach will identify
the qualitatively different ways in which science teachers experience teams and
teamwork.
The following section describes the research design and the process of analysis.
3.7 Research Design
The study is designed to answer the question: ‘What are the conceptions of teams
and teamwork held by science teachers in Queensland secondary schools?’
The research question seeks to reveal teachers’ conceptions and uses a
phenomenographic approach.
The research methodology is considered to be qualitative due to the nature of the
information that will be collected (Kumar, 1996). Qualitative methodology is an
interpretive paradigm that portrays a complex and interrelated world. The
qualitative researcher regards his/her task as coming to an understanding and
interpretation of the world around them (Glesne and Peshkin, 1992). Kincheloe and
McLaren (1994) highlight the nature of qualitative research by suggesting that:
as qualitative researchers direct their attention to the meanings given to events by participants, they come to understand more than what a list of descriptions or a table of statistics could support (p.143).
The purpose of this research study is to collect information about teachers’
experiences of the team phenomenon, interpret this information and analyse the
information to construct an understanding of teachers’ conceptions of teams and its
associated teamwork.
3.8 Research Method
The study method is defined as techniques or procedures that are used to gather
and analyse data about the research question (Crotty, 1998). The data were
collected using a qualitative interviewing technique. Denzin and Lincoln (1994)
suggest qualitative interviewing is open-ended and semi-structured and can
produce an account of personal experiences. As phenomenographic interviews are
- 111 -
well planned in advance but open in that they ’approach the phenomenon in
question from various interesting perspectives, the interviewer is prepared to follow
unexpected lines of reasoning that might lead to fruitful new reflections’ (p. 138).
In phenomenographic research the interview is a critical element in the data
gathering process (Gerber et al., 1993). The aim of interviews is to provide an
experiential situation in which to explore the different understandings of the
phenomena. The premise underlying the use of interviews is a need for a
discursive exploration that seeks to encourage participants to verbalise the nature of
their experiences of teams and teamwork.
The interview reflects the essential phenomenographic nature of the investigation
into the second-order perspectives of teachers. Teachers were able to recount their
experience to formulate narratives and present their experiences in their own words.
Svensson (1997) suggests that conceptions are most accessible through language.
The relational view of knowledge is fundamental to phenomenography and suggests
thinking and reflecting about objective and subjective worlds creates knowledge. To
this end there is a relation between thought and reality that can be considered to be
reflected in the language that has its own social and cultural context. The interview
provided opportunities to explore the experiences of the interviewees and their
experienced understandings of teams and teamwork.
The conceptions teachers hold was communicated through language. Language is
used to express the participant experiences. As Saljo (1997) recognises, ‘language,
culture and human experience are inextricably intertwined’ (p. 177). The utterances
of participants in a non-dualist paradigm are descriptions of their world; they are not
independent of the world. Marton et al., (2004) make the point that, ‘language plays
a central role’ and, that it ‘does not simply represent experience, as it is widely
perceived, but more importantly, it constitutes experience’ (p.25).
Pursuing the non-dualist language, it also is apparent that if there is a variety of
experience of particular phenomena, then there also must be a variety of
language/words to describe the phenomenon. Saljo (1997) acknowledges there are
a ‘limited number of ways of talking about a phenomenon’ (p.178) and these
utterances describe the experienced phenomenon. This thesis takes the position of
Saljo (1997) in accepting that there is a finite number of ways of describing the
conceptions teachers’ hold of teams and teamwork.
- 112 -
The participants of this phenomenographic study are science teachers who have
socially constructed codes that select their realisations and evoke meanings
demonstrated in their pedagogic discourse. These codes culturally integrate relative
meanings of communication (Bernstein, 1990a). Siskin suggests science teachers
have a similar set of norms, values and perspectives based on their subject
discipline. This they demonstrate as a ‘choice of words, the structure of their
arguments’ (p. 153). Phenomenography investigates conceptions of the collective,
parts of which come from individuals: ‘a specific conception cannot be seen in its
entirety in data obtained from a single individual, but only within data obtained from
several individuals’ (p. 206). The collective in this study are science teachers with a
collective sense of discourse that will shape the interview statements (Patrick,
2000).
The semi-structured interview began with a pre-planned question, as the interview
was aimed at establishing a discursive, open and deep discussion. The design
intent was to encourage the participants to feel empowered to investigate, discuss
and develop their understandings of teams and teamwork. Bruce (1994) and
Marton (1988) mention the practice of interviewers commencing the interview with a
focal question. This practice was replicated in this thesis, and the opening focus
question was:
‘Can you tell me about a time when you were in a team?’
This question not only allowed a focus but also a space to seek clarifications and
elaborations. It is recognised that this could be problematic with the researcher
being involved in the interview but, the researcher is a component of the data
gathering process and needs to be engaged in the conversations that encourage
the elucidation of the interviewee’s experiences. Marton (1994) justifies this
interview construct by suggesting:
the experiences, understandings, are jointly constituted by the interviewer and the interviewee. These experiences, understandings are neither prior to the interview, ready to ‘read of’. Nor are they situational social constructions. They are aspects of the subject’s awareness that change from being unreflected to being reflected’ (p. 4427).
There is however an issue of the researcher’s subjectivity and objectivity in the
interview situation with an embedded notion of interpretative awareness (Sandberg,
1997). Sandberg suggests that maintaining interpretative awareness is to
acknowledge and explicitly deal with the researcher’s subjectivity throughout the
research process. The researcher attempted ‘to bracket the knowledge which is
- 113 -
relevant to the issue at hand’ in the process of maintaining interpretive awareness
(Sandberg, 1997, p. 209).
Each interview lasted approximately one hour and was recorded using audiotape.
3.9 Sample Selection
The participants were all full time practicing science teachers in Education
Queensland secondary schools. Only departmentalised schools were used in the
study as the departmentalisation was at the centre of the thesis and little has been
done in the research literature focusing on departmentalised schools and teams.
Departmentalised schools were contacted in all regions of the State through the
Principals and Heads of Science. Heads of Science who expressed an interest were
asked to present the project through a prepared information sheet to their science
staff and interviewee volunteers were sought. The pool of volunteers was then
subjected to a ‘blind’ selection of a participant pool by drawing names out of a hat.
Those chosen in this process were then contacted by phone to explain the nature of
the research and the interview process. This phone call allowed the researcher to
discuss the ethical implications of the research, pointing out the possibility of
discomfort in reflecting on experiences of teams and teamwork in their current or
previous place of work. They were also advised they could terminate their
involvement at any time and reminded about confidentiality and anonymity. If the
teacher volunteer still agreed to be involved then a meeting time was organised
away from school to maintain the anonymous nature of the research.
The only filtering of participants occurred to ensure there was a geographical spread
of participants across as many education regions as possible. These teachers
taught a variety of subjects, the majority of which were in the science department’s
portfolio. The portfolio of subjects ranged from Junior Science to specialist discipline
based Senior Science subjects like Chemistry, Physics and Biology. Some of the
teachers also taught Multistrand Science and Marine Studies: cross-discipline
subjects.
The number of participants was not predetermined, as the researcher used the
‘nothing new’ approach of participant interviewing. This means that when, in the
researcher’s view, the data collected was no longer revealing any new variations in
teacher experiences no further interviews were conducted. The ultimate number of
respondents was 23 science teachers.
- 114 -
Table 3.9 Female Participants
FEMALE PARTICIPANTS
Participant code EQ District age range FH1 SUNSHINE COAST 40-50 FH2 SUNSHINE COAST 40-50 FH3 BRISBANE 40-50 FH4 TOWNSVILLE 30-40 F5 SUNSHINE COAST 40-50 F6 MACKAY 20-30 F7 ROCKHAMPTON 20-30 F8 NORTH QUEENSLAND 20-30 F9 GOLD COAST 40-50 F10 SOUTH BRISBANE 20-30 F11 WIDE BAY 20-30 F12 FAR NORTH QUEENSLAND 20-30
Table 3.9.1 Male Participants
Tables 3.9 and 3.9.1 show the demographic information of each of the participants.
Participants were recruited on a volunteer basis from science departments. Codes
were used for participants and school names were not recorded to maintain privacy.
Thus, code F5 represents the fifth female interviewed, FH4 represents the fourth
female interviewed and the H designates Head of Science. The Head of Science is
a classified officer in charge of the Science Department. A similar pattern of codes
was used for the male participants.
MALE PARTICPANTS
Participant code EQ District age range
MH1 TOWNSVILLE 40-50 MH2 SUNSHINE COAST 40-50 M3 WIDE BAY 30-40 M4 CENTRAL QUEENSLAND 30-40 M5 SOUTH BRISBANE 30-40 M6 CENTRAL QUEENSLAND 40-50 M7 WIDE BAY 50-60 M8 SUNSHINE COAST 30-40 M9 NORTH BRISBANE 50-60 M10 SOUTH BRISBANE 30-40 M11 GOLD COAST 30-40
- 115 -
The regional spread of participants is depicted in Figure 3.9.
Figure 3.9 Participant Map
Education Queensland, 2005
The participants work in geographically diverse secondary schools in Queensland.
2 participants in 1 school
1 participant in 1 school
1 participant in 1 school
1 participant in 1 school
2 participants in 1 school
1 participant in 1 school
3 participants in 2 schools
2 participants in 1 school
1 participant in 1 school
5 participants in 2 schools
3 participants in 2 schools
1 participant in 1 school
- 116 -
3.10 Data Collection
The data were collected between August 2005 and April 2006. Data were collected
using the semi-structured interview already outlined and were recorded on
audiotape.
The semi-structured interviews were conducted with an open framework which
allowed an open and conversational approach where participants can fully describe
their experiences of teams and teamwork. This approach was used to support and
build trust with the individuals as some of the confidential disclosures could have
been of a sensitive nature.
Booth (1997) indicates that:
‘open means that while a structure might be planned in advance, to approach that phenomenon in question from various interesting perspectives, the interviewer is prepared to follow unexpected lines of reasoning that can lead to fruitful new reflections’ (p.138).
The hour long interviews (average time) were designed to uncover the teachers’
lived experiences of teams and teamwork, thus bringing the participants to a level of
meta-awareness level of the phenomenon (Marton & Booth, 1997). The raising of
the individuals’ levels of awareness, along with probing questions from the
researcher allowed reflection on thoughts and experiences.
The interviews began with an introduction by the researcher. The researcher
reminded the participants that participation in the interview was voluntary and they
could terminate the interview at any time. They were again reassured that the audio
taped interview was confidential and anonymous and that no names would be
recorded as the research methodology developed conceptions where data can not
be attributed to any one interviewee. At the end of the interview the participants
were given the opportunity to discuss any feelings of discomfort generated thought
the interview. No participant accepted this offer, but they did comment on being
nervous at the beginning of the interview.
The interview sessions began with the question;
‘I’m interested I your experiences of teams. Can you tell me about your
experiences of teams?’
The following is an excerpt from an interview with participant F11 from the
Education Queensland Wide Bay Region (I = researcher):
I: I’m interested I your experiences of teams. Can you tell me about your experiences of teams?
- 117 -
F11: Well I play in a lot of teams, when I hear of teams I think of sporting. I don’t really associate it with school. In school we are working together for a common goal, but I don’t really associate teams with school. I: Tell me about your experiences of sporting teams? F11: In my team we are good friends, close bonds, you know each other. I’ve played in the same soccer team for the last 7 years. So, we know how each other is going to play, so we are successful. I: Do you need to be close friends for that to work? F11: Yes, I see other teams in the club where they are not so close and they are not doing so well. We also need to see each other out of soccer to be successful. There are other times when we get together to develop a social relationship. I think that is important for the team to be successful. I: In your experience of teams are there specific roles and understanding about what you have to do? F11: Yes, there are different roles, positions and yes you are expected to do this. I: So, have you experienced it in schools? F11: No, I haven’t associated teams with what happens in schools. I’ve just come from a subject meeting where there are 5 of us and we are planning our program. I wouldn’t have classed it as a team, may be a group. Yes, may be a group. May be we could be called a team because we have a couple of leaders in the group and we have jobs to do. The regular meetings are important because we are all so spread out so we need to keep track of what is going on. But, this is the only subject that has any attempt to have coordination.
This excerpt demonstrates the creating of questions during the interviews in order to
allow the participants the freedom to explain their experiences and also pursue
certain responses to a greater depth.
3.11 Transcribing Data
Each tape was transcribed verbatim and the transcriptions of each interview were
transferred to a data file. The transcribed interviews were checked multiple times to
ensure accuracy of transcription.
3.12 Organising Data
Each transcript was coded with the participant code, previously outlined. The
transcripts were read and re-read to reveal the meaning of the experiences. As
patterns began to appear a data management system was developed using a
- 118 -
relational database. The use of the database will be outlined in the next section. The
development of the database and the ‘iterative reading’ process was the beginning
of the phenomenographic analysis process.
3.13 Data Analysis
The analysis of the data is a process of discovery and construction (Bruce, 1994).
The analysis process is explained by Svennson (1997):
the fundamental assumption in the relation to the results of the phenomenographic research is that conceptions may be described in terms of their reduced content, where the reduction, which is also an abstract, is a reduction of the meaning of the main parts of the phenomenon conceptualise, with preserving the way in content of the parts, as parts of an organised (p.168).
These insights give a view of the activities needed in the process of analysing the
data. Dahlgren and Fallsberg (1991), Sandberg (1994) and Bruce (1996) suggest a
five-step process:
familiarisation: becoming familiar with the transcripts and become immersed
in the context of the data and to identify, understand and arrive at
understandings and images held by the participants;
condensation and comparison: the step uses contextual analysis to arrive at
tentative groupings of images and meanings which reflect an understanding;
grouping: delineating the different groupings into categories of description.
This step is a discovery and the constitution of the categories of description;
articulating and labelling or intentional constitution of the conceptions: the
stage is focused on the individual categories of description to establish
meaning; and
contrast: establishing the outcomes space to describe the relational and
structural links between the conceptions of the participants’ collective
awareness.
The initial stage comprised a search to identify elements of experience that
contributed to a category of description or a data grouping. These data groupings
were the beginning of developing groups of meaning with some boundaries evident.
The majority of boundaries were blurred but with the iterative process of re-reading
and reflection the groups of meaning began to be delimited and the meanings
began to emerge as categories of description. What also was important at this stage
was the maintaining of context, as the context is relevant to the meaning. The data
converge through the use of the recurring regularities (Guba, 1978).
- 119 -
3.14 Familiarisation
The first step involved the exploration, discovery and interpretation of the raw data
collected from the interviewees. By listening to the tapes, by reading and re-reading
the transcripts, and by making notations that identify sections of the transcripts
considered relevant and significant to the study, the researcher immersed himself in
the data. The purpose of this immersion is to become familiar with, to identify and
construct an understanding of teams and teamwork, as held by the participants. An
attempt was made to gain a sense of any meaningful patterns that were emerging
from the participants’ discourse. The process allowed not only exploration of
possible content, meaning units and interrelationships among the experiences of the
science teachers but also recognition of how other transcripts might relate to each
other. This process acknowledges that some initial ideas expressed by participants
were the results of their lived experiences.
3.15 Comparing, contrasting and grouping
The second stage was designed to identify the meaning groups. The
phenomenographic strategy of bracketing was used by applying such questions as:
What are the participants really saying?
What issue is being expressed?
What meaning groups are becoming evident?
What ideas are appearing as common ideas?
The iterative process of comparing, contrasting and grouping was achieved and
enhanced with the development of a custom designed relational database.
The relational database provides a structure for the collection, storage and sorting
of data. This was chosen as an analysis enhancer because of the intrinsically
relational nature of the data. The database was set up using a relational model that
accepted the relational nature of the interview data.
The relational database was designed as a collection of relations or tables
containing interview quotations and participant data. This structure allowed
operations on the data such as, combining data from tables, set and test
relationships. This structure allowed the interrogation of possible relationships
between data by selecting queries that are used for data retrieval.
The relational model allowed the data to be queried in different ways to highlight
associations that might have not been previously obvious, or simply to check for
- 120 -
continuity in relationships. The key relationships being tested in the setting up of the
relational database was the meanings, groupings and quotation relationship. The
participant related data: participant code, age group and school district were also
included to gain a full picture of the relationships that might be revealed in the
iterative process of analysis.
The relational database supports the concept of the dynamic relational nature of the
data. In a relational database, a view is not a part of the physical schema, it is
dynamic. This means that changing the data in a table or setting a different
relationship between data alters the output view. The output view presents as tables
that appear on the screen or in print. New views can be considered as subset data,
new tables or simplify new relations revealed. The structure of the database also
can hide the complexity in the data so as to reduce the cognitive load on the
researcher, and allow engagement with small or large blocks of data.
The database allowed the interrogation of the data in an iterative process of
revisiting and checking for understanding.
This process is highlighted in Table 3.15, where initial analysis revealed 48 initial
groups of meanings; these meanings were set as a table in the database, and given
a numerical code as a unique identifier (Table 3.15).
- 121 -
Table 3.15 Initial Groupings
Conceptions
initial conception
code Meaning Groups
01 Teams as a dysfunctional experience
02 Teams as a vital structure in schools
03 Teams as leader directed
04 Teams as subject based
05 Teams as a dysfunctional structure
06 Teams as inadequate time for coordination
07 Teams as dysfunctional collaboration
08 Teams as a structure for class coordination
09 Teams as a structure for sharing resources
10 Teams as a structure for cross department planning
11 Teams as based on a faculty group
12 Teams as dysfunctional communication
13 Teams as communication between teachers in the same subject area.
14 Teams as a structure to make teaching easier
15 Teams as a structure for ideas and innovation
16 Teams as a structure for department planning
17 Teams as a benefit to students
18 Teams as a structure for professional support
19 Teams as a structure for emotional support
20 Teams as a staffroom based entity
21 Teams as a cross department teacher membership
22 Teams as a constructed identity.
23 Teams a communication about behaviour management
24 Teams a structure for hiding teacher inadequacy
25 Teams as a conflicts in professional identity
26 Teams as a structure to value teacher identity
27 Teams as working towards a goal
28 Teams as an enforced construct
29 Teams as an out of comfort zone construct
30 Teams as destruction of subject identity
31 Teams as moral obligation(doing the right thing)
32 Teams as a structure with roles and responsibilities
33 Teams as increased work load
34 Team as a structure developed with skill training
35 Teams as a construct of out of school social group
36 Teams as stress.
37 Teams as a good feeling
38 Teams as an aberration that will disappear
39 Team as a similar subject construction
40 Teams as constructed by teachers with similar characteristics
41 Team as a valuing diversity
42 Team as a connection of personalities
43 Team as a proximity construction
44 Teams as a social relationship
45 Teams as a formal structure
46 Teams constructed with clear guidelines
47 Teams as information exchange
48 Teams as informal structures.
- 122 -
The relational database allowed re-engagement with the data. Subsequent reading
and reflecting produced a number of iteration of the groups of meaning. Table
3.15.1 provides a snapshot of one of these subsequent iterations.
Table 3.15.1 A Subsequent Grouping
con2code con2code description
A1-1 subject identity
A2-1 staffroom identity
A2-2 staffroom social interaction focus
A3-1 science department identity
B1-1 support for classroom generated stress
B1-3 support
B2-1 valuing teacher diversity
B3-1 coordination scope/sequence/assessment
B4-1 sharing resources
B4-2 sharing ideas
B4-3 sharing information
B4-4 sharing innovative practices
B5-2 sharing positive experiences
C1-1 lack of cross department
C1-2 lack within departments teams
C1-3 lack in school teams
C2-1 disrupts teacher proximity
C2-2 enforced teacher involvement
C2-3 lack of TT coordination time
C3-1 subject identity conflict
C3-2 roles and responsibilities conflict
C3-3 privatisation practice conflict
C4-1 goals and purposes
C4-2 school structure
C5-1 a lot of work
The database linking of the tables allowed the iterative process to continue. Table
3.15.1 depicts the ‘quotations’ table. This table highlights the strength of the data
handling capacity of the database in the links between the fields of data labelled
quotations, participants, conception code and con2code (from Table 3.15.1). The
Con2code designates a ‘second round’ in the comparing, contrasting and grouping.
- 123 -
Table 3.15.2 Linking Groupings
Quotations
Participant code
Con code
quotation con2code
F6 04 The five of us may be, you are looking at a unit of work for a certain grade. A1-1
F8 04 There are other groups based on common subjects that we teach, supporting each other.
A1-1
F8 39 My team is the three people who teach common subjects with me. A1-1
MH2 04 We have a really good team in the marine area where they share and plan on a day to day basis.
A1-1
MH2 04 In marine and biology we have 4 or 5 people teaching in those areas and they work really well together.
A1-1
MH2 39 We are teaching a same subject and using similar resources you have a lot more in common with the people sitting next to you.
A1-1
M6 08 It was because we were teaching year 9 science, apart from doing all the other subjects.
A1-1
M4 04 There is a team relationship between the maths-science people who have been put in other staffrooms. We are teaching the same subjects, like year 8 maths or year 9 science, so it does require a distinctive approach at the different levels
A1-1
The relational nature of the data tables allowed sorting and re-sorting, to assist with
reflecting on the meaning groups. Using the database allowed the researcher to set
queries to check the relationships set up between proposed conceptions and
quotations. These queries ask the database to find the information from the tables
and place it together in new tables for analysis and checking for validity (Table
3.15.3).
Table 3.15.3 Subject Identity Query
Con2 & Quotations
con2code description
con2code Quotation Participant
code
subject identity A1-1 The five of us may be, you are looking at a unit of work for a certain grade.
F6
subject identity A1-1 My team is the three people who teach common subjects with me. F8
subject identity A1-1 We are teaching a same subject and using similar resources you have a lot more in common with the people sitting next to you.
MH2
subject identity A1-1 We teach in the same areas, same subjects. M3
subject identity A1-1 I see my primary team is the little group of 5 maths-science teachers in the middle school staffroom.
M4
subject identity A1-1 With them you get the sense of teamwork, teaching the same thing, and dealing with people regularly.
M4
The database was asked to run a query on ‘subject identity’. The results of this
query are presented in Table 3.15.3. The information retrieved linked together
subject identity, allocated codes, quotations and participant codes. This exercise
uses the relational nature of the information to check for meaning and develop
- 124 -
conceptions. The power of this data analysis technique is the intimate interrogation
of the data.
3.16 Tentative Categories of Description
The iterative processes using the relational database enhanced the extensive
checking and re-checking of the tentative categories by using the query process of
sorting the quotations according to similarity of meaning. The different meaning
groupings established in stage two were delineated into tentative categories of
description by merging understandings or images found in the data. The initial 48
meaning groups were reduced to eight by asking specific questions such as:
What is the nature of the understanding of teams and/or teamwork?
Are these understandings qualitatively different?
What are the links between these understandings?
Are the understandings different or a variation of the same theme?
Does the verbal description match the understandings?
Is the researcher’s bias evident?
Is there an appropriate description for each category?
Is the description accurate?
Are structural and referent aspects evident in the quotations?
(Costin, 1999)
It is recognised that the development of the unique categories of description are
identifiable, as this researcher recognises that the experiences of teachers may be
unique. In this stage there were statements about the essence of each category
with the structural and referent aspects developed. These were developed by
interrogating the data using the relational database queries. The analysis at this
stage of research is attempting to describe the conceptions of teams and teamwork,
as presented by teachers, and not the experiences of the researcher.
3.17 Declaring the Conceptions
The focus of the analysis was on the construction of the categories of description.
Each variance was identified and considered, the focal meaning established, and a
name attributed to the categories of description. Each category was checked in
order to establish its focus by:
determining if it has a sense of the wholeness, integrity and logical relations;
and
- 125 -
confirming the boundaries
The conceptions were declared by finalising a suitable expression for each category
description. The structural aspects of teachers’ conceptions are demonstrated in
relation to one another, as spatial arrangement known as the outcome space.
The analysis demonstrates the reduction process outlined earlier, where the
groupings stabilised to create some preliminary categories of description. These
preliminary categories were revealed through the relational nature of the data,
preliminary structural and referential aspects of the categories. The categories were
finalised by reflecting and checking the data groupings for meaning. The initial 48
grouping eventually revealed eight qualitatively different ways in which the
participants conceptualised teams and teamwork. The conceptualisations are
expressed as succinct presentations of the categories of description.
3.18 Categories of Description
Categories of description set out to discover and describe a research outcome
constructed to reveal the qualitatively different ways a teams and teamwork may
appear to the participant science teachers.
Marton (1988) suggests the category of description often encompasses a range of
differing content-relational, experiential and content-orientated images. The
delimitation of boundaries is a process of separating out the categories and making
the differences between them clear. This leads to categories of description that are
the results of interpreting multiple influences of the phenomenon on the participants.
An individual category of description is a constructed abstraction of the analysed
data which claims to represent the wholeness of a conception held about a
particular phenomenon (Svensson, 1997).
The analysis that leads to the development of the categories of description is
recognised as a second-order perspective: it is the researcher’s interpretation of the
data. This highlights that phenomenography is an interpretative approach and a
degree of uncertainty will exist in the mind of the researcher about the meaning that
is being generated. Herschell (1997) recognises the integration of the identifiable
aspects of each meaning into a statement of conception occuring in the mind of the
researcher. The subjectivity involved in establishing categories of description is
challenged by many researchers who favour quantitative approaches to research
- 126 -
(Entwistle, 1997). Clearly, this is not an issue as the research approach is based in
a non-dualist paradigm. However, it can be overcome in providing complete and rich
explanations of the research procedures used in identifying the categories of
description. Marton (1994b) argues:
as phenomenography is imperative or research, the research is not studying his or her own awareness and reflection, but that of the subjects. The interview has to be carried out as the dialogue; it should facilitate the thematisation of aspects of the subjects’ experience, not previously thematised (p.2).
In the development of the categories of description no attempt is made either to
standardise or to compare the different experiences. It is the experiences
themselves that are the object of this study.
Categories of description are not conceptions, but the researcher’s interpretation of
the way the participants in the study have experienced the phenomenon
(Thompson, 1998). They represent the conceptions of the phenomenon identified in
the analysis process. This leads to the proposition that the categories of description
are a model for representing conceptions that have been constructed from and are
revealed by the analysis of the data.
Categories of description enable the outcomes space to be developed, which Bruce
(1992) suggests is a visual or diagrammatic representation, which illustrate the
relationships between them. The outcome space represents the collective level of
reconstructed understandings of the participants (Marton & Booth, 1997).
The categories of description and the outcome space are presented in Chapter
Four.
3.19 Trustworthiness and Dependability
The traditional criteria for validity and reliability have their base in the positivist
research traditions. The definitions in this paradigm talk of ‘whether the means of
measurement are accurate and whether they are actually measuring what they are
intending to measure’ and ‘whether results are replicable’ (Golafshani, 2003). These
concepts it would seem do not apply to the qualitative research paradigm. Yet,
‘qualitative researchers are still traditionally expected to address issues of the
validity and reliability of their research,’ (Åkerlind, 2005).
Phenomenography is an interpretative process that represents data from second
order perspectives that correspond to descriptions of participant experiences of a
phenomenon.
- 127 -
Hence, notions of generalisability of a phenomenographic study can be limited.
However, the notions of generalisability can be considered in the sense that the
resulting conceptions present a range of ways of experiencing the team and
teamwork phenomenon and are constituted in relation to the specific group in the
study: the science teachers (Åkerlind, 2002). The samples as previously explained
were selected not to be representative, but were state wide in departmentalised
schools to present the maximum variation.
Phenomenography is an interpretive approach based in the qualitative paradigm.
The notions of reliability and validity might better be served by considering the
quality of the research. The quality of the research could be considered by using
concepts like credibility, trustworthiness and dependability (Guba & Lincoln, 1989),
not a test or search for correct interpretation (Marton & Booth, 1997; Sandberg,
1994).
Cope (2002) indicates that there is a place for the notion of validity in
phenomenography by saying, ‘validity of the phenomenographic study is claimed
through the full and open description of the method and results’ (p.71). The
presence of a detailed description is a measure of the internal validity of the study.
In this Cope (2002) suggests a number of steps to ensure validity. They include:
Information about the researcher’s background should be given;
Participant characteristics should be clearly stated;
Interview questions design justified;
Demonstration of unbiased data collection;
Demonstration of open minded data analysis;
Description of the data analysis process; and
Categories of description are fully described and illustrated by quotations.
(adapted from, Cope (2002), p.2)
Credibility, trustworthiness and dependability can be determined in the maintenance
of uniform research methods, where data collection procedures are consistent,
documented and applied with rigid adherence: a minimisation of variation. These
procedures have already been outlined. The adherence to the procedures was rigid
in that the same questions were asked, but the direction and subsequent
explanations of teachers’ experiences varied between participants. This is the
nature of phenomenography and the semi-structured interview.
- 128 -
The validity of the multiple interpretations of the phenomenographic data are
demonstrated through presentations at ‘research seminars, conference
presentations’ (Åkerlind, 2002). This can be a source of validity check. Marton
(1994b) argues that:
discovery does not have to be replicable, but once the outcomes space of phenomenon has been revealed, it should be communicated in such a way that other researchers could recognize instances of the different ways of experiencing the phenomena in question. (p. 4).
Communication of the results of the study was achieved in 2006 and 2007.
The results of the study were presented to five schools as the researcher’s
interpretations in August to October, 2006. The presentations were to science staff
meetings as a twenty minute ‘guest lecture’. The purpose of these sessions was to
present the research findings and seek feedback on the research conclusions. The
feedback from the science departments was positive, in that the teachers
acknowledged: ‘that is how it is’. The other interesting comment from the teachers
was, ‘So what, we have always known that! ’. These expressions suggest a
validation of the research findings.
The results of this study also were presented at the following seminars and
conferences:
Australian Science Education Research Association Annual Conference:
When is a team not a team? (Perth, WA, 2007);
Doctoral Student Seminar: Database and phenomenographic data (QUT,
2007);
Learning Management Conference: When is a team not a team? (Sunshine
Coast, QLD, 2007); and
Friday Seminar Series: When is a team not a team? (Charles Darwin
University, 2008).
The presentations outline above was designed to allow audiences to judge the
credibility, trustworthiness and dependability of the study by considering how the
science teachers in the study and the range of conceptual variation might be
relevant to similar populations of science teachers
.
The chapter presents the phenomenographic approach, research design and the
process of analysis. The phenomenographic approach was chosen due to the
- 129 -
nature of the research question: What are the conceptions of teams and teamwork
held by teachers in Queensland secondary schools? This approach allowed the
mapping of the qualitatively different ways science teachers experience the
phenomenon of teams and teamwork. The outcome of the research has been a set
teacher conceptions, as they are the personal conceptualisations of the participant
teachers who have discussed their experiences of the team and teamwork
phenomenon (Marton et al., 1993). The conceptions are presented formally as
categories of description in the next chapter. The chapter then discusses the
theoretical underpinnings of phenomenography with discussion about ontological
and epistemological considerations.
The following sections present the research design and the associated processes of
participant selection and demographics. It then goes on to explain the processes of
data generation and analysis to create categories of description and the outcome
space. This section presents a unique database developed by the research to better
manage and understand the transcript data.
The final section of this chapter presents a discussion about the trustworthiness and
dependability of the study.
The next chapter presents the conceptions of the team and teamwork phenomenon
held by participant science teachers’ in the Queensland secondary schools.
- 130 -
Chapter Four 4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the conceptions of the team and teamwork phenomenon held
by participant science teachers’ in fifteen Queensland secondary schools. The
chapter is constructed in three sections and begins with an introduction that
introduces the categories of description. This then leads to a detailed presentation
of the categories of description, where an overview of the categories of description
is presented followed by a detailed account of each category. The final section
describes the development of and presents the outcome space (Figure 4.1)
Figure 4.1 Chapter Four Outline
The research methodology defines a conception as a way of experiencing a specific
phenomenon. They are the personal conceptualisations of the participant teachers
who have discussed their experiences of the team and teamwork phenomenon
(Marton et al., 1993). The conceptions are presented formally as eight categories of
description.
The categories of description that emerge from the interview data have been
constructed by the researcher. These researcher constructed categories relate to
the ways in which the participant science teachers have experienced the
phenomenon and not the phenomenon itself (Bowden, 1994). They are considered
- 131 -
abstractions and represent the science teachers’ experiences of teams and
teamwork (Marton et al., 1993).
The relationships between the conceptions are represented as an outcome space.
This outcome space is presented as a concept map, demonstrating the relational
nature of the categories of description. The outcome space is defined by Marton
and Booth (1997) as ‘the complex of categories of description describing distinct
groupings of aspects of the phenomenon and the relationships between them’
(p.125) and so describes the range of conceptions involved in science teacher
participants’ experiences of teams and teamwork (Bowden, 1994).
4.2 Categories of Description
The study reveals eight categories of description. These categories will be
elaborated to describe each category, not define it. The elaborations will be
presented in the following way:
Each category of description will have associated discussion of the range of
conceptions presented by the participants using direct quotations from the
transcript data;
Referential aspects that define the category, with quotation illustrations; and
Structural aspects of each category that demonstrate the number of
conceptions. This presents the relationships between components (internal
horizon) and delimiting teams and teamwork from the background (external
horizon).
The referential or the “what” aspects reveal the meanings assigned to teams and
teamwork, as uttered by the science teacher participants. The structural aspects
disclose the ways in which the phenomenon of teams and teamwork are delimited
and related to each other (Marton et al., 1993).
The inclusion of direct quotations from the interview data illustrates the range of
experiences that reside within the identified conceptions (Entwistle, 1997). They
also provide a link between the experiences and the constructed category of
description. These links highlight the full meaning of the category, as suggested by
Entwistle (1997, p. 132) with the suggestion that the meaning of the category of
description ‘resides in the essence of the comments from which the category has
been constituted’.
- 132 -
4.2.1 Overview of the Categories of Description
The results of this research will describe teachers’ conceptions of teamwork and
teams as experienced in their everyday work. Aspects of everyday work include
activities related to the staffroom, social interactions, subjects taught and the
science department.
The experiences of teachers reveal memberships of multiple coexisting teams.
There is ad hoc sharing between teachers with social relations, others have an ‘ask-
and receive’ relationship in the subject team. There is no defined structure for
sharing, as the focus on immediate needs of the teachers. Teachers describe
experiences of support in their subject teams within their social relationships.
Teachers also report the valuing of diversity across the science department. The
science teachers who participated describe the use of their subject team as a
coordinating mechanism for subject team activities.
Teachers in the study also express experiences of teams and teamwork that include
incompatibility, conflict and non-functionality.
The eight categories of description based on teachers’ experience of teams and
teamwork are:
Category One: Teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork as multiple team
memberships. Teachers experience multiple co-existing team memberships in their
science departments.
Category Two: Teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork as ‘ad hoc’ sharing.
Teachers experience a variety of needs-based ‘sharing situations’ in their subject
teams. These are mediated by teacher social relationships.
Category Three: Teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork as support.
Teachers experience feelings of support, from those teachers in the same social
space and refer to these people as their team.
Category Four: Teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork as diversity.
Teachers experience and recognise diversity. Teachers value diversity amongst
those in the same social space and regard this diversity as representing the team.
- 133 -
Category Five: Teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork as a coordinating
mechanism. In the study, teachers experience teamwork as a coordinating
mechanism in their timetabled subject area.
Category Six: Teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork as source of conflict.
Teachers experience conflict with teacher colleagues, subject identity and de-
privatisation of practice, as part of their experiences of the team phenomenon.
Category Seven: Teachers’ conceptions of teams as structures that don’t work.
Teams are structures that don’t work in the experiences of science teachers in the
study.
Category Eight: Teachers’ conceptions of teamwork as conflicting with school
organisation and policies that don’t work.
Teachers, through their experiences report the deleterious effect that school policies
and organisational structure have on teams and teamwork.
The use of these formalised conception labels for each category of description is
designed to assist in communicating the range of conceptions of the team and
teamwork phenomenon (Bruce, 1996)
4.2.2 Details of the Categories of Description.
Category One:
Teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork as multiple team memberships
Teachers experience participation in a number of work and social associations in
their science departments. These associations are conceptualised as multiple team
memberships. These team memberships are described as simultaneous in nature:
they coexist. This conception suggests, in a hierarchical sense that the science
department is the overarching team.
These team memberships are expressed in Figure 4.2.2 which uses a concept map
to highlight the variety of team memberships described by the participating science
teachers. The multiple team memberships are related to the discipline of science.
For these teachers no team conceptions exist outside the science department.
- 134 -
Figure 4.2.2 Category 1: Multiple Team Memberships
This diagram indicates science teachers have experienced simultaneous team
memberships associated with the: staffroom, social, subject and the science
department.
Teachers describe their staffroom as more than a place or room in the school. The
staffroom is ‘pretty important’ (M3) and is described as ‘a major part of the team,
because the staffroom is a really good place to be. It is the focus’ (MH2) and ‘our
entire staffroom, it’s definitely a team’ (F6). The identification with the staffroom as a
focus of the team relates to positive ‘meaning making’ associations between
colleagues. The staffroom generates ‘a level of understanding where we can all
work together. It may not be the best, but we have reached that with the people in
the staffroom. The team works’ (MH1). This view of understanding is expanded
through the teacher relationships generated in the staffroom where, ‘I have a great
rapport with this group. We also sit together in the staffroom. The staffroom is the
centre’ (F8).
The staffroom is ‘a positive place. We have a few laughs, it’s the staffroom. The
teamwork that can only come with spending time with them’ (M3).
The staffroom conception provides a structure for positive social interactions,
relationships and understandings between colleagues.
Teachers describe the positive social interaction outside the school environment as
part of their conceptions of teams. They highlight the importance of the social
interactions as building aspects of teams,
There is a lot of team building that goes on, here and outside school. You know the BBQ’s together, camps and when you go away on camps,
- 135 -
excursions that sort of thing. Getting together outside of school time and in a way that’s about teams (F5).
This social interaction outside school hours is described as being important in team
relations: ‘We have a good time outside of school and within school; it’s about team
relations’ (MH2) and ‘the teamwork that can only come with spending time with
them’ (M3).
Science teacher conceptions of subject associations provide a description of team
membership. The subject association experience refers to the subjects the science
teachers are teaching at that time. This use of time refers to the year or semester:
the timetabled classes. The subject team conception describes the collegial teacher
work associations experienced by teachers teaching the same subjects: ‘My team is
the people who teach common subjects with me’ (F8).
The team is conceptualised by science teachers through associations with the
timetabled subjects. The timetabled subjects taught present a commonality of
purpose, when ‘you get a sense of teamwork, teaching the same thing and dealing
with people regularly’ (M4) and ‘It is because we are teaching year nine science,
apart from doing all the other subjects’ (M6). The commonality of purpose is centred
on the activity of teaching the subjects allocated in the timetable for that year. This
commonality of purpose described in the experience of teachers generates the
subject team aspect of the conception. As teachers are responsible for a number of
subjects, there are several coexisting subject teams.
The relationship described between the teachers and their subjects transcends the
staffroom. The teacher M4 was placed into a middle school staffroom with science
and non-science teachers, his experience was that, ‘there is a team relationship
between the maths-science people who have been put in other staffrooms. We are
teaching the same subjects, like year eight maths or year nine science’ and goes on
to indicate no team experiences with non science-maths teachers.
The science departments in the study provide teachers with a science team
conception through collegial interactions. Teacher MH1 describes collegial
interactions as helping each other by saying:
The strength of teamwork in a high school is within your subject department. We are a very good team in the science department and today is a very
- 136 -
good example of that. There are a number of different things going on, people willing to support and cover each other, to assist with things. (MH1).
The science team describes the science department as a structure in which collegial
interactions can occur. This collegial connection is epistemologically and discipline
based. Teacher F8 indicates the subject team exists ‘because we are similar people
in that we have the same subject area’, yet there is a recognition of difference
where, ‘we have very different teaching styles, completely different teaching styles,
but we have the same subject area’ (F8).
The science department team description recognises that each science teacher has
a variety of timetabled subjects within the science department and the wider school
environment, but the science department team is conceptualised as the overarching
collective. In that,
The teachers are teaching a range of subjects, they may be teaching Biology or even a maths subject. So, they have a range of subjects, so they don’t see themselves as purely a Biology or Marine teacher. We are all a part of science (F5).
Teachers within the science department experience no conflict between the science
department team conception and that of the subject conception,
‘I don’t see any problems between teachers of different subjects like Biology,
Chemistry or Physics. We are all science’ (M3).
The multiple team memberships coexist. These memberships are based on
subjects taught, discipline norms and values and social interaction.
The conception is represented as interacting and overlapping shapes representing
the various teams (Figure 4.2.2.1).
- 137 -
Figure 4.2.2.1 Category 1: Multiple Team Memberships: Coexistence
The Figure 4.2.2.1 sets out the relationships and structure of this conception. The
over-arching aspect is the science department team that has teacher members. The
teachers are members of a number of simultaneous teams within the science
department. They are staff room, social and subject. It should also be apparent that
not all in science are members of all the teams at the same time. The multiple team
membership conception is summarised in Table 4.2.2 which presents the referential
and structural aspects of this category.
- 138 -
Table 4.2.2
Category 1: Multiple Team Memberships
Teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork as multiple team memberships Category Features Key Evidence
Referential aspects Teachers experience multiple team memberships.
The teachers are teaching a range of subjects, they may be teaching biology or even a maths subject. So, they have a range of subjects, so they don’t see themselves as purely a biology or marine teacher. We are all apart of science (F5).
Structural aspects Teachers experience being a part of the science department. Teachers experience the staffroom as an important team. Teachers’ identify with a social team. Teachers have a strong association with the subjects that they teach.
My experience of teams is just the working within the faculty, in the science faculty in particular (M4). Our entire staffroom, it’s a team definitely a team, but there are a lot of segments and rules in that team’ (F6). There are other times when we get together to develop a social relationship. It's important for the team to be successful’ (F11). With them you get the sense of teamwork, teaching the same thing and dealing with people regularly’ (M4).
In summary, the category of description, Multiple Team Memberships describes the
different team memberships that science teacher’s experience. There are no
experiences of team memberships outside the science department. The science
department team membership is experienced as the overarching team membership
in teacher experiences. They are simultaneously members of other teams, based
on timetabled subjects. In the experiences of teachers the different team
memberships do not conflict with each other. Many teachers teach outside the
science department. These teachers do not see themselves as members of other
department teams, although they may teach in other departments.
The subject based staffroom provides a structural place in the school for
experiences of collegial and social interactions. The staffroom team memberships
conceptualised by teachers provides collegial connection between ‘subject teaching’
work of the teachers and the social needs of the teachers.
- 139 -
Category Two:
Teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork as ad hoc sharing
Teachers experience a variety of needs-based ‘sharing situations’ in science
departments. The sharing experienced is directly related to their current timetabled
subjects. This sharing is described as ad hoc: it happens when needed. There are
no experiences of any school or science department organisation or structural
components such as regular meetings or regular interactions for sharing in this
conception of teamwork.
The category describes the science teachers’ experiences of ad hoc sharing
focused on the individual needs of teachers. These experiences directly relate to the
timetabled subjects taught at that point in time. The conceptions of teamwork
describe the collegial interactions of sharing ideas, information, positive experiences
and resources. It is also evident that the social relations have considerable effect on
the sharing.
The range of experiences of sharing is expressed in Figure 4.2.2.2 and uses a
concept map to highlight the variety of sharing situations conceptualised by the
participating science teachers.
Figure 4.2.2.2 Category 2: Ad hoc Sharing
The science teachers’ conceptions of teamwork are expressed in the relationship
described by the collegial interactions the sharing of ideas, information, positive
experiences, teaching practices and resources.
- 140 -
Teachers experience teamwork as the ‘exchanging ideas and stuff’ (M6) and ‘the
sharing of ideas and resources, that sort of thing’ (M4).
The ad hoc sharing is for individual benefit in the practice of teaching within a
particular subject and year level. The sharing is to ‘to stimulate my knowledge, we
can talk about the same topics, share ideas and talk about them’ (F7).
The individuality of the sharing provides an opportunity for colleagues in the same
social space to engage with ideas as teacher F6 reflects:
It definitely helps me because I hear other people’s ideas and I get guidance to where I’m going. If it is crazy idea I can put it out there it can get put into a bit more structure’ and ‘if it’s a good idea then you will go with it or if it’s something that doesn’t really work then it doesn’t, no one will go with it (F6).
The science teachers ‘share information’ (M3), but it is to ‘small extent, it’s about the
group’ (M7).
The experiences of teamwork in resources, presents an important aspect of their
conception of teamwork. Teacher F6 indicates that ‘generally, it consists of people
that get together that get on together, respect each other and share things. I provide
them with resources. They even provide me with stuff, so we were sharing’ (F6).
The teamwork of sharing of resources is beneficial as it increases the efficiency of
the subject teaching practice because ‘it’s about sharing, not re-inventing the wheel
and not building things from the bottom’ (M7).
Teamwork experiences of positive emotions in the ad hoc sharing occur in the
timetabled subject teams,
You do because, you have that feeling that you have accomplished something in the end, almost a visual thing that everyone can see and be proud of the experience (F5).
These conceptions of teamwork contain no sharing experiences between subjects,
or between year levels in the same subject. The sharing experiences are only
described within timetabled subjects. There are no conceptions of sharing with other
teachers in year levels above or below the current year level taught. The essential
factor present in the sharing conception is effect of the social relationships that
constitutes a social space. Such sharing occurs feely between members in the
social space, within and across timetabled subjects. The sharing with members of
the science department who are not in social relationships, but are teaching the
same subject is on an ‘ask-and–receive’ basis (Figure 4.2.2.3).
- 141 -
Figure 4.2.2.3 Category 2: Ad hoc Sharing: Science Department
The representation of the ad hoc sharing also suggests that the social relationships
may be across subject areas. The Figure 4.2.2.4 is a visual representation for a
particular subject to enhance the description of this category.
- 142 -
Figure 4.2.2.4 Category 2: Ad hoc Sharing: Timetabled Subject Team
Within the timetabled subject team (Figure 4.2.2.4) sharing occurs freely between
teachers in the social space (social relationships). As an example, if the timetabled
subject were Year nine science, then there are teachers in the social space and
those who are not. These two different sets of teachers experience differential
sharing. Teachers in the social space share freely with each other. The other
teachers, outside the social space, share on an ‘ask-and–receive’ basis.
Table 4.2.2.1 presents the referential and structural aspects of science teachers’
experiences of ad hoc sharing as part of their conceptions of teams and teamwork.
- 143 -
Table 4.2.2.1: Ad hoc Sharing
Teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork as ‘ad hoc’ sharing Category Features Key Evidence
Referential aspects Teachers experience a variety of needs-based ‘sharing situations’.
Generally, it consists of people that get on together, respect each other and sharing things. I provided them with recourses. They even provided me with stuff, so we actually started sharing (M6).
Structural aspects Teachers share ideas. Teachers share information. Teachers in their teams share positive experiences. Teachers experience resource sharing.
We have lots of sharing of ideas (F8). A lot of sharing of information (M3). It’s about feeling good, being a group or being part of a group (MH1). There are a lot of sharing resources and things like that (MH2).
Category Two has explored science teachers’ conceptions of teamwork as ad hoc
sharing. Teachers present their experiences of teamwork as individual sharing
situations that are needs-based in science departments. This sharing is related to
their subject teaching practice. The sharing is described as ad hoc, as it happens
when an individual requires ideas, information or resources for their teaching
practice, with a preferential social relationship caveat. The sharing is experienced
between teachers of the same subject. The sharing experiences are directed
horizontally: within a subject and year level. The teacher sample presented no
experiences of vertical sharing: between year levels in the same subject, or
between year levels in different subjects. There are no mention of any structural
components such as regular meetings or regular interactions in this category of
description.
Category Three:
Teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork as support
The science teachers in the study conceptualise teams and teamwork as collegial
interactions that support their practice. These support experiences are based on
emotions. The range of experience of support is described in Figure 4.2.2.5. This
- 144 -
diagram uses a concept map to highlight the variety of support situations
conceptualised by the participating science teachers.
Figure 4.2.2.5 Category 3: Support
Category of description three describes the support that teachers experience by
team members in their teams: timetabled subjects, science department, social and
staffroom teams. Category three has four structural aspects: feelings of belonging,
social relations, mateship and feelings from colleagues.
The teachers studied conceptualise teamwork as, ‘support I suppose, whether it is
in class support or support by the activities outside the classroom’ (M7).
The teachers experience a range of positive feelings in being a part of the subject
team. This is mediated by their social relations. Teacher M6 expresses these
feelings, by saying, ‘the three of us come to work, you can’t put your finger on it and
it’s like chemistry or respect or some common thread of somewhere a feeling of
together’. This collegial experience is expanded with experiences of belonging
where, ‘working as a team, it’s a sense of belonging, a feeling of support’ (MH1).
The importance of the social relationships between team members is recognised
through the experience of team membership. The support is generated from the
close relations experienced by the science teachers in their timetabled subjects, ‘in
my team we are good friends, close bonds, you know each other’ (F11) and, ‘we
just work really well together, we just have a rapport with each other’ (F8). The
social bond in the team is expressed as mateship. The conception of mateship and
- 145 -
responsibility between team members is experienced by teacher M3 in saying, ‘it’s
that thing about not letting your mates down’ (M3) and ‘teamwork is sharing the load
with your mates’ (M7).
Teamwork in the coexisting subject and social team memberships is described in
terms of ‘supporting each other emotionally’ (F8). This emotional support is also
expressed as caring for the other. M6 explains, ‘when one of us is down, or
something like that, we can hone in on feelings for each other. It doesn’t have to be
work related as everybody has different crisis points in their life. So, I suppose it’s
those sorts of things is why we really get along’.
In this category of description science teachers describe experiences of supporting
each other. Support from team members is depicted in Figure 4.2.2.6.
Figure 4.2.2.6 Category 3: Support for Team Members
The Figure 4.2.2.6 highlights that the support is across all teams and again is
moderated by the social relations between the members. The participating science
teachers’ different conceptions are summarised in Table 4.2.2.2. This Table also
presents the referential and structural aspects of this category.
- 146 -
Table 4.2.2.2 Category 3: Support
Teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork as support Category Features Key evidence
Referential aspects Science teachers experience collegial support from team members.
It’s very supportive, it’s the understanding and it’s also getting inspiration from your peers. It’s just all of those things (F7).
Structural aspects Teachers experience a feeling of belonging from their team members. Teachers experience mateship and associated responsibility. Teachers experience emotional support. Teachers experience close social relationships
Basically, if you have a group of people working as a team, it’s a sense of belonging, a feeling of support and a sense of achievement, it’s a sense of we’ve done a good job (MH1). It's that thing about not letting your mates down (M3). When one of us is down or something like that, we can hone in on the feelings for each other. It doesn’t have to be work related, as everybody has different crisis in their life. So, I guess those sort of things apart from work is why we really get on (M6) in my team we are good friends, close bonds, you know each other’ (F11).
Team membership and teamwork, in this category are conceptualised by science
teachers as providing emotional support. The collegial interactions of support
conceptualised by team membership is in essence both ‘teacher work’ related and
social, because in all teams support is experienced. Emotions of belonging and
positive feeling of worth are experienced by science teachers in being part of their
particular team.
Category Four:
Teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork as diversity
The science teachers’ experiences of diversity are part of their conceptualisations of
team membership. Teachers acknowledge a range of classroom practices,
knowledge, skills and personalities in the science department and timetabled
- 147 -
subject teams. The experiences of diversity are positive in that they are valued for
what they provide to other team members. This is represented in Figure 4.2.2.7.
The Figure uses a concept map to highlight the qualitatively different aspects
conceptualised by the participating science teachers.
Figure 4.2.2.7 Category 4: Diversity
The representation depicts qualitatively different ways in which teachers experience
the diversity found in team membership and indicates three structural aspects:
classroom practice, content knowledge and skills and personalities.
In this category there is presented a general experience of diversity in the science
department, where there is ‘a diversity of people working on the teaching of these
subjects in the science department’ (M3).
The diversity of teacher classroom practice provides a structural dimension for this
category of description, where teachers experience as part of their teams a range of
content knowledge and skills possessed by their colleagues,
There are others that come in with totally different skills, equally good strengths in other areas. So, as the team changes it might change from people with more technical experiences to more curriculum stuff (M3).
and,
There is communication because each teacher just doesn’t teach one discipline, each teacher is teaching a number of subjects. That’s where the conversations will connect between each other. You might be talking about maths to one teacher, they also teach science as well and then another science teacher will come in on a certain aspect as well. It’s because you are teaching many disciplines not just one (F6).
- 148 -
This diversity is grounded in the subject team. The teachers accept and
acknowledge valuing of diverse aspect of classroom practice. This valuing is
articulated as beneficial to team members. Teacher F7 says:
We all know we teach in very different modes, different modes in the classroom. We have one that does the story telling, we have one that is a very practical person. I think we teach in different ways and that’s ok,
and,
‘One of the benefits is that you can actually get an opportunity to see other people teach, watch them give instructions. Learning how to give clear instructions limits the confusion, so I think that’s my job, being a team person. Others can learn from my teaching if they want that’s ok and visa versa (F7).
The science teachers interviewed indicated experiences of interplay between
different teacher personalities in their subject teams, ‘where we each have quirky
little things and we do things differently at times. We are willing to have a go’ (F8).
Science teachers describe in this category of description their experiences of the
valuing of team member diversity as part of teamwork conceptions.
The positioning of diversity is represented in Figure 4.2.2.8. The representation
describes the grounding of all three structural aspects of this category in the subject
team. However, there is a general experience of diversity with the three structural
components within the over-arching department team, hence the overlapping into
the science department team space.
Figure 4.2.2.8 Diversity in the Science Department
- 149 -
The participating science teachers’ conceptions are summarised in Table 4.2.2.3 by
presenting the referential and structural aspects of this category.
Table 4.2.2.3 Category 4: Diversity
Teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork as providing diversity.
Category Features Key evidence Referential aspects Teachers experience diversity of teacher classroom practice, knowledge skills and personalities.
One of the benefits is that you actually get an opportunity to see other people teach, watching them given instructions. Learning how to give clear instructions limits the confusion. So, I think that is my job, being apart as a team person. Other people can learn from my way of teaching, if they want that’s ok and vice versa, learn from them (F7).
Structural aspects Science teachers experience a range of classroom practices working in teams. There is experience of science teachers having a diverse range of content knowledge and skills. The teachers experience diverse personalities in their subject team.
I suppose it is a different way of thinking, so you are a team but teaching different subjects and you are not on the same thought path. So, we are a team, but on different thought paths, teaching in different ways (M8). There is the others that come in with totally different skills, equally good but their strengths are in another area. So as the team changes it might change from people with more technical experience to more curriculum stuff (M3). It’s about understanding the personalities and knows who you are working with and treating people in a respectful way (MH1).
The science teachers in the study conceptualised their team membership as valuing
the diversity possessed by science colleagues in subject teams and generally within
the science department team. There are experiences of colleagues in their team
providing positive influence in classroom practice, content knowledge and skills and
personalities. This category emphasises the diversity associated aspects of science
teachers’ conceptions of teamwork.
- 150 -
Category Five:
Teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork as a coordinating mechanism
In this study, the participating science teachers experienced their teamwork as a
coordinating mechanism grounded in the subject team. This coordinating is related
directly to the teaching and learning classroom activity (Figure 4.2.2.9). These
conceptions are considered as ad hoc in the sense that there is no organisational
structure apparent in the teachers’ experiences.
Figure 4.2.2.9 Category 5: Coordinating Mechanism
The representations of the categories’ structural aspects are set out as: scope and
sequence, assessment and new programs. This describes the qualitatively different
ways in which science teachers experience the coordinating mechanisms as a
component of the team conception.
The teachers acknowledge the coordinating experiences provided by the
collaborative aspects of the team structure. They work collaboratively in subject
teams to understand ‘where we are heading, what we are going to do, who’s going
to prepare the assessment piece. Just monitoring what’s going on, just making sure
we are doing the same thing in each of our classes ‘(M7).
The experiences of team membership are enacted through a ‘needs’ based
organisational principle. This coordinating is ad hoc in essence, with no definite
structure; membership or time scale experiences identified in the interview
transcripts.
- 151 -
The coordinating of student assessments is seen as an outcome of the team
structure and associated teamwork. Teacher F6 acknowledges her experiences of
the coordinating mechanism when she says, ‘where we are heading, what we are
doing, who’s going to prepare the assessment piece. ’. Teacher M4 makes a similar
point about assessment, ‘particularly looking at the changes in assessment. We
have changes in Biology, Chemistry and Physics assessment practices’.
The collaborative processes of coordination are also present in teachers’
experiences in maintenance of scope and sequence, in content and classroom
activities. The scope and sequence is within the subject team. The scope and
sequence experience is about ‘having contact to make sure we are all on the same
track’ (F11) and ‘getting together to make sure we are all at the same stage with our
classes...’ (F8). Science teachers in the study recognised the importance of
efficiency in their work as classroom teachers and team members, ‘Our teamwork is
vital, you need to be able to work together so you are not all doing the same thing
and not doubling up’ (F6).
Queensland’s Board of Senior Secondary School Studies provides a syllabus for all
senior subjects. The syllabus is used to develop a school work program. The school
work program defines the scope and sequence of content and types of assessment
instrument for the senior subjects in Queensland secondary schools. In this new
program context, science teachers experience teamwork in developing a new senior
work program for their school. Teacher M4 has experienced the ‘introducing of new
work programs in response to new syllabi. So, basically it is how we interpret the
syllabus: its structure, present and review our work programs. So, I think that is
primarily my experience of teams’. But not all teachers in the subject are involved:
‘There are only a couple of teachers working as a team, helping put the new
program together‘(F6).
- 152 -
Figure 4.2.2.10 Category 5:
Coordinating Mechanism Science Department
In this category of description science teachers describe their experiences of ad hoc
coordination mechanisms as part of their conceptions of team membership and
teamwork.
The participating science teachers’ different conceptions are summarised in Table
4.2.2.4 and presents the referential and structural aspects of this category.
- 153 -
Table 4.2.2.4
Category 5: Coordinating Mechanism Teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork as a coordinating mechanism.
Category Features Key evidence Referential aspects The team coordinating is based on the meeting of members own needs and their expectations.
We work really well together in a team; we meet and talk and know exactly where we are heading with our groups. I think it should happen more, other teachers knowing what kids have been taught (F6).
Structural aspects Teachers work together to coordinate their assessment tasks. Teachers recognise the importance of efficiency for their own benefit. Teachers experience collaboration to maintain scope and sequence. Teachers experience teamwork to achieve new program development.
When it comes to the end and the assessment piece, you can tell that you have all been teaching using similar materials and each of the students have benefited from us being a team (M4). Our teamwork is vital; you need to be able to work together so you are not all doing the same thing and not doubling up (F6). We get together to make sure we are all at the same stage with our classes. So, instead of working against each other, creating the same things or completely different things. The kids and the teachers obviously don’t benefit from that, we need to be teaching the same things across the classes to keep the assessment and work together (F8). Introducing new work programs in response to new syllabi. So, basically it is how we interpret the syllabus and structure and present our work programs, review our work programs. So, I think that is primarily my experience of teams (M4).
The science teachers in the study conceptualised their teamwork and membership
as an ad hoc coordinating mechanism based on teaching class allocation and
outside school imperatives such as new syllabus and work program development.
This conceptualisation is ‘needs’ based that focuses on current class allocations.
There are no experiences of definite structure, membership or time scales identified
through the interview transcripts. The collaborative aspects of teamwork are evident
- 154 -
in maintaining scope, sequence and assessment in at the subject level. Teachers
express teamwork in the development of new senior work programs, but not all
members of the team exhibit teamwork in this context.
Category Six:
Teachers’ conception of teams and teamwork as a source of conflict
Teachers in the study conceptualise teams as a source of conflict. The conflict
experiences are with colleagues as team members. There are four structural
aspects experienced as sources of conflict: team members, subject identity,
teacher role identity and the de-privatization of practice (Figure 4.2.2.11).
Figure 4.2.2.11 Category 6: Source of Conflict
Figure 4.2.2.11 visualises category of description six and identifies interpersonal
conflict (team members) and teacher professional conflict (role identity, subject
identity, de-privatisation of practice and team members) experiences. These
structural aspects are experienced in the subject team.
The teachers conceptualise team membership as a source of conflict, where ‘a lot of
times teachers are a bit guarded, may be a bit worried about the jobs, teams cause
the problem’ (M3). This quotation from Teacher M3 also identifies a conflict with
teacher role identity and subject identity.
The team member working with other team members experience conflict when, ‘we
are just not on the same wavelength’ (F8). Conflict is experienced by teachers in
their interaction with non-collaborative team members. Teacher MH2 indicates that,
- 155 -
‘there are heaps of people that come in, do their own thing, do their own planning.
They just use stuff that is given to them, but basically they don’t do any’.
This category of description emphasises the conflict teachers’ experiences in the
collaborative work of teams,
some teams work really well together, it depends on the experiences of the teachers, how experienced they are and how open they are to be working in groups (MH2),
and,
it is a comfort thing you have your established team you are working with, comfortable with. Most don’t want to know (M3).
The notion of values and the need for compatibility between science teachers is
present in the experience of working in teams. The ‘teamwork falls over when
people have different values’ (M6).
The conception of team membership conflict is further accentuated in the
experience of science teachers, in the attempts to collaborate with those who have
been teaching for many years. These teachers do not want to engage in teamwork.
…older teachers that I think make the job more difficult, where you are going to bring in change, they are older more resistant to change and can’t work together (MH1), and, …the more mature teachers are used to working in a particular way and don’t want to change, cause they know how it works for them (F5).
The teachers experience competitive behaviours and the de-privatisation of practice
with non-teamwork interactions which add to the conception of conflict in team
membership.
I see them being more competitive, more ownership: this is my stuff (F8), and, You can work together as a team or you can’t. Most can’t they just do their own thing (M6).
The science teachers conceptualised conflict through their middle school teams.
These teams are typically one science teacher teaching both Mathematics and
Science to the same cohort of students. This same cohort of students also is taught
by one teacher, teaching English and Study of Society (SOSE). These teachers
- 156 -
ideally work as a team to implement and design middle school curricula. Science
teachers in these middle school teams experience conflict attributed to differences
in subject identity: subject methodologies and subject content.
Well, in the staffroom where I am with the English-SOSE teacher, nothing in common (M6), and, The English staff sees me as a maths-science person that just shouldn’t be there. There are a certain few who I have formed a good friendship with and can approach. But, generally as a rule, that staffroom puts up a wall (F6), and, It’s like a major debate between maths-science and humanities area. We are a bit more content driven. You know we need to get through algebra; we need to get through fractions. We need to get through all the theory and background work, same with the science concepts. English, they might have to read one novel they have planned (F7).
The experience of different science teacher roles and identities are part of the
conceptualisation of conflict. The science teachers describe conflict that stems from
identity and role between senior school and middle school teaching responsibilities.
There was a real push to get some of our best teachers to teach in the middle school. To basically drive it and make it a success, but a lot of that was to the detriment of the senior subjects, different skills, different responsibilities and roles (MH2),
and This is not as important as the subjects with more rigor, say the senior subjects where the communication between the teachers is more important. The middle school is more about personality stuff (M4).
These conflict experiences are related to the teachers constructed subject identity.
This notion of subject identity conflict is further expanded:
If you are a teacher of one particular subject area, you have certain sets of values, so there are certain types of personality, that’s why you choose that topic and why you are in that subject’ and ‘sometimes it is that word survival and just trying to win your subject area. Therefore you don’t become mates with the other tribes that are battling with you all the time (F5), and, if you are not teaching in the same area they treat you a bit differently (M3).
- 157 -
The de-privatisation of teacher practice through teamwork is conceptualised by
science teachers as a facet of the conflict category.
teaching topics for so long they tend not to want to come out into the boundary area of teamwork,
and
When new ideas of working together are presented a lot of walls are put up and they say, they haven’t worked before or I’d be uncomfortable with that (F5).
The experience of conflict generated by teamwork is described when teachers have
their ‘own agendas’ (M6) and being ‘critical of working together’ (M6).
There are also conflicts described attributed to teachers not wanting to collaborate
at any level.
I’m into individual planning. I like to do my own planning, just do what I like to do (F11),
and,
There are heaps of people that come in, do their own thing, do their own planning (MH2), and I’ve experienced not wanting to get together or work together (F5).
The summary of the sixth category is depicted as a Figure (4.2.2.12) as a way of
representing teacher experiences of conflict in their subject teams.
- 158 -
Figure 4.2.2.12 Conflict Science Department
The subject team is a source of conflict through teacher interpersonal and
professional identity conflict experiences. The four structural aspects are situated
across the interpersonal and professional identity conflict areas. The conflict is
grounded in the subject department.
However, there is a source of conflict not depicted in this diagram and that is the
one evident in the middle school team. The conflict is about subject identity and will
be developed in a subsequent section.
The participating science teacher’s different conceptions of team related conflict
experiences are summarised in Table 4.2.2.5. This Table also presents the
referential and structural aspects of this category.
- 159 -
Table 4.2.2.5 Category 6: A Source of Conflict
Teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork as source of conflict.
Category Features Key evidence Referential aspects Teachers experience conflict in being a member of a team
You can work together as a team or you can’t. Most can't. They just do their own thing (M6). I think that comes from people’s egos, they think their subject is a bit golden (M3).
Structural aspects Teachers experience inter-personal relationship conflict with other team members. Teacher subject identity conflicts with teams and teamwork. Teachers experience conflict in de-privatisation of their practice. Teachers experience conflict in the roles presented in team membership.
When new idea of working together are presented a lot of walls are put up and they say, they haven’t worked before or I’d be uncomfortable with that (F5). I suppose in your corner with your tribe around you or your colleagues around you. Sometimes it almost feels like it’s a tribal thing happening in different subject areas (F5). I’m into individual planning. I like to do my own planning. I don’t like to do what other people are doing (F11). A lot of times teachers are a little bit guarded, may be they are worried about the jobs, teams cause a problem (M3).
The experienced interaction of teachers in teams in the secondary school science
departments studied is described as a source of conflict.
Conflict is conceptualised by teachers as not wanting to engage in collegial
interactions and not wanting to work on their own. A part of this conception is
expressed in experiences of teacher competitiveness in their teamwork interactions.
The middle school team experiences of the science teachers studied describes their
inability to work with other subject areas. The middle school team experiences
describe identity and role conflict of teachers, expressed as experiences of
dislocation from the school senior subject teams. These senior subject school
teams are considered to be more important than the middle school teams.
- 160 -
Category Seven:
Teachers’ conceptions of teams as structures that don’t work
Teams are structures that generally don’t work in the experiences of some of the
science teachers involved in this study. This category of description describes the
dysfunctionality of teamwork at a school, science department and subject team level
(Figure 4.2.2.13).
Figure 4.2.2.13 Category 7: Teams Don’t Work
Figure 4.2.2.13 represents the structural aspects of this category and shows the
relationships between them. The structural aspects are qualitatively different facets
that describe teachers’ experiences of non-functioning teams.
Teachers experience teamwork as not being ‘seen to any great extent’ (MH2).
There are experiences of teams not working, as teacher M6 suggests, ‘it doesn’t
work. It is not working, but people are not trying to make it work either ’.
At a school and science department level teams don’t work in the experiences of
some of the teachers. Teacher F11 says, ‘I haven’t associated teams with what
happens in this school’ and Teacher F8 puts doubt on the quality of teamwork in
schools by saying, ‘we might be in a staffroom with teachers from other faculties,
but the working together is not clear’. The non-sustainability of teams is indicated by
teacher F6 in saying; ‘In my professional work I find the teams break down and you
are left to do a lot of things on your own, just teach on your own’.
The notion of interdepartmental collaboration and teamwork is non-existent:
‘definitely not. No curriculum linking at all (F6) and ‘the working across subjects in
not promoted. The only time we get together is for a staff morning tea’ (F8).
- 161 -
The middle school teamwork conception held by some teachers is one of
dysfunction and a lack of teamwork, ‘the reality is I don’t know these teachers, we
don’t communicate’ (M4) and Teacher M3 believes, ‘it’s hard to form a team when
you have absolutely no contact with them’ (M3). The middle school teams have
teachers teaching the same groups of students but, ‘even though we teach the
same kids, we have nothing to do with each other’ (F8).
Teamwork at the science department level in the schools studied ‘breaks down
because the structure is not there, a set time or place where you can come together
and collaborate’ (F6).
Well, at a subject level there is none (M7),
and
I wouldn’t have classed it as a science team, maybe just a group of people (F11).
Teachers describe experiences in their day to day work, where they ‘don’t have any
team activities’ (M8) and ‘it’s really isolated’ (F8).
Yeah, there is a team here, but their communication is lacking. They seem to be focussed on individual efforts. Instead of communicating a great idea with everyone they would prefer to keep it to themselves, definitely not willing to communicate (F6).
Science teachers’ experiences describe teams as structures that do not work. This
is visualised in Figure 4.2.2.14 and demonstrates the relationships between the
elements.
- 162 -
Figure 4.2.2.14 Category 7: Teams Don’t Work: Science Department
The participating science teachers’ different experiences are summarised in Table
4.2.2.6 and presents the referential and structural aspects of this category.
- 163 -
Table 4.2.2.6 Structures that Don’t Work
Structures that don’t work
Category Features Key evidence Referential aspects Science teachers experience teams as dysfunctional structures.
This school was specifically organised to make people work together, the staffrooms were all structured for that, but it doesn't work (F8).
Structural aspects Teachers experience a lack of teams and teamwork at a school level. Science teachers experience no inter-departmental teamwork in their schools. Teachers experience a lack of teamwork in their science department and subject teams.
In school we are working together for a common goal, but I don’t really associate teams with school (F11). The experiences I’ve had here working in teams across subject areas, I thought it was always to do with time, but when we were given the time to get together and have meetings and it still didn’t come (F5). You tend to just go away and do your own thing, on your own. It just becomes another individual effort (F6).
This category has described teachers’ conceptions for teams that were seen as
dysfunctional. They describe the lack of teamwork at the school and inter-
departmental levels.
The lack of inter-departmental teamwork is referred to in the middle school and the
broader school context. The staffroom and social teams conceptualised by the
teachers have no negative experiences described, they seem to function.
Science teachers in this study also have experienced a lack of teamwork within their
science departments. This lack of teamwork is described in terms of a lack of
structure and communication.
Category Eight:
Teachers’ conceptions of teamwork as incompatible with school structure and
policies
The science teachers’ conceptions of teams as incompatible with school,
organisation structures and policies are visualised in Figure 4.2.2.15.
- 164 -
Figure 4.2.2.15 Category 8: Incompatible
School authority provides experiences of incompatibility with teams and teamwork.
The structural aspects of this category are school structures (buildings/staffroom
and school organisation (bureaucracy, timetable time, buildings, proximity,
leadership, bureaucracy, timetables and power hierarchy) and school policies
(enforced team membership, team development, team leadership, coordination time
and goals/purpose).
Teachers’ experiences in schools suggest that school organisation lacks purpose
and team goals, ‘In a team situation, you all have a common goal. I can’t see it’ (M5)
and teacher F5 echoes a similar experience when she says, ‘You need an outcome
and there are none’. These experiences of lack of goals and purpose also are
expressed in relation to the science department. The achieving of team outcomes
was not experienced in subject or department teams. Teacher MH1 suggests,
‘People lose the sense of focus of being in a team, unless there is a problem or
task, we don’t engage in this’.
They presented experiences of lack of leadership in their science department and
subject teams, where they ‘give us the outlines and we just go off and do our own
individual planning, we all just do that’ (F11).
The science teachers in the study experienced difficulty with school policies that
endorsed a lack of time for teamwork, ‘the time for any interaction is just not
available’ (M4) and,
there is a lack of time for that sort of thing, just no collaboration (M3), and There is not a lot of time for sharing of resources or in the team situation for deciding what is going to happen in the future (F3).
School polices often force team involvement and a dislocation of teachers from their
science staffroom. The resulting negative experiences are expressed:
I’m not in the same staffroom as the other people I work with on this subject. In fact I’m at the opposite end of the school; it just doesn’t work (M4).
- 165 -
The proximity of teachers is an important conception of teamwork: ‘without teacher
proximity, any chance of teamwork is lost’ (MH2). There are experiences of school
policy enforced team memberships. Teacher M6 describes,
People are put in a team, they are told to go in a team. Your timetable says you are teaching there and you are with a particular class, so you will be put together with these other teachers to work out what to do. It doesn’t work.
The structure of the schools in the study has led science teachers to experience
frustration due to the negative effect the structures have had on their teamwork. The
structures have a negative effect on the communication between team members.
We also have the added issue of different lunch hours between the junior and senior school (M4), and
I’m isolated down here. I made it, to go up there on a regular basis and talk to them about how they were going. So, I had to make an effort to make contact. You know the structure of the school makes it difficult for us to communicate (M6).
Science teachers describe in this category of description how the structures and
policies of the schools in the study make teamwork difficult. A summary of the
relationships between the structural aspects of the eighth conception is presented in
Figure 4.2.2.16.
- 166 -
Figure 4.2.2.16
Category 8: Incompatible: Science Department
The representation in incompatibility indicates the effect of school policies, structure
and organisation across the science team and the subject team. The participant’s
experiences are negative in that they inhibit teamwork. The structural aspects are
also summarised in the Table 4.2.2.7.
- 167 -
Table 4.2.2.7 Category 8: Incompatible
Teachers’ conceptions of teamwork as incompatible with school structure and policies.
Category Features Key evidence Referential aspects Teachers working in science departments have experienced school policies and organisation that have an adverse effect on teamwork.
It needs to be very structured to promote those things to happen and there aren’t any goals or structure (M3) The school organisation doesn’t allow us to work in a team (M3).
Structural aspects Teachers experience school difficulties with teamwork. Teachers experience the negative impact of school policies on their teamwork. Teachers experience incompatible school organisation on teamwork.
One of the biggest disasters is like maths where you have teachers spread all over the school that kills any teamwork (MH2). I don’t think there is much choice in the matter. It is one on your timetable and you will be in that team because that is the class that you have got and these are the people you will be working with. So, you don’t get much choice in the matter (F5). Team situation you all have that common goal. I can't see it (M5). The provision of time to allow the people to get together to share ideas and planning the units of work. That is never available in my experience, enough time to do the job properly (MH1). We also have the added issue of different lunch hours between the junior and senior school (M4).
Category of description eight highlights the negative effect of school policies,
structures and organisation have on teamwork in schools. The science teachers
experience a lack of communication with colleagues because of allocations in the
school timetable and staffroom allotment. The policies and structures do not allow
for timetabled teamwork time within work hours. There is experience of enforced
team membership.
- 168 -
There are eight categories of description constructed by the researcher. The
qualitatively different ways science teachers’ understandings or experiences of
teams and teamwork have been constructed (Figure 4.2.2.17).
Figure 4.2.2.17 Categories of Description Summary
Figure 4.2.2.17 presents as a set of ‘lived experiences’, each of which represents a
qualitatively different way of experiencing teams and teamwork. The Figure
demonstrates the relational nature of the categories to the investigated
phenomenon. There is no attempt to promote a particular positioning or order of
conceptions. This relational nature will be developed through the outcome space.
4.3 Outcome Space
In the previous section the eight conceptions were defined and their internal
relationships revealed. The outcome space investigates the relationships between
the eight conceptions and demonstrates the logical relations between these
conceptions based on structural and referential aspects. The outcome space
depicts the ’how’ and ‘what’ of the lived experiences and of teams and teamwork.
This is presented as a visual representation (Marton, 1988).
The outcome space presents the two interconnected elements: referential and
structural.
- 169 -
The Table 4.3 presents an intertwined relational matrix that demonstrates the
relationship between the structural, referent aspect and categories of description.
Table 4.3 Relational Matrix
CATEGORY
OF DESCRIPTION
Referential aspects
Structural aspects
1
MULTIPLE TEAM
MEMBERSHIPS
Teachers experience multiple team memberships.
The science department
The staffroom team
The social team
The subject team
2
AD HOC
SHARING
Teachers experience a variety of needs-based ‘sharing’ situations.
Share ideas
Share information
Share positive experiences
Share resource
3
SUPPORT
Science teachers experience collegial support from team members.
A feeling of belonging
Mateship and associated responsibility
Emotional support
Close social relationships
4
DIVERSITY
Teachers experience diversity of teacher classroom practice, knowledge skills and personalities.
Range of classroom practices
Range of content knowledge and skills
Diverse personalities
5
COORDINATING MECHANISM
Team coordination is based on the meeting the members own needs and the expectations.
Coordinate assessment tasks
Maintain scope and sequence
New program development
6
CONFLICT
Teachers experience conflict in being a member of a team.
Inter-personal relationship conflict
Subject identity conflicts
Conflict in de-privatisation of practice
Conflict in the roles.
7
DON’T WORK
Science teachers experience teams as dysfunctional structures.
Lack of teams and teamwork at a school level
No inter-departmental teamwork
Lack of teamwork in science department and subject teams
8
INCOMPATIBLE
Teachers working in science departments have experienced school policies and organisation that have an adverse effect on teamwork.
Negative impact of school policies on teamwork
Incompatible school organisation on teamwork
- 170 -
The relational matrix sets out all the categories of description and their respective
referent and related structural aspects. These are visually depicted in (Figure 4.3).
Figure 4.2.3
Relational Aspects The teachers’ conceptions demonstrate their logical connections when constructed
into a relational diagram. Each of the structural aspects is represented as a branch
from the conceptions. This logic presents a structure which, as explained by Marton
and Booth (1997), represents increasing complexity, 'in which the different ways of
experiencing the phenomenon in question can be defined as subsets of the
component parts and relationships within more inclusive or complex ways of seeing
the phenomenon' (p.125).
- 171 -
This phenomenographic outcome space reveals distinctive relationships about the
way in which teachers understand the phenomenon. It is also important to recognise
that this construction is a result of the researcher’s iterative investigation of the data.
The conceptions are used to develop a visual representation that is a metaphor for
the research findings. The purpose of the use of the metaphor is to assist in the
transferability of understanding by using concrete examples which may be more
familiar (Mailler, 2006).
The outcome space as a metaphor for teachers’ experiences of teams and
teamwork is presented in Figure 4.3.1.
Figure 4.3.1 The Outcome Space
- 172 -
The outcome space depicts a sphere sitting in a square hole. In the sphere there is
a large crack. There are a number of pieces of jigsaw puzzle with a variety of
humanoid Figures standing on the puzzle pieces. The pieces of puzzle represent
the teachers’ conceptions as revealed in the investigation. The humanoid figures
represent the structural aspects of each conception. Their placement on the puzzle
pieces indicates their relationship to the conception on which they are placed. They
were chosen as visual metaphors because they provide a visual link to the lived
experiences of humans in the science departments studied. The placement of the
pieces of puzzle in the sphere depicts the relational nature of the conceptions to
each other. All of the objects and their relative arrangements in Figure 4.3.1 provide
visual presentations of the conceptions of teams and teamwork (Nagel, 2004).
The sphere represents the first conception. It is the multiple team membership
conception: science department, timetabled subjects, staffroom and social. These
structural aspects of the team conception were found to co-exist. The sphere is a
shape that provides a visual metaphor for the coexistence of the teams in the
experience of science teachers. The sphere also portrays the bounded science
community found in the secondary schools studied. There is a piece of jigsaw
puzzle that is placed outside the sphere. This represents the teacher team
membership outside the science department. It is empty and there are no humanoid
figures, as the representation depicts no science teacher team memberships
outside the science department.
The visual metaphor for the incompatibility conception is a representation of the
multiple team membership sphere trying to fit into a square-hole (Figure 4.3.2).
Figure 4.3.2 Incompatibility
This conception reveals the incompatibility that teachers have experienced with
school policies and organisation in the pursuit of teams and teamwork. The square-
INCOMPATIBILITY SQUARE-HOLE
- 173 -
hole represents the structural aspects of the incompatibility conception: school
policies and organisation. The sphere of multiple team membership does not fit,
symbolising the incompatibility of teams and school organisation and policies.
The sphere has a crack going almost all the way through it. This ‘crack’ in the
multiple team membership sphere depicts the seventh conception: ‘teams don’t
work’ conception (Figure 4.3.3).
Figure 4.3.3 Don’t Work
The teachers in the study have described lived experiences of teamwork not
working. They identify teamwork not working in the science department and
timetabled subject teams. The crack as a visual representation continues down into
the square-hole of the school policy and organisation, signifying teamwork not
working at the school level.
The outcome space portrays a number of pieces of jigsaw puzzle. These represent
the remaining five conceptions: ad hoc sharing, support, diversity, conflict and
coordinating mechanism. The pieces of jigsaw puzzle were chosen as a visual
metaphor because when they are all together, they make a team with its associated
teamwork. The pieces of the puzzle are not together and indicate no
interrelationship or interdependence, as was predicted from the team literature.
Ad hoc sharing is the second conception (Figure 4.3.4).
INCOMPATIBILITY SQUARE-HOLE
TEAMS DON’T WORK
CRACK
- 174 -
Figure 4.3.4 Ad hoc Sharing
The ad hoc sharing conception is depicted by a piece of jigsaw puzzle sitting near
the other pieces. Its position reflects the ad hoc nature of the sharing between
science teachers within the timetabled subject team. This visual metaphor depicts
no connection with the other conceptions. The humanoid figures are metaphors for
the structural aspects of this conception: the sharing of ideas, information, positive
experiences and resources. These humanoid Figures are not connected with the
other humanoid figures because they represent a friendship group, distinct from
other humanoid figures. This arrangement portrays that the ad hoc sharing happens
between the teachers in a friendship group. These figures, as structural aspects
also represent the lack of any sharing structures in the coexisting teams present in
the science department.
The third conception revealed through the science teachers’ experiences is that of
support (Figure 4.3.5).
Figure 4.3.5
Support Support is shown as a piece of jigsaw puzzle with humanoid figures standing on it.
The piece of puzzle is a visual metaphor for the support conception. It has the ability
to link to the other pieces, but does not. The conception sits adjacent to the diversity
conception. Its position reflects a structural link with the diversity conception. The
humanoid figures again represent structural aspects of the support conception:
feeling of belonging, mateship, emotions and social relationships.
- 175 -
The fourth conception depicted, diversity, in the outcome space has a similar format
to the previous two conceptions (Figure 4.3.6).
Figure 4.3.6 Diversity
Diversity as a piece of jigsaw puzzle indicates that it could fit together with the other
conceptions. The figures on the puzzle represent the structural aspects of the
conception: classroom practice, content knowledge and skill and personalities. The
puzzle piece is placed in the outcome space adjacent to the conception of support.
This visual link between diversity and support is expressed though the teachers’
lived experiences.
The team conception as a coordinating mechanism is also a piece of the puzzle,
again not connected to the other conceptions. The three humanoid figures depict
the structural aspects of this conception: assessment, scope and sequence and
new program development. They are grouped together indicating the importance of
friendship groups within the multiple team sphere.
Figure 4.3.7 depicts the sixth conception: teams as conflict and is also represented
as a piece of puzzle. This piece of puzzle is a different shape and it will not fit into
the other pieces depicted in the outcome space. This visual metaphor presents the
divisive nature of conflict in the team and teamwork.
- 176 -
Figure 4.3.7 Conflict
The piece of puzzle is also marginally outside the multiple team membership sphere
and depicts conflict breaking though the science community again to portray the
divisive nature of conflict. The conflict piece of puzzle is isolated from all others and
represents the lack of any structures in the sphere for dealing with team conflict.
This conception has four structural aspects revealed by the participating science
teachers. They are interpersonal, subject identity, de-privatisation of practice and
roles. These are represented as four humanoid figures.
The outcome space presents a visual metaphor that is structured to depict individual
experiences of teams and teamwork. It describes an interpretation that serves as
‘whole picture’ view of the different ways of experiencing the phenomena amongst
the science teachers interviewed.
This is a researcher constructed interpretation of the phenomenon, the collective
experience of teachers’ experiences of teams and teamwork. The construction and
subsequent interpretations are based in the interview data provided.
The outcome space has depicted a sphere of multiple team memberships that does
not fit into the school policies and organisation represented by the square-hole at
the base of the diagram. Teams don’t work in the lived experiences of science
teachers’; this is depicted as a crack in the sphere of multiple team membership.
Conceptions as visual metaphors are also represented as pieces of jigsaw puzzle.
These pieces of puzzle do not fit together in the experiences of teachers. The
conflict conception is illustrated by a very different shape and will not fit with the
others, as it is divisive. Teams and teamwork are a human endeavour, so the
structural aspect of the conceptions uses humanoid figures as visual metaphors in
the outcome space.
- 177 -
This chapter has presented and clarified the qualitatively different ways that science
teachers conceptualise teams and teamwork. The researcher has given meaning
and used evidence to clarify the construction of the categories of description
(Entwistle, 1997). The categories represent a researcher constructed description of
science teachers’ personal experiences of teams and teamwork. The outcome
space presents a visual metaphor of the relationship between the eight conceptions.
- 178 -
Chapter Five
The chapter seeks to explicate the meanings of teams and teamwork in the context
of the current team literature in Health, Sport, Industry and Education, teacher
collaboration, teacher identity and school organisation.
The chapter presents a discussion of the conceptions in the following order: school
organisation and policies; not working and incompatible; the science department;
diversity; sharing; support; coordinating mechanism and conflict (Figure 5.1). It then
compares the contemporary literature on teams considering team processes,
teamwork, collaboration and teacher work using the theoretical model generated
from the research in order to examine their congruency.
Figure 5.1 Chapter Five Outline
This comparison will highlight discrepancies that will inform possible
recommendations and applications of the research findings in Chapter Six.
- 179 -
5.1 Introduction
Education theorists have used the models of teams and teamwork from Health,
Industry/ Commerce and the Sporting sphere to present teams in Education, as
evident in current teachers’ professional standards. The team presents as an
organisational construct for ensuring collective achievement for the benefit of the
individual and the organisation.
This view of teams and teamwork in Education is not supported by the current
study.
While Schamber (1999) proposes that the purpose of the team in Education is to
provide an organisational framework that allows the establishment of an
atmosphere for sharing of ideas and professionalism, Barker et al. (2005),
Hargreaves, (2000), Imants et al. (2001), and Joyce et al. (1999) see teamwork as
collaboration with propensity to empower teachers, provide social support, a sense
of belonging which could lead to an improvement in the quality of teaching and
learning. The team as a collectivistic and collaborative culture has a major benefit in
allowing multiple perspectives of teachers to participate in solving school problems.
The complex interaction of differing teacher perspectives serves to develop
emergent solutions to the everyday issues of teacher work. The position of teams
and teamwork suggested by the literature are congruent with the ‘education ideal’ of
teams. This study does not support ‘education ideal’ notion of teams or teamwork.
The current study demonstrates that an overarching team bounded by the science
department. Within this team there are the timetabled subject team and social
teams (Figure 5.1.1). The Science teachers (A, B, C & D) are all in the science
department team and staffroom. The team conception presents as multiple team
memberships and the visual presentation demonstrates the overlapping nature of
the teams and the mediation experienced by the teacher social relationships (Figure
5.1.1).
- 180 -
Figure 5.1.1 Team Conception
Analysis of science teachers’ conceptions reveals that they are all members of the
science department and members of ‘the staffroom’, as ‘the staffroom’ is the
science staffroom. They correspond with each other; however a science teacher in
the science department team can be in or out of the social team. Teacher A is in the
subject team and in the science department, but does not have a social relationship
with Teachers B, C or D. Teachers B and C are both members of the subject team
and have a social relationship. This social relationship determines the collaborative
relationships between these teachers. Collaborative relationships are the social
relationships. The team experience of teachers suggests that Teachers B and C
collaborate to realise the benefits of teams and its associated teamwork. Science
Teacher A is not in the social relationship and will experience little benefit in the
team. But, Science Teacher A still recognises himself/herself as part of the subject
team with no collaborative benefits of the team membership. The results of the
study indicate that science teachers have experienced in-social and out-social
relationship bias within the science and subject teams.
A team is considered through the literature as an extension of an individual’s need
to be a part of a structure that provides cognitive and emotional alignment. This
- 181 -
alignment puts forward the notion of achievement through the social identification
within the team and brings team process of alignment or re-alignment in behaviours
through cognitive and emotional change in individuals (Lembke & Wilson, 1998).
Eisen (2000) develops the importance of relationships between teachers in teams
by suggesting that teachers are ‘attracted to teaming precisely because it creates a
social context amongst peers that promotes professional development opportunities
and diminishes the isolation of the teaching profession’ (p.11).
In the identified conceptions of science teachers, the social identification has little to
do with the team formation or maintenance, as the team is conceptualised around
the teacher’s everyday work: teaching science subjects in the science department.
The social context is not created by the team, as teacher social relationships
mediate the teamwork. The conceptions support the notion of teamwork as
collaboration between teachers that have a mutual social relationship. The social
context promotes collaboration in the team and diminishes the isolation of teaching.
The team, as presented in this study presents no relevance to professional
development opportunities in the experiences of science teachers, as no learning
occurs in the professional community sense.
The research has revealed that in the experiences of science teachers, teams as
usually defined outside education are dysfunctional: they either do not exist or do
not work, yet the participating science teachers have experienced multiple team
memberships. Science teachers experience incompatibility with school policies and
organisation as it hinders their understanding of the team and teamwork ethos. The
teachers also experience the positive understanding outcomes of team
membership: sharing, support, diversity and coordination. These research results
would appear to be in mutual conflict, as opposing conceptions coexist. These
conceptions appear to be paradoxical; however, they are internally constructed
relationships between the science teachers and the world around them. The
research approach is non-dualist and posits a worldview constructed of descriptions
through the senses and experiences. It presents a reality as a non-separation of
subject and object. The conceptualisation of the world around the participant
science teachers creates knowledge: it is their reality, but one that has multiple
perspectives that coexist and are not in conflict.
Team membership is based on the collective notion of the science department, the
staffroom and the teachers’ timetabled subjects within the science department.
- 182 -
However, it is questionable whether any of these teams in the secondary school
science departments actually exist in the sense presented in the conventional team
literature.
The bounded entity of the science department is referred to as a team, as is the
timetabled subject entity. The term ‘team’ is used for any collective of science
teachers, hence the conception of multiple memberships: department, subject,
staffroom and social. The use of the word ‘team’ for any collective, whether the
teachers participate or not in the collective, suggests that the conception of a team
is an ‘untested’ assumption, whereby teams are a collective of individual teachers,
so any collective, whether one participates or not, is referred to as a team. This
conception of teams suggests a divergence with the conventional team literature. In
such literature, a team is considerably more than a collection of individual teachers
bounded in their timetabled subjects, staffroom or science department.
In terms of teamwork as defined in the conventional literature, teachers experience
almost no aspects of teamwork. What is also evident is the limited collaborative
work of teachers. These limited aspects of teamwork are mediated by social
relations (friendship groups) within the timetabled subjects. Teacher social
relationships are the central ‘glue’ in their conception of ‘teamwork’. The evidence
suggests that there are collegial relationships that purport to be teamwork in
timetabled subject groups, but only within the limits of teacher social relationships.
The benefits of teamwork accrue for science teachers who are friends.
Teachers present experiences of teacher diversity and have no conception of using
this valuable resource for teacher learning. This is most evident at the science
department level. It is also evident that there is barely any recognition of diversity of
knowledge and skills in teachers of other subject departments or at a school level.
However, in the context of collaboration between teachers in social relationships, it
can be assumed that some learning and pedagogical development might occur. Put
another way, if we are friends and teach the same subject, then we recognise and
value the diversity of the knowledge and skills of our friends and work with them to
develop our ideas and skills.
5.2 School Organisation and Policies
The team literature for Sport, Health, Industry and Education posit teams as an
organisational framework with defined structures and procedures for collegiality and
collaboration. Baker et al. (2005) and Hargreaves, (2000), amongst others, suggest
- 183 -
that the presence of an organisational frame through the policies, procedures and
the organisation of work is a commitment to teams and teamwork.
The conceptions presented by science teachers indicate there is an
acknowledgement of policies or lack of policies that lead to experiences of inhibitory
procedures and organisational structures for teams and teamwork.
Authorities external to the subject department: school administration, Education
Queensland and the Queensland College of Teachers require teachers to work in
teams, as outlined in Chapter One. This is a fundamental change in the official
nature of teachers’ work.
Teams change the focus of teacher work from an individual orientation to a
collective orientation. This change can be considered as both a teaching task
reassignment and a teaching task redefinition. Mayrowetz and Smylie (2004) see
‘the creation of teacher teams within a school is a collective redesign, but depending
on the tasks performed, the effort could be construed as either a reassignment or
redefinition’ (p. 279). Such a fundamental change: task reassignment and task
redefinition has considerable effect on teachers’ professional identity in personal
interpretive framework which is subject to a number of positive and negative
influences through policies and procedures applied to teachers’ work.
In the model of Teacher Job Characteristics (TJC) developed in Chapter Two from
the work of Hackman and Oldham (1980) and Pounder (1999), there are a number
of aspects of the science teacher’s every day work that are affected by a task
reassignment and task redefinition in schools. These aspects include: dealing with
others, skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, discretion, feedback
from teaching and feedback from others. Each of these aspects of the science
teacher’s role in the department has personal, situated and professional identity
aspects that will be affected by teamwork and teams. Teachers’ professional identity
has a direct role in the decisions teachers make in the resolution of tensions and
contradictions in their practice. The process of resolving the contradictions and
tensions draws on their constructed identity (Enyedy et al., 2006). In considering the
discourse of science teaching, teachers are making decisions about classroom
practice, communication relationships with colleagues and social networking. These
aspects of science teachers’ everyday work are vulnerable to contradictions and
tensions brought with identity change. Flores and Day (2006) suggest that
professional identity will contribute to teachers’ self-efficacy, motivation,
commitment and job satisfaction.
- 184 -
A commitment to teams and teamwork has been established as an organisational
frame that is supportive through the presence of policies, procedures and work
organisation. The research reveals, through the analysis of teacher experiences that
no such policies, procedures or structures to enhance or support team or teamwork
exist. Any notion of teacher teams being recognised and supported through the
school bureaucratic structures as a formalised or centralised part of the school
organisation is not apparent. The codified set of rules, procedures and policies that
make up the school authority provide no evidence of teacher teams as an important
aspect of teaching in the secondary schools studied. There is ‘a lack of recognition
of teamwork or just not working’ (M3).
In an externally imposed change in the collaborative arrangements of teachers’
work, it might be expected to be supported by stated beliefs, values and structures
of the schools. There is no evidence of team values or belief systems at a school
administrative level in the schools studied. As teacher F11 indicates, ‘I haven’t
associated teams with what happens in schools’. Teams, it is suggested in the
conceptions, play little part in the school organisation. The lack of school
administrative support is highlighted, as Teacher M3 indicates, ‘Teamwork is not
promoted much’ and Teacher F6 states that teamwork breaks down ‘because the
structure is not there’.
The benefits of teamwork as espoused by Friend and Cook (2000) with others,
suggest active and close participation in tasks and sharing with each person having
equal power in decision making. Team members are working towards a common
goal, with each person sharing in the decision making processes and individuals
contributing to the accountability of the outcomes of decisions. This view of
teamwork is not supported in the conceptions of teamwork presented in the study.
It is difficult to reconcile the conceptions’ teachers’ hold of teams and teamwork with
the lack of policy and structural support for teams, when the Queensland College of
Teachers requires teachers to:
actively contribute to a range of school based and other professional teams to enhance students learning, achieve school objectives and improve the teaching and learning process (p.15).
The data analysis suggests a lack of congruence between the Teacher Standard
expectations of the Queensland College of Teachers and the school administration
policy and structural support for such requirements. This notion points to a central
question for further research: Considering the legislative requirements for teams in
- 185 -
Queensland secondary schools how do school administrative systems implement
teams in departmentalised schools?
There are teams supported by policy and structure in the schools studied. However,
they are not teacher teams, but are Senior Management and Executive
Management teams as part of the school management structures. Subject
departments are represented in the Senior Management team, a middle
management structure, by the Heads of Department. This is the extent of the
demonstrated commitment to the values and beliefs of teamwork in the schools in
the study.
If the point of establishing teacher teams is to reinvigorate schools to counter the
effects of conventional institutional structures and bureaucratic management
thinking then, in the cohort represented in the study, little has been achieved. The
schools in the study present institutional structures that have not changed to
embrace teacher teams. The school ‘pyramid of hierarchy’ model’ (Figure 2.2.3.1)
developed in Chapter 2, suggested that the subject departments were at the base of
the vertical hierarchy.
In Chapter 2, the subject departments were depicted as forming multiple
independent bases of the pyramid. This arrangement is confirmed by the present
research. It reveals that, in the studied schools, there is no recognition of teacher
teams. Science teacher teams play no part in the organisational power structure of
the schools. However, this research makes no claims about the teacher teams in
other subject departments, as this is out of scope for the study.
Science teachers’ conceptions of teams confirm that the subject departments in the
schools studied are independent entities that do not interact with other departments
in any team manner.
Conceptions of teams and constituted science departments confirm Bourne’s (2003)
and Siskin’s (1994) notion of boundaries between subject departments. The
horizontally bounded subject departments are a significant part of the discourse of
the secondary curriculum and the subject departments are specialised in their
pedagogical discourse. This finding is supported in the participant expressions of
strong classification and framing present in their science departments.
- 186 -
This specialised discourse of science underpins a number of conceptions identified
in the study. Teacher MH1 believes the ‘strength of teamwork in a high school is
within your subject department’. For science teachers the team focus is the science
department: the over-arching team. The conceptions of teams reveal that science
teachers regard themselves as a team, as they are members of the science
department even though their conceptions differ from these presented in the
conventional team literature. Furthermore, teacher teams do not appear in any
aspect of the vertical hierarchical structure of the schools.
If the introduction of teams were to produce flatter managerial systems, where
teachers are empowered to have increased input into the decision-making process
of the school, then this too has failed to be achieved. School policies and structural
organisation to support the empowerment to develop both collegial and the
collaborative features of a school culture of teacher learning in an innovative work
environment are nowhere apparent. The collaborative and collegial features of the
schools are hindered as, ‘you know the structure of the school makes it difficult to
communicate’ (M6).
Throughout the conventional team literature teams are highlighted as increasing of
the collaborative work of team members (Baker et al., 2005; Cannon-Bowers &
Salas, 1997; Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Pineda &
Lerner, 2006). Collegial professionals build strong professional cultures of
collaborative practice to develop a common purpose and to cope with uncertainty
and complexity (Hargreaves, 2000). Imants et al., (2001) emphasises the
importance of teams in developing collaborative teacher practice:
teacher empowerment and integration of fragmented structures in schools can be promoted by creating autonomous and self-regulating teams. Both collegial and the collaborative features of the school culture are conditions that support teacher learning and commitment, and the provision of a supportive and innovative work environment, should be emphasised. Instead of creating a new isolated structure at the school level, the challenge is to promote linking structures in which the classroom level and the school level are closely connected and are treated as interdependent contacts for teacher learning and innovation (p. 303).
According to Maeroff (1993) the benefit of the team is the organisational framework
for collegiality and an opportunity for collaboration between subject areas. This
clearly is not the case in the conceptions of the teachers in the secondary schools
studied. As, teacher M3 says: ‘It’s the idea of working with a bigger group we might
be able to achieve more, instead of the fragmentation that exists’.
- 187 -
Foley (2001) suggests that the horizontal structures provided by teams are an
alternative to the traditional hierarchical organisation. Teams do not have any
horizontal place in the school organisational structure. It also can be speculated
that this is a function of the lack of any school beliefs, values or policies concerning
teams and teamwork. Teams are not apparent across the school departments. The
notion of interdepartmental collaboration and teamwork is non-existent: ‘definitely
not. No curriculum linking at all’ (F6) and ‘ working across subjects in not promoted.
The only time we get together is for a staff morning tea’ (F8).
Day et al. (2006) reveal that ‘for secondary school teachers, subject and its status
are related most closely to identity’ (p.611). This is also the case in the secondary
schools studied. The subject boundaries reinforce the ‘difference’ between subject
departments in secondary schools. The horizontally bounded subject departments
are considered to be part of the discourse of the secondary curriculum, where
subject departments provide a specialised discourse with space to develop their
unique identity. Teacher MH1 acknowledges that his ‘experience is as a teacher; we
get locked into faculty areas, our curriculum areas, our subject areas’.
In subject departments teachers select meanings relevant to their pedagogical
practice and consequently highlight those that are irrelevant to that particular
subject area. For science teachers, the meanings they construct for their subject
specialisations create boundaries between the subject areas in secondary schools
that are reinforced by the concepts of legitimate and illegitimate communication.
The reality is ‘I don’t get to know these teachers, we don't communicate, say
teacher (M4) and Teacher F11 indicates the width of the boundaries by saying ‘I
wouldn’t even know what they are doing, and they don’t know what we are doing’.
These quotations reinforce the presence of experienced boundaries between the
subject areas in the school structures. This Bernsteinian view of the school structure
and the place of the subject department implies that the boundaries between
subject departments found in secondary school restrict teacher-teacher
collaboration in cross-departmental teams. These boundaries in essence are a
function of the specialisation of the departments. However, the boundary structures
are also a function of the school policies that reinforce the ‘classic’ departmentally
organised school. The specialist knowledge that teachers hold is not widely
respected.
- 188 -
School polices have provided no support for the cross departmental teams, ‘It’s hard
to form a team with people you have absolutely no contact with or connection with’,
says Teacher M3. Teacher F5 points to the issues of organisation and time at a
school policy level being inhibitory when she says, ‘The experiences I’ve had here
working in teams across subject areas, I thought it was always to do with time’.
Teacher M3 also points out issues with the school structures in suggesting: ‘It is a
more effective school with teachers working with each other across subjects, but I
think the school needs to be structured differently’.
The teacher experiences of teams across the schools in the study lack any notions
of collegial professionals building strong professional cultures of collaborative
practice. This notion of developing a common purpose and to cope with uncertainty
and complexity is not apparent in the school culture, as demonstrated in the lack of
the team support in the school structure and organisation. The school organisation
reflects that of classic secondary schools: departmentalised culture with lack of
support structures to assist in the collaborative processes across the schools.
There are no experiences contained in the teacher’s conceptions that indicate any
recognition at a school level of the value of the specialist skills of teachers. There
are few policies or structures that recognise the specialist knowledge that could be
complimentary to or used to value add to subject departments or the school.
There is evidence through the lived experiences of teachers, as revealed in this
study that policy and organisational structures of the schools studied is having a
detrimental effect on the cohesiveness of the school as a whole. There is ‘a
situation where people are isolated from what’s going on’ (F8). Teacher M3
indicates, ‘we are a weaker school for being so fragmented’ and also indicates that
‘school organisation doesn’t allows us to work in a team’.
Joyce et al. (1999) recognise that teams bring an increased sense of belonging and
reduce stress, isolation and feelings of alienation. The team as revealed in the
research suggests a sense of belonging for science teachers.
The pyramid based 3-dimensional team model presented by Yeh et al. (2006)
presents a base on which the team sits (renewal, development, formation) and the
pinnacle (team goal). The current research suggests that these aspects of teams
are not apparent in schools. When talking about team development Teacher F11,
comments: ‘there is no skill development at this place or any school I’ve been at, no
purpose to work together’. Science teachers’ experiences of team renewal and
- 189 -
formation suffer from the same lack of policy and organisation at a school level.
Teacher M3 says, that a team ‘needs to be very structured to promote those things
to happen and it isn't: no goals or structure’. This model when used to interpret the
teachers’ conceptions suggests a structure without base, sides or a pinnacle.
Considering that the original pyramids of Egypt were made of stone blocks, the
conceptions of a team present as a few scattered blocks on the ground and align
with the isolated pieces of jigsaw puzzle presented in the outcome space.
A common thread from the team literature is that teams are made up of individuals
who collaborate to achieve some defined goal or task. These science teachers
acknowledge a lack of goals or purposes for teams in the schools. Teacher F5
comments: In a ‘team situation you all have that common goal. I can't see it’. All the
schools in the study have mission statements, goal statements, values and belief
statements published on their websites. However, there is no articulation of
statement about teams or a belief in the value of teacher collaborative work. This,
again points to the notion of teams and teamwork not being considered important in
schools by the schools themselves.
The team literature identifies the importance of having the ‘right people’ in a team.
Teams perform significantly more consistently at a higher level when the team
membership is balanced. Belbin, (1993), Prichard and Stanton, (1999) and
Mourkogiannis, (2007) highlight the importance of a combination of individual team
roles and technical skills, articulated as a variety of knowledge and skill enacted
through the cooperative and collaborative complex interactions between members
are necessary to demonstrate a high level collaborative outcome. The importance of
team skill diversity highlights the complex, dynamic and multilevel nature of
teamwork.
However, in schools, the need for the ‘right teachers’ working together appears to
be considered neither relevant, nor understood by school administrations. School
policies sanction enforced team membership, as teacher M6 describes, ‘People are
put in a team; they are told to go in a team. Your timetable says you are teaching
there and you are with a particular class, so you will be put together with these other
teachers to work out what to do. It doesn’t work’.
In sum, science teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork reveal no team
development, renewal or processes for formation of teams as described in the
general literature on teams. This lack of team development posits a lack of
leadership at the school administration level and an absence of school structures or
processes.
- 190 -
This study of the science teachers’ conceptions reveals that teams are
conceptualised as dysfunctional, do not exist or do not work in the schools. A model
for understanding the negative team and teamwork conceptions held by teachers
recognises teamwork as an activity has three components: transition processes,
action processes and interpersonal processes (Pineda & Lerner, 2006). These
three components lead to a positive team outcome: perception of goal attainment,
satisfaction with team experiences and perception of skill improvement and
understanding of teamwork.
Science teachers recognise that there are no team outcomes. Using the three
component model it can be speculated that this is due to of a lack of transition
processes, as revealed in the experiences of teachers. The apparent dissatisfaction
with the team experience, as revealed in the data is mostly likely due to the
identified lack of action processes such as tracking progress of deadlines and
coordinating team members. The model proposes that successful interpersonal
processes such as working through disagreements, generating enthusiasm and
dealing with members’ emotions will lead to a perception of skill improvement and
an understanding of teamwork which in turn will lead to positive team experiences.
This study finds no evidence of teachers working through disagreements but only
recognition by them that conflict exists. There is, however, evidence of members of
the team dealing with other members’ emotions. Teacher M6 highlights the dealing
with emotions by saying:
When one of us is down or something like that, we can hone in on the feelings for each other. It doesn’t have to be work related, as everybody has different crisis points in their life. So, I guess those sort of things apart from work is why we really get on.
The recognition that teamwork is an activity with three components: transition
processes, action processes and interpersonal processes has provided a useful
insight into the understanding of teachers’ experiences of teamwork in the school
and science departments. There are no team outcomes achieved and evidence
indicates that the transition, action and interpersonal processes are not working or
non-existent. School polices, or lack thereof, and the resulting organisation hinders
teams and teamwork functions in the experiences of science teachers.
School Administration through their actions and in-action do not support teams or
teamwork in the conceptions of science teachers.
- 191 -
5.3 Science Department
In a hierarchical sense the science department is the overarching collective.
Science teachers’ conceptions of a team are centred on this disciplinary bounded
collective. The ‘strength of teamwork in a high school is within your subject
department’ (MH1). Teacher F5 also makes it clear that the link is epistemological
by indicating that,
The teachers are teaching a range of subjects, they may be teaching Biology or even a maths subject. So, they have a range of subjects, so they don’t see themselves as purely Biology or Marine teachers. We are all a part of science.
This finding is not surprising considering there is considerable literature identifying
the science department as a place of specialised space, epistemology and
pedagogy (Siskin, 1994; Stadovnik, 1995).
This research confirms the subject department has a significant organisational and
political place within the secondary schools studied, with a central role in the
professional and social lives of science teachers. The department bounds teachers’
work. It is the primary community; teachers identify themselves as teachers of
science. This shared sense of identity is foundational to their work as a ‘science
team’.
Melville and Wallace (2007) take the view that school science departments present
a metaphorical duality where the department is conceptualised as a learning
community and an organisation concurrently: both community and organisation at
the same time. The science department provides an organisational entity, based in
the vertical structure of the school hierarchy.
Science teachers’ sense of team is grounded in their science department and their
agency is grounded in the pedagogical discourse of science. However, in this study
the notion of a learning community or a community of practice is not evident in the
research results. This will be explored in a subsequent section. Science teachers
recognise they have multiple team memberships. They are members of the science
department, timetabled subject, staffroom and social team. These conceptions
coexist. Each of these collectives within the science department provides an aspect
of teacher’s professional identity. Teachers’ professional identity can be defined as
a representation that teacher’s hold of themselves as teachers. Teachers’
professional identity is their relationship ‘to the teaching occupation as a
- 192 -
professional specialised in teaching and learning, to teaching responsibilities, to
students and colleagues, to the teachers’ community in general, and to all other
actors of the school system as a social institution’ (Gohier et. al., 2007, p. 143). The
research findings confirm the assertions of Little (1993) and Talbert, (1995) that
specialised teaching and interaction with other actors in the school are related to the
discourse of science. The conceptions identified here also confirm that science
teachers see their subject matter identity as their primary professional identity.
Science teachers’ conceptions of their subject team provide a description of team
membership. The subject association experience refers to the subjects the science
teachers are teaching at that time: the timetabled classes, and consequently
referred to as the timetable subject team by the teacher. A science teacher may be
timetabled on a Year Eleven Biology class and a Year Nine Science class; these
are considered by the teachers as different teams. Other teachers timetabled on
these subjects become team members. If a teacher is the only person teaching a
subject, then this is considered not to be a team.
The timetabled subject team, as part of the multiple team conception describes
teacher work associations experienced by teachers teaching the same subjects.
Teacher F8 acknowledges her team ‘is the people who teach common subjects with
me’. Teacher MH2 expands the timetabled subject team experiences by suggesting
the team is made up of teachers who are ’teaching a same subject and using similar
resources to you’. He also asserts that teachers teaching the same subjects ’have a
lot more in common than those that could be sitting next to you’.
The team is conceptualised by science teachers through associations with the
timetabled subjects. The timetabled subjects taught present a commonality of
purpose, when ‘you get a sense of teamwork, teaching the same thing, and dealing
with people regularly’ (M4) and ‘It is because we are teaching Year Nine science,
apart from doing all the other subjects’ (M6). The commonality of purpose is centred
on the activity of teaching the subjects allocated in the timetable for that year.
Science teachers work in social contexts and institutional frameworks of their
timetabled subject. This is the centre of their work, as they spend the majority of
their day in classrooms teaching the timetabled subjects and frame the work of
secondary school science teachers. The science teachers’ work is based on
demonstrated abilities of teachers to use official knowledge of the particular science
discipline or some syllabus document to reconceptualise it into the pedagogic
- 193 -
discourse on the subject within a situated space. This aspect of professional identify
generates a ‘team’ identity.
The literature suggests a team identity is generated from a cognitive alignment
generated through interaction. This concept of cognitive alignment is pursued in the
work of Zhuge (2003) where there is an indication of the importance of co-operation
of individuals through the team defining tasks. It follows that the cognitive alignment
occurs through the interdependence of team members and an adoption of a social
identity related to the team. The notion of collaboration leads to the suggestion that
teams are more than just a collection of individuals with a common goal. Teams
exhibit purposeful cooperation and collaboration between the individuals of differing
skills and knowledge. This is not the experience of science teachers in the study.
In their conceptions of teams, the subject team is generated out of the teaching
work allocation associated with a timetabled subject. The collective referred to as a
team by the science teachers is essentially socio-technical relationship. The
subjects being taught provide a focus for the work and a social identity in the
association of the teachers and the subjects they teach.
Teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork describe experiences of the
staffroom being more than a place or room in the school. The staffroom is ‘pretty
important’ (M3) and is described as ‘a major part of the team, because the staffroom
is a really good place to be. It is the focus’ (MH2) and ‘our entire staffroom, it’s
definitely a team’ (F6). Teacher F6 indicates the centrality of the staffroom in the
science department team conception, as the science teachers in the science
department team are the same teachers in the staffroom. The staffroom team
essentially describes the social relationship generated out of the science
department identity.
Science teachers work in social contexts within their science departments. The
social team refers to the experiences of friendship groups. If you are in the social
team, then you are friends, in a social relation or a friendship group. Social
relationships are central to the collaborative activities of science teachers, and this
is recognised by the science teachers. The corollary of this is that to have a team
and teamwork, then you need social relationships. The notion of teams and
teamwork are constructed through the lens of social relationship.
- 194 -
The study confirms that science teachers’ professional identity is not only grounded
in science discourse, but also in their timetabled subjects. Science teachers work in
social contexts and institutional frameworks within their science departments. The
science teacher’s identity from this socio-cultural perspective is shaped and
negotiated through the multifaceted everyday activities of practice that are displayed
in their multiple team memberships.
Enyedy et al., (2006) highlights an implication of a subject based identity and
possible source of conflict. When teacher’s professional identify is based on and
within a subject, they often see teachers of other subjects as fundamentally
different. In the science departments studied the timetabled subjects are different,
teachers have different subjects and subsequent aspects of their identity are
different, but the results provide no experiences of ‘seeing’ colleagues as different.
There are no experiences of conflict between the teachers based on the multiple
timetabled subjects, as all are seen as fundamentally ‘science’.
5.4 Diversity
Science teachers in the study acknowledge the diversity of their colleagues in their
team conceptions. Colleagues in the subject and departmental team offer a diverse
range of classroom practice, knowledge skills, and personalities. Teacher M3
recognises there is ‘a diversity of people working on the teaching of these subjects
in the science department’. The teachers accept and acknowledge, through their
experiences, of diverse aspect of classroom practice. This diversity is accepted, as
Teacher F7 explains:
We all know we teach in very different modes, in the classroom. We have one that does the story telling, we have one that is a very practical person. I think we teach in different ways and that’s ok.
The collaborative process of teams in a secondary school gives opportunities for
greater awareness of different priorities, different means of achieving the same end
through recognition of diverse knowledge and skills available in schools (Cranmer,
1999). In this study there is no evidence of a school-wide recognition of the diverse
knowledge and skills of the teachers. This again is considered as a policy and
structural failing on the part of the school administration.
Within the science department there is recognition of the differing knowledge and
skills of teachers, but no processes are in place to use this valuable resource for the
improvement of the quality of the teaching and learning of science. The valuing of
diversity is mediated by social relationships that exist in the timetabled subject team
and or the science department team. Teacher M3 acknowledges that teachers
- 195 -
‘come in with totally different skills, equally good strengths in other areas’. This
valuing of diversity and the centrality of the social relationship is expressed by
Teacher F6:
There is communication because each teacher just doesn’t teach one discipline, each teacher is teaching a number of subjects. That’s where the conversations will connect between each other. You might be talking about maths to one teacher, they also teach science as well, and then another science teacher will come in on a certain aspect as well. It’s because you are teaching many disciplines not just one.
The valuing of the diversity in the subject teams is mediated by the teacher social
relations and generates trust between teachers. Trust in the professionalism of
colleagues is expressed by Teacher F7 when she says: ‘It’s a productive team you
just have to trust that the others have the best interests of the students at heart,
whether they go about it in a completely different way’.
The teams contain individuals with differing knowledge and skills that cooperate and
collaborate to achieve an outcome. Science teachers recognise the diversity of their
colleagues. However the collaboration required using this diversity to improve the
quality of teaching and learning is elusive. The prospect of emergent processes
through collaboration in timetabled subjects to create new knowledge or
pedagogical insights is vague. Any process of knowledge creation that emerges
from interpersonal relationships, the abilities of individuals to communicate and to
make sense of complex realities (Styhre et al., 2002) is not apparent in these
teachers’ conceptions of teamwork. The possibility of using the diversity presented
as individual skills, experienced know-how, and capabilities of the science teachers
in collaborative learning seems remote.
Existing team literature suggests that teams are effective structures to enhance
collaboration (Baker et al., 2005; Kay et. al., 2006). The interactions between
teachers can be considered as the action of collaboration and the glue of these
interactions is the communication between science teachers to develop new
understandings. However, interactions and communications between teachers do
not in essence make collaboration. In the secondary school context the interaction
can be ‘reduced to little more than individuals working autonomously in the
presence of others’ (Donato, 2004, p.285). This would seem to be the case in the
experiences of these science teachers.
- 196 -
The research presents science teachers working in timetabled subject teams, within
a science department where teacher-teacher collaborative interactions occur
between teachers in the same social space and exhibits little in common with
teamwork as expressed through the literature. The next section deals with the
conception of sharing.
5.5 Sharing
Teachers experience a variety of needs-based ‘sharing situations’ in science
departments. Teacher M6 points out, there is an ‘exchanging ideas and stuff’.
Teacher M4 is more specific in identifying that there are ‘sharing of ideas and
resources’.
The sharing experienced is directly related to their current subject teaching practice.
This sharing is described as ad hoc: it happens when needed.
There are no experiences of any structural components such as regular meetings or
regular interactions as part of the conceptions of teamwork.
The research identifies no experiences of sharing based on the collective needs of
any team, as the ad hoc sharing focuses on the individual needs of teachers at a
point in time and directly relate to the timetabled subjects taught at that time. This
conception of teamwork describes the collegial interactions of sharing ideas,
information, positive experiences and resources. It is also evident that social
relations have considerable effect on the sharing, as science teachers ‘share
information’ (M3), but to a ‘small extent, it’s about the group’ (M7).
The conception of sharing describes two types of sharing: free flowing interactions
within the social space and the ‘ask-and-receive’ interactions of those teachers not
in the social space, as signalled by Teacher F8, when she says: ‘It’s really isolated;
you only get what you ask for’. Teacher F11 has to ‘ask lots of questions, so I can
get more input’ into the resources.
There is a free flow of ideas between the members of the timetabled subject team
who are in the social space. The individual benefit of sharing aspects of the practice
of teaching is realised in the social space and helps ‘to stimulate my knowledge, we
can talk about the same topics, share ideas and talk about them’ (F7). The sharing
occurs with ease between the members with the social space, within and across
subjects. Teacher F6 identifies the benefits of sharing ideas, as it ‘definitely helps
me because I hear other people’s ideas, and I get guidance to where I’m going. If it
is a crazy idea I can put it out there it can get put into a bit more structure’ and ‘if it’s
- 197 -
a good idea then you will go with it or if it’s something that doesn’t really work then it
doesn’t, no one will go with it’.
Sharing of resources is beneficial as it increases the efficiency of the subject
teaching practice because ‘it’s about sharing, not re-inventing the wheel, and not
building things from the bottom’ (M7).
The collective experiences of teamwork provide positive emotions in the ad-hoc
social space-based sharing that occurs in the timetabled subject teams: ‘You do
because, you have that feeling that you have accomplished something in the end,
almost a visual thing that everyone can see and be proud of the experience’ (F5).
The science teachers’ conception of teamwork presented no experience of vertical
sharing: between year levels in the same subject, or between year levels in different
subjects. This implies the quality of teacher learning and knowledge resides in the
individual teacher and is not shared in a teamwork sense within either the subject or
science department teams.
Schamber (1999) suggests the purpose of the team in education is to provide an
organisational framework that allows the establishment of an atmosphere where
sharing of ideas and the professionalism of individual can be respected. However,
this appears not to be the case in science teachers’ conceptions. Sharing
experiences are not characterised by the routine open exchanges of opinions, ideas
and pedagogical methods. It would seem more aligned to advice giving or
assistance seeking, achieved as, periodic and fragmented teacher interactions. As,
teacher M4 acknowledges, ‘There is no regular sharing of information and
resources’.
If knowledge is one of the most important resources for a science department and a
school, then the fragmented and periodic interactions of sharing enhances the risk
of losing the expertise and knowledge held by the science teachers. The conception
presents limited collaboration between the teachers in the science department. This
also is the case in the timetabled subject teams.
Teacher experiences of periodic and fragmented interactions calls into question the
fundamental nature of the teachers’ understanding of a team and teamwork. The
team is more of a ‘notional’ team or untested term, where the word ‘team’ refers to
any collective of teachers.
- 198 -
Sharing, Little (1982, 1990) indicates, is a challenge to autonomy: conceived as
personal prerogative and can have social cost to a teacher’s competence. Sharing
can increase sharers’ vulnerability because sharing is a shift from the private to the
public or even from the individual to the collective. Teachers, who share, open
themselves to scrutiny of their professional practice and even their status. In the
current climate of ‘teacher deficit’ models, it is easy to understand the need for
teachers to minimise their vulnerability. The point provides a possible explanation
for teachers only sharing in the safe social space as revealed in these conceptions.
Teachers outside the social space exercise their agency by choosing not to engage
with colleagues as it may jeopardize self-efficacy and professional standing.
Teacher self-efficacy can be defined as teacher’s beliefs about their capabilities.
These capabilities are influenced by the lived professional, situated and personal
experiences. These teachers are referred to as being in an ‘ask-and receive’
relationship within the timetabled team.
Yet, teachers who are in the social space within a timetabled subject team seem to
have no issue with this increase in vulnerability. These teachers, through the trust of
friendship, engage with colleagues around matters of curriculum and instruction and
present no perceptions that ‘public work’ will jeopardize self-esteem and
professional standing, as they collaborate freely. Teachers who freely share with
colleagues are willingly opening themselves to the possibility of embarrassment,
loss of status because they believe that they, another individual, or a situation will
benefit from this openness. If teachers can trust their colleagues and feel safe in
their environment then they can take the risk of possible loss of face (Lasky, 2005).
Sharing with friends depends on the trust developed in the social space. Teachers
who are recognised for their knowledge and skills experience less vulnerability in
sharing in a trusting and caring relationship.
Sharing in situations outside the social space increases teacher vulnerability and
can generate feelings of powerlessness and exposes teachers to professional
scrutiny. Rather than willingly opening themselves such situations, the teachers
withdraw and do not expose themselves to the sources of discomfort. In terms of
the revealed conceptions of teamwork, these teachers are team members but do
not participate in teamwork.
Teachers also are affected by their beliefs about their capabilities. If teachers are in
doubt about their capabilities then they tend to withdrawn from threatening
- 199 -
situations, and are slow to recover their perceptions of their own efficacy following
setbacks (Bandura, 1994).
5.6 Support
The conception of support also emphasises the social nature of the teacher-teacher
interactions within the science departments studied. In essence, the support is
experienced as social, as it is gained through having social relationships in
staffroom, timetabled subjects and in the science department. Teachers experience
a range of positive feelings in a social space, in a subject team. Teacher M6
expresses these feelings, by saying, ‘the three of us come to work, you can’t put
your finger on it and it’s like chemistry or respect or some common thread of
somewhere a feeling of together’, a supportive experience based on the social
relationships between the three teachers.
West et al. (1998) saw teacher teams as multidimensional in nature. They include
the dimensions: information, instrumental, emotional and appraisal. The support
gained in the sharing of resources can be grouped together in the informational and
instrumental support dimensions and are characterised by the exchange of
information to the job of teaching and provide practical support for each other. The
emotional support of team members is considered as a social support that provides
encouraging words and sympathetic understanding. The support provided with this
conception of teamwork is social. There are apparently no experiences of
supporting colleagues to solve problems in the department or school. There are also
no apparent experiences of support in pedagogical knowledge and skill
development in the conceptions revealed in the study.
The importance of the social relationships between team members is recognised as
support generated from the close relations experienced by science teachers: ‘in my
team we are good friends, close bonds, you know each other’ (F11) and, ‘we just
work really well together, we just have a rapport with each other’ (F8). The social
bond in the team also is expressed as mateship. The conception of mateship and
responsibility between team members is experienced by teacher M3 in saying, ‘it’s
that thing about not letting your mates down’ (M3) and ‘teamwork is sharing the load
with your mates’ (M7).
Teacher F8 acknowledges the emotional dimension of the support as experienced
by accepting that teamwork is about ‘supporting each other emotionally’ (F8). The
- 200 -
emotional support also is expressed as caring experiences for the other. M6
explains, ‘when one of us is down, or something like that, we can hone in on
feelings for each other. It doesn’t have to be work related as everybody has different
crisis points in their life. So, I suppose it’s those sorts of things is why we really get
along’.
Identified science departments provide a place for social interactions and support
(Siskin, 1994). Siskin’s view seems to suggest that in the department you have both
social interactions and support, without any interdependence. However, this
research uncovers a twist on this theme, as teacher experiences of support are a
function of the social interactions and teachers outside the social space experience
little support from the rest of the team.
Goyal (2005) takes a different tack by developing a team definition through
members that are committed to the benefit of the collective. It could be expected
that if science teachers experience the benefit of the collective, then it could be
expected that experiences of teacher-teacher interaction would have a dynamic and
functional aspect, with agreement to mutual and combined benefit. The mutual and
combined benefit can be seen as a benefit afforded to those in the same social
space.
5.7 Coordinating Mechanism
Coordinating the activities of team members is an essential aspect of teams and
teamwork, as a team consists of ’two or more individuals who must interact to
achieve one or more common goals that are directed toward the accomplishment of
a productive outcome’
(Baker et al., 2005, p.235). This definition implies teachers work cooperatively in a
coordinated structure. In the science departments studied, the teachers expressed
no conceptions of any structure for coordination. The experiences of team
membership are enacted through a ‘needs’ based organisational principle. The
teachers coordinate some action when it is needed within the timetabled subject
team. This coordination of action is ad-hoc in essence, with no definite structure,
membership or time scale experiences.
Teacher ‘need’ is expressed in relation to new work programs, scope and sequence
and assessment. Teacher F6 acknowledges her experiences of the use of a
coordinating mechanism to ensure ‘where we are heading, what we are doing; who
is going to prepare the assessment piece ’. Teacher M4 highlights the importance of
- 201 -
coordination of assessment, ‘particularly looking at the changes in assessment. We
have changes in Biology, Chemistry and Physics assessment practices’.
The need expressed in the teachers’ experiences is to maintain assessment quality
and meet externally imposed policies and procedures.
Senior science subjects, for example Biology, Chemistry and Physics have an
additional layer of external accountability through policies and guidelines of the
Queensland Studies Authority (QSA). Assessment types, criteria for assessment
and the outcomes to be assessed are controlled by the officially accredited subject
specific work program. So, for example all the schools from which the respondents
came have an accredited Biology work program (all the schools teach Biology in
Years 11 and 12). This work program is derived from the Biology Syllabus and is
accredited by the QSA. The Biology syllabus (QSA, 2006) indicates, that there are
mandatory aspects of assessment in that the:
Judgment of student achievement at exit from a two-year course of study must be derived from information gathered about student achievement in those aspects stated in the syllabus as being mandatory, namely: the general objectives of understanding biology, investigating biology, and evaluating biological issues and the six key concepts (p.19).
Assessment is very specific for all Senior Science Subjects and provides an
accountability dimension for teachers. This is emphasised by Teacher M8, when he
says ‘So, I’ll write an assessment piece and I’ll be pretty critical of how I do it. If I do
a good job and all the kids across the whole school, not just my class, will use that
assessment piece. They’ll be assessed at the correct level; they have all the right
syllabus ticks’.
Colleagues, parents, students and school administration make decisions about the
quality of teaching and learning of science and teacher professionalism through the
actions of teachers. For example, if the assessment for all year ten science classes
is not the same, and/or these classes have not covered required Year 10 science
outcomes as set in the science work program, then the professional conduct of the
science teacher(s) in that particular timetabled subject team is called into question.
This then exposes science teachers to challenges from external agents that
question a sense of their commitment, conduct and professionalism.
Day et al. (2006, p. 149) define teacher identity as a ‘composite of the interactions
between personal, professional and situational factors’. The composite is in part an
interaction between a teachers’ sense of commitment and agency (ability/resolve to
- 202 -
pursue one’s own goals). The professional aspect is constituted as ‘self’ as a good
teacher and classroom practitioner with a sense of commitment to the students,
agency to pursue the best for your students. Having their class being
disadvantaged by inappropriate assessment tasks is a threat to their ‘self’ as good
teachers. Disadvantaging students in the personal interpretive framework is not
what science teachers do, as they have ‘a common love of science and a desire to
share this enthusiasm for young people’ (Harris et al., 2005, p.10). Science teacher
perceptions of the intrinsic rewards for teaching science are the desire to teach
science and an enjoyment of science. Teachers coordinate assessment tasks to
minimise the tensions and vulnerabilities and to pursue the best opportunities for
their students. As, Teacher F6 suggests, ‘When it comes to the end of the
assessment piece, you can tell that you have all been teaching using similar
materials and each of the students have benefited from us being a team’.
Teacher professional identity can be challenged if the assessment and its
associated processes are not correct. Teachers are vulnerable to considerable
criticisms and accusations of professional neglect, as they are individually and
collectively responsible for the process and the outcome of assessment. This
teacher vulnerability with its associated anxiety and possible blame and shame
encourages collaborative working relationships. Science teachers employ
collaboration as a strategy to minimise the negative impact on their own sense of
self, self-efficacy and vulnerability.
The development of a new senior subject work program from a QSA syllabus
provides reason for teacher collaboration: a task. The senior subject work program
not only controls the assessment, but also the scope and sequence of the subject.
In the context of developing a new work program science teachers experience
teamwork. Teacher M4 highlights the teamwork in ‘introducing new work programs
in response to new syllabi. So, basically it is how we interpret the syllabus and
structure and presents our work programs, review our work programs. So, I think
that is primarily my experience of teams’.
The collaboration of teachers to achieve a task is seen by Teacher M8 as, ‘the goal
at the end is having a work program that is easy to use and fulfils the syllabus
needs’. Not all teachers in a senior subject work to achieve the work program task,
‘There are only a couple of teachers working as a team, helping put the new
program together’ (M6).
- 203 -
Collaborating in a team to develop a new work program provides opportunities for
colleagues to recognise that there are different levels of skill and knowledge held by
teachers. Teachers have some agency in the choice of pedagogical practices and
instructional materials to be included in the new work program. They are
empowered to look at doing different things, use topics that have relevance to the
situated context of the teachers. The implementation of a new syllabus and its
external processes of validation used by the QSA provide a task or goal: a reason
for teachers to collaborate. In this context, there is a product: an outcome that can
be celebrated. This celebration of achievement comes from the recognition from an
outside of school authority, as the new program is accredited.
The coordination conception is revealed in teachers’ experiences of maintenance
scope and sequence in content and classroom activities. The scope and sequence
is within the timetabled subject team. The scope and sequence experience is about
‘having contact to make sure we are all on the same track’ (F11) and ‘getting
together to make sure we are all at the same stage with our classes...’ (F8). Science
teachers in the study recognised the importance of efficiency in their work as
classroom teachers and team members, ‘Our teamwork is vital, you need to be able
to work together so you are not all doing the same thing and not doubling up’ (F6).
Scope and sequence make no claims on teachers’ autonomy to reconceptualised
science knowledge as demonstrated in their science pedagogy. It does recognise
that there is knowledge and skills that need to be covered in a semester. If scope
and sequence are not coordinated then teachers become vulnerable to criticisms
and accusations of professional neglect. These are threats to their professional
integrity, as the professional are individually responsible for the progression of their
subjects. Teacher vulnerability leads to heightened states of anxiety, with possible
blame and shame. Science teachers collaborate as to minimise the negative impact
of external and internal criticism on their sense of self and self-efficacy.
Teachers experience this coordination as part of being a ‘good’ teacher. The
Teacher Work Framework (TWF), presented in Chapter 2 would suggest that the
tasks of assessment, maintaining scope and sequence, and developing new work
programs are identifiable aspects of the Teacher Job Characteristics model, as
tasks, which contribute to teaching and learning: they have significance. These
tasks also allow teacher agency in the choices they make in collaboration with
colleagues about choices of material, and strategies. The TWF posits, Teacher
Experienced States that depend on aspects of Teacher Job Characteristics (TJC).
- 204 -
The collaboration on these tasks suggests Teacher Experienced States of personal
responsibility for the outcome of the teaching, meaningful organisation, and a
contribution to the knowledge of the results of teaching and of students. These
states are fundamental to the role of a teacher. Teachers coordinate on task that
related directly to their perceptions about what is a ‘good’ science teacher.
5.8 Conflict
Conflict is a conception teachers reveal about teams and teamwork. Conflict is not
unexpected as schools, like other organisation can be considered as ‘arenas of
struggle; to be riven with actual or potential conflict between members; to be poorly
coordinated; to be ideologically diverse’ (Ball, 1987, p.19).
Achinstein, (2002) indicates that;
‘conflict is a social interaction process, whereby individuals or groups come to perceive of themselves at odds. It is the process of conflict definition that I have come to focus on—the interactive states, the socially constructed meanings, and the understandings arrived at by individuals and the group about the nature of their differences in beliefs and actions’ (p. 426).
Conflict is a result of the interaction between individuals and/or groups with their
own sets of beliefs and actions being expressed. It also can be a process where
individuals or groups interact to understand their differences, problems, or dilemma.
The interaction between two or more individuals or groups in a school can lead to
the identification of the nature of their differences of belief or action.
In this study teachers present a conception of teamwork and teams as two types of
conflict: interpersonal and intrapersonal. In the first dimension, conflict identifies as
interpersonal conflict between team members, and the second, as Short and
Johnson, (1994) suggest is intrapersonal and generated from incompatibilities,
disagreements and differences between two or more teachers.
Teachers working with team members experience conflict when, ‘we are just not on
the same wavelength’ (F8), as they are not part of the social space, bounded by the
timetabled subject team. Teachers not collaborating produces conflict as these
teachers are recognised as non-collaborative, but are still considered to be team
members.
The lack of collaboration implied in the study may be explained by Kelchtermans,
(2005) notions of personal interpretative framework where teachers demonstrate the
beliefs and modes of action they have developed over time as part of their
professional identity. This personal interpretative framework, as an aspect of their
- 205 -
professional identity sets the knowledge and beliefs about the job of teaching.
Conflict arises from the disagreements and differences between the perceptions of
teachers who believe that the increases in teacher-teacher interaction are important
in the job of teaching science and those who interpret this increase in collaboration
as a clash with their professional identity. As F11 indicates, ‘I’m into individual
planning. I like to do my own planning. I don’t like to do what other people are
doing’. This conflict is obvious when teachers ’do their own thing, do their own
planning. They just use stuff that is given to them, but basically they don’t do any
[planning]’ (MH2).
There is an indication as part of this conception that teamwork is not a part of the
personal interpretative framework, as ‘most (teachers) don’t want to know’ (M3).
The development of a personal interpretative framework over time leads to deeply
held beliefs and norms about the organisation and practice of teaching, and
contends that the longer you are teaching the more defined and fixed the
constructed professional identity. The experienced lives of the teachers have
personal and social histories, they also have beliefs and values about the work of
teaching and how they work in their roles (Day et al., 2006). This would seem to be
the case in the experiences of teachers, where the changes in the levels of teacher-
teacher interaction necessary for teamwork cause conflict. Teachers who have been
teaching for many years do not want to engage in teamwork. Teacher MH1
suggests ‘they are older more resistant to change and can’t work together’ (MH1),
and ‘the more mature teachers are used to working in a particular way and don’t
want to change, cause they know how it works for them’ (F5).
The second type of conflict apparent in the experiences of teachers is defined as
intrapersonal conflict, where teachers experience conflict between alternatives
which are opposing, experiences that contradict role expectations or understated
personal or group outcomes, such as role identity, subject identity and de-
privatisation of practice.
Conflict in the changes of the levels of collaboration due to teamwork are revealed,
where ‘a lot of times teachers are a bit guarded, may be a bit worried about the jobs,
teams cause the problem’ (M3) and ‘You can work together as a team or you can’t.
Most can’t they just do their own thing’ (M6). Teacher F5 expresses conflict when
she has ‘experienced not wanting to get together or work together’. Teamwork
increases the collaborative interaction of teachers and shifts the professional
autonomy into the public area. The personal prerogative to collaborate or not
- 206 -
becomes an issue when team membership has an expectation of increased
interaction with colleagues. The personal initiative to interact or not with colleague is
a demonstration of their agency, as they choose not to allow the structure to
mediate their professional identity. The team structures mediate the agency, and
changes the parameters of teacher-teacher interaction, but if this clashes with the
teacher’s personal interpretative framework, then the choice is to minimise the
conflict and not engage with the source of the conflict.
The experience of different science teacher roles and identities are part of the
conceptualisation of conflict. The science teachers describe conflict that stems from
identity and role between senior school and middle school teaching responsibilities,
There was a real push to get some of our best teachers to teach in the middle school. To basically drive it and make it a success, but a lot of that was to the detriment of the senior subjects, different skills, different responsibilities and roles (MH2).
Conflict with the increase in vulnerability caused by changes in teacher professional
identity due to working in teams is evident, where ‘teaching topics for so long they
tend not to want to come out into the boundary area of teamwork’ and ‘when new
ideas of working together are presented a lot of walls are put up and they say.. they
haven’t worked before or I’d be uncomfortable with that’ (F5).
Teacher vulnerability can result from lack of agency, where teachers do not feel in
control, as mediated by the structural aspects of the school. Teachers in a science
department working in teams experience vulnerability, as their mediated agency
conflicts with their professional values and beliefs or sense of a competent self. A
team requires teachers to collaborate. This change in practice can be inconsistent
with teachers’ core beliefs and values. Conflict is firstly interpersonal, between
teachers who subscribe to the values of sharing, support and openness and those
who are unwilling to open their work to the collaborative endeavour. The second is
intrapersonal conflict and is experienced by teachers who are unwilling to open their
work to the collaborative endeavour and experience tensions and vulnerability with
the team organisation. Kelchtermans, (1996) reminds us that teacher vulnerability is
a structural condition in education where professional identity (personal
interpretative framework) is questioned. The teachers who are vulnerable by
increased teacher-teacher interaction have taken action aimed at minimising their
vulnerability: they are not involved.
- 207 -
However, there are no experiences of conflict between teachers in the same social
space. The implication is that the support, sharing, openness and trust that the
social relationship provides opportunities for increased teacher-teacher interaction
without increasing tensions and vulnerabilities.
5.9 Is it a Team?
The eight conceptions of teams and teamwork held by these science teachers
present the totality of their lived experiences of teams and teamwork. The
conceptions of teams and teamwork present a view of the team that merely speaks
of the collective: ‘we are a group of teachers bounded in science, therefore we are a
team’. Teamwork is represented as collaboration between friends.
What teachers call a ‘team’ is a collective bounded by their everyday work and their
subject discipline. The team and its associated teamwork exist in the experiences of
science teachers, but have little alignment with the broader team literature.
The use of the word ‘team’ in an education sense is an ‘untested hypothesis and
demonstrates little understanding of the critical aspects of teams and/or teamwork.
It is apparent that science teachers’ conceptions present:
teams that don’t have characteristics usually associated with teams in the
literature;
teams with members who do no teamwork as previously defined; and
teamwork that occurs between friends.
Thus, it is questionable if the conceptions of teams and teamwork match any of the
criteria for teams or teamwork distilled from the contemporary team literature. As
noted above, according to conventional team literature teams have identifiable
characteristics that might be expected to be identified in the conceptions of science
teachers.
A team, as Baker et al. (2005) identify it, contains four common characteristics:
two or more individuals ; a shared or common goal(s); task interdependency ; and a desired productive outcome(s) (p.235).
These characteristics serve as a basis for developing a working definition of team:
‘A team consists of two or more individuals who must interact to achieve one or
more common goals that are directed toward the accomplishment of a productive
- 208 -
outcome(s)’ (p.235). The experiences of teachers in this study indicate only minor
alignment with this definition.
A science department clearly has two or more individuals in it, all working to
educate students in science. Science teachers working toward the best quality
science education could be considered as a goal for the science department, to
which all the teachers would subscribe. In a sense there is a culture of a science
discourse that demonstrates a common belief system in the importance of science
education and moves towards a common goal. However, this is not the experience
of science teachers, as Teacher F5 explains, ‘Team situation: you all have that
common goal. I can't see it’ and Teacher F11’. The idea of working together for a
common goal, we all have different ideas about what we want out of the kids. There
is no common goal’.
The productive outcome can be considered as the best results in science for the
students. However, the work of science teachers happens with no task
interdependency, and thus, as already indicated, the team processes are missing.
The conceptions identify a sense of unity, in that the teachers hold a professional
identity that is bound in the science department and the subjects taught. Teachers
from their experiences are committed to their subjects and the science departments.
This they conceive as team commitment. Cooperation does exist, as demonstrated
in the coordinating of assessment, scope and sequence and new work programs.
However, science departments have weak collegial interactions because the
sharing is not characterised by the routine open exchanges of opinions, ideas and
pedagogical methods. The team as a conceived collective of individuals does exist,
but the processes of teams, the teamwork is not apparent.
The lack of teamwork and team characteristics brings into question the existence of
team, as explained by Teacher F11 when she says: ’They are not teams just
groups’ and ‘It’s just a group of people in the same staffroom’ indicated teacher
(F8). The team exists in the experiences of the teachers, but show little
resemblance to the team and teamwork as characterised in the team literature.
It would seem that science teachers’ conceptions of teams in the literature sense
are really a collection of individuals with experiences of mutual and combined effort
in a few aspects of their teaching.
- 209 -
The investigation to better understand the conceptions progresses through a tri-
comparison approach. Contemporary models of teams, team processes and
teamwork are used as a comparative framework.
5.9.1 Team Elements
The elements of a team as proposed by Kay et al. (2006) provide a comprehensive
framework that is used to compare the team construct presented in the science
teachers’ conceptions.
The elements are team leadership, mutual performance monitoring, backup,
adaptability and team orientation. Each of these elements is presented with
elaborations to assist in the comparison. The results of the comparison are
presented in Table 5.9.1.
Table 5.9.1 Team Element Comparison
Element Team Element Elaborations Teacher team conceptions
Team Leadership
Ability to direct and coordinate other team members’ activities Not evident
Assess team performance, assign tasks, develop team knowledge and skills, motivate
Not evident
Team members, plan and organise, and establish a positive atmosphere
Not evident
Mutual performance monitoring
Ability to develop common understandings of the team environment
Not evident
Apply appropriate task strategies to accurately monitor team mate performance.
Not evident
Backup
Ability to anticipate other team members’ needs through accurate knowledge about their responsibilities,
Not evident
Ability to shift workload among members to achieve balance during high periods of workload or pressure
Not evident
Adaptability
Ability to adjust strategies based on information gathered from the environment
Not evident
Reallocation of work Not evident
Altering a course of action or team repertoire in response to changing conditions (internal or external).
Not evident
Team orientation
Propensity to take others into account during group interaction Not evident
Belief in importance of team goal over individual members’ goals. Not evident
As noted many times, regardless of how interpreted, the conceptions of teams as
identified by this study indicate that team leadership in school, science department
or timetabled subject teams does not exist in the conceptions of teachers. The
leadership role as demonstrated in the ability to direct and coordinate other team
- 210 -
members’ activities is not apparent. There is no evidence of any assessment of
team performance, assigning tasks, or the development of team knowledge and
skills or team self-reflective practices that could lead to the development of
individual teachers or teams. This is considered as a key aspect in defining a team
(Manz & Sims, 1986). Sporting teams provide an example where training focuses
on the teamwork necessary for the incorporation of game knowledge and skill for an
effective team. Training in teams outside of sport guides team members toward
understanding and adopting an expert model of teamwork (Smith-Jentsch et al.,
2001). Hirschfield and Jordon (2006) propose that for team members to function
well together in performing team tasks, they must individually master the processes
of teamwork. The research reveals no apparent development of team skills.
Mutual performance monitoring to develop a common understanding of the team
environment and the enacting of appropriate task strategies to accurately monitor
teammate performance does not exist in the conceptions. The common
understanding is a shared mental model that recognises the complex emergent
nature of team members’ understanding and interaction in the team. The shared
mental models of the team do not happen by osmosis; they are generated in the
interaction associated with collaborative activities by words and vocabularies
(Weick, 1995) and point to the importance of communication between teachers. As
reported here there is no formal development of a shared understanding.
The eight conceptions indicate no experiences of a structure or system to anticipate
teachers’ needs through accurate knowledge of workloads and responsibilities.
There is no ability to shift workloads between members to achieve balance of
workload. There is however, some workload sharing in development of new work
programs.
The ability of science department team or the timetabled subject teams to adjust
strategies based on information gathered from the environment, reallocation of intra-
team resources or altering a course of action or team repertoire in response to
changing conditions (internal or external) is not apparent in the conception of teams
and teamwork. There are no team processes that allow the work of teacher teams
to adapt to change. It is most likely that individual teachers in their classrooms adapt
to changing situations all the time. This is not a part of the collective.
The conceptions of teams and teamwork present no structures or systems to
develop and maintain complex networks, providing systems with the potential to
adapt to change. Teams should provide structural characteristics that facilitate
- 211 -
teacher learning and community building, as the information flows to collaborate in
the construction of new knowledge (Senge, 1990). The notion of emergence is a
characteristic of complex systems that allows organisations to adapt and learn. The
emergent nature of a science department implies a learning or cognitive change
through the changing and developing interrelationships within the system (Medd,
2002). The conceptions reveal a lack of interaction between teachers that could
lead to adaption and change processes.
The comparison of teachers’ conceptions of teams to those found in the academic
literature demonstrate considerable mismatch. Teams, as revealed by these
science teachers’ conceptions, do not correspond to a contemporary view of teams
in the literature.
5.9.2 Team Processes
In the search for an understanding of teams as presented in the lived experiences of
science teachers, the comparison turns to the identifiable processes in teams.
Pineda and Lerner (2006) provide a framework that can be used to indicate
alignment between team processes and the conceptions. They posit three
processes: transition, action and interpersonal that show direct relation to team
outcomes of perception of goal attainment, satisfaction with team experience and
perception of skill improvement and understanding of teamwork. This model of
teams indicates that if the transition process is successful then the perception of
goal attainment will be positive. They predict that the same relationship exists
between action processes and the satisfaction with the experiences of teams.
Further, if the interpersonal processes are working effectively then there is a
positive perception of skill improvement and understanding of teamwork, and in turn
this will lead to a successful team outcome.
These processes, the associated elaborations and the identifiable aspects of the
teacher’s conceptions are presented in Table 5.9.2.
- 212 -
Table 5.9.2 Team Processes
Process Team Process Elaborations Teacher team conceptions Transition
Establishing team goals Identified as lacking
Establishing team rules and guidelines Identified as lacking
Assigning roles and responsibilities Identified as lacking
Assessing areas of expertise of team members
Identified as lacking
Action Tracking progress of deadlines Identified as lacking
Coordinating action of team members. Identified as lacking, except for developing assessment items or new work programs
Interpersonal
Working with disagreements Only a recognition of conflict
Generating enthusiasm Not expressed
Dealing with members’ emotions Identified in social groups only.
Teachers’ conceptions show a lack of goal attainment, team goals, team rules
guidelines, a structure and a propensity for assessing or recognising areas of
expertise in colleagues, so the transition processes are lacking. The research has
revealed dissatisfaction with the team experience, and is due to the lack of action
processes: tracking progress of deadlines and coordinating action of team members
in the teams.
The processes necessary for the successful team as revealed through the literature
are, again, not apparent in these teachers’ conceptions of teams.
5.9.3 Teamwork Skills
A model of teamwork proposed by Murray et al., (2005) provides a core set of
teamwork skills. They are: communication, interpersonal relations, group decision
making/planning, and adaptability/flexibility. The conceptions of teamwork held by
science teachers is compared with the core teamwork skills and presented in Table
5.9.3.
- 213 -
Table 5.9.3 Teamwork Skills
Teamwork Skills Team Member Experiences Teacher Conceptions
Group decision making/Planning
Identifying problems Gathering information Not evident
Evaluating information Not evident
Sharing information Yes in social group within subject teams
Understanding decisions Not evident
Setting goals Non existent Adaptability/Flexibility Provide assistance
Re-allocate tasks Provide feedback Not evident
Accept feedback Not evident
Monitor performance Not evident
Adjust performance Not evident Interpersonal relations Share work
Seek mutually agreeable solutions
Not evident
Consider different ways of doing things
Not evident, but implied in the recognition of teacher diversity
Manage disputes Not evident
Influence disputes Not evident Communication Ask questions
Listen effectively Provide clear and accurate information
Not evident, but implied
Acknowledge requests for information
Yes, in subject teams
Openly share ideas Yes, in social group within subject teams
Pay attention to non-verbal behaviours
Not evident
Group Decision Making/Planning skills refer to the ability of a team members to
gather and integrate information, to use logical judgement, identify and articulate
possible alternatives, select solutions, and evaluate the consequences within the
context of the team. The study reveals that at a school, department and timetabled
subject team level there is no apparent experiences of this type of team activity. The
same conclusion is drawn when considering the Adaptability/Flexibility teamwork
skills.
The demonstration of Interpersonal skills by seeking mutually agreeable solutions,
considering different ways of doing things and managing or influencing disputes,
presents the same lack in the eight conceptions. There is however recognition of
teacher diversity in the science department and subject team within the social
space. The study identifies a lack of collaborative teacher interactions to develop
novel or creative solutions to school or department problems.
- 214 -
Communication is the last teamwork skill and is demonstrated as the provision of
clear and accurate information, acknowledgement of requests for information,
openly sharing ideas and paying attentions to non-verbal behaviours. The literature
presents teamwork as communication between team members, as communication
is a critical demonstration of teamwork (Ingram & Descombe, 1999).
Communication between self and others as a core aspect of teamwork involves ‘the
exchange of clear and accurate information and the ability to clarify or acknowledge
the receipt of information’ (Murray et al., 2005, p.238). The study identifies this type
of communication skill only within the social space.
The tri-comparison using team characteristics, team processes and teamwork core
skills have identified the incongruence with the conceptions of teams and teamwork.
5.9.4 What about collaboration?
Collaboration in secondary schools can provide opportunities for teachers to come
together with their own expertise, experiences and teaching styles to provide
opportunities to learn. When teachers collaborate with each other about the practice
of teaching, they observe each other’s lessons and frequently offer constructive
feedback and critique. The value of teachers reflecting on the practice of teaching is
highlighted by Fullan (1982) who suggests that, ‘the lack of opportunity for teachers
to reflect, interact with each other, share, learn, and develop on-the-job, makes it
unlikely that significant changes will occur’ (p. 118).
The benefits of collaborations as described in Table 5.9.4 are linked to possible
teacher experiences of collaboration, and then cross referenced with the science
teachers’ conceptions. The linking of aspects from the literature (benefits of
collaboration and possible experiences) and the teachers’ conception provides a
framework to investigate the collaborative activities of the teachers. If the teachers’
conceptions demonstrate the outlined possible teacher experiences in the table,
then it can be assumed that there is a demonstration of a benefit of collaboration.
The demonstration of a benefit assumes then that collaboration is occurring
between teachers (Table 5.9.4).
- 215 -
Table 5.9.4 Collaboration
Teacher Collaboration
Benefits Possible teacher experiences Teachers’ Conceptions
Moral support Strengthening resolve No evidence
Permits vulnerability sharing Between friends
Support failure No evidence, but implied between friends
Support change Not evidence Morale maintenance and development
Feelings of collegiality Within subject, between friends
Trust Within subject, between friends
Openness Within subject, between friends
Personal sharing Within subject, between friends
Professional sharing On an ‘ask-and receive’ basis and openly between friends
Improves effectiveness and efficiency Elimination of duplication Within subjects
Removal of redundancy No evidence
Reduces overload Sharing burdens and pressures No evidence
Establishes boundaries Setting commonly agreed boundaries No evidence
Boundary maintenance Between departments, subjects and friend/non-friend groups
Collective decision making No evidence
Reduction uncertainty about what can be reasonably achieved
No evidence
Promotes confidence
Developing and sharing of innovations Implied within subject between friends
Adopting innovations Implied within subject between friends
Delaying or resisting innovations Non participation , non-friends
Promotes teacher reflection
Providing a structure for reflection, No evidence
Listening effectively Implied within subject between friends
Asking questions Implied within subject between friends
Teacher learning continuous improvement
Time, place and framework for monitoring No evidence
Adjusting performance No evidence
Providing and accepting feedback No evidence
Openly sharing ideas No evidence
Observing lesson No evidence
Seeking mutually agreeable solutions No evidence
Considering different ways of doing things Implied within subject between friends
Identifying problems No evidence
Seeking solutions/Understanding decisions No evidence
- 216 -
The results of this comparison between the literature-identified benefits of
collaboration and teachers’ conceptions confirm the benefits of collaboration are
experienced only between teachers within the social space.
Social relationships between teachers support morale maintenance and
development by providing experiences of collegiality, trust openness, personal
sharing and professional sharing. The conceptions revealed also imply that
friendships promote confidence between teachers.
The comparison indicates many of the benefits of collaboration are not evident in
the conceptions of teachers. The most prominent of these benefits is the continuous
improvement in teaching and learning. The conceptions reveal that there is no time,
place or framework for monitoring team members. There is no open sharing of
ideas, observing lessons or work to seek mutually agreeable solutions, except in the
social space provided by friendships. There is also no evidence of processes or
structures to identify problems, seek solutions or making of meaning out of
decisions. Reducing overload by sharing burdens and pressures are also not
evident in the conceptions held by science teachers.
These unrealised benefits call into question the level of teacher-teacher interaction
that occurs in the sampled science departments and renews the question from the
previous section about the existence of these science departments as communities
of practice or learning communities.
The interactions between teachers can be considered as the action of collaboration,
and the glue of these interactions is the communication between individuals to
develop understanding. However, interactions and communications between
teachers do not in essence make collaboration. Teacher-teacher interactions are
categorised as weak, strong or all points in between, interactions (Little, 1990). The
categorisation of teacher-teacher interactions gives the discussion an insight into
the levels of interdependence developed in Chapter Two. Weak teacher-teacher
interactions as exemplified by experiences of storytelling and scanning, seeking aid
and providing assistance (Little, 1990), typify the interaction presented in the
conceptions of science teachers. It is concluded that teachers are mainly working
independently. Teachers working in the social space experience sharing, that
indicates a moderate level of interaction but not at a level that would suggest the
interdependence necessary for teamwork.
- 217 -
At these levels of teacher-teacher interaction, it is difficult to visualise collaboration
being of any significance in teacher development. The study reveals no culture of
collaboration as demonstrated through the fostering of pedagogic partnerships.
Shared participation in aspects of teachers’ work provides opportunities to view
teacher development as a participative process (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The study
indentifies no science department community of practice (Wenger, 1998, 2000), as
the discourse of interaction through a coherent community of mutual engagement is
not apparent. The practice of teaching in the conceptions of science teachers
resides in the individual, bounded by the discourse of science and science
education.
Teacher practice might be considered in terms of representation of, orientation to,
and norms of, interaction (Little, 2002). There is no evidence from teachers’
conceptions that they interact within the science department or subject team to
make visible their practices, represent their constructed reconceptualisation of
curriculum or constructed pedagogical practices. The structures and transparency
for such teacher-teacher interaction are not evident. The face of this practice
emerges as individualistic, within the science department community. The
possibilities of improved teacher practice, through what McLaughlin and Talbert
(2001) term teacher learning communities is somewhat limited.
The research reveals, communities of science teachers in science departments
demonstrating a strong community, but there are no apparent structures or
orientations to practice that are conducive to change or improvement.
5.10 Teacher’s work: a reflection
The Teacher Work Framework (TWF) developed in Chapter Two posits a dynamic
relationship between Teacher Job Characteristics (TJC), Teacher Experienced
States (TES) and Teacher Outcomes (TO). The relationship is interactive as each
interacts with the other. This framework will provide a reflection on the changes in
teacher’s work that are represented in the conceptions of teams.
The interaction between the aspects of the Teacher Work Framework suggests, if
there are changes in TJC, then TES will be affected and so will teacher outcomes.
The converse is also apparent. If a teacher experiences a change in the knowledge
of colleague’s work in different subjects, this will affect teacher outcomes and will
feed back to the TJC. The TWF is not a linear deterministic cause-effect
relationship. It provides a matrix of possible interactions and recognises the
complex interactions of the everyday work where dynamic interactions have both
- 218 -
positive and negative feedback loops. These feedback loops affect teacher
outcomes.
Teachers’ conceptions of teams and its associated teamwork are in the context of
teachers’ every day work. This study is not in a position to reflect on changes (in a
before and after sense) to teacher work in the implementation of teams. However,
comment can be made about the dynamic relationship between the Teacher Job
Characteristics (TJC), the Teacher Experienced States (TES) and Teacher
Outcomes (TO).
The study reveals teacher dissatisfaction with teams and teamwork. This
dissatisfaction is an aspect of the TO. The dynamic relationship between the TJC
and the TES posits that aspects of these will be involved in the negative
experiences of work.
The TES acknowledges the importance of the meaningfulness of teacher
organisation, personal responsibility for work outcomes, knowledge of students,
knowledge of colleagues’ work and the implementation of teams. These attributes
change these aspects of the TES. The relationship between the TES and the TJC
implies that the source of the negative experienced states can be located in the
TJC. In the TJC, team implementation changes the level of dealing with others, skill
variety, task identity and task significance. Teams also modify the
autonomy/discretion category experienced by teachers. The last two categories:
feedback from teaching and feedback from others remain unchanged in the
conceptions of teachers, as there are no experiences of any feedback mechanisms:
formal or informal.
So, for teachers who are friends in a timetabled subject team to demonstrate
collaboration in their teamwork, they could have changes in their job characteristics
that lead (to a greater or lesser extent) to modifications of the teachers’ experienced
states. The teachers’ conceptions indicate that these modifications lead to positive
teacher outcomes of growth, satisfaction, motivation, effectiveness and efficacy.
The Teacher Work Framework (TWF) provides a relationship between teacher job
characteristics, as experienced states and teacher experiences of their work, that
has proved useful in explaining aspects of science teachers’ conceptions of teams.
- 219 -
5.11 Conclusion
Chapter Five has developed an understanding of the conceptions teachers’ hold of
teams and its associated teamwork.
The conceptions reveal the impeding nature of the school policies (or lack of
policies) to teams and teamwork. The research identifies school administrative
frameworks as having no apparent values, beliefs, structures or recognition in
respect of teacher teams or teamwork. This finding is concerning as the teacher
standards of the Queensland College of Teachers clearly require teachers to work
in teams. This is a serious mismatch between the Queensland Teacher Registration
authority requirements and the structure of the schools.
The eight conceptions of teams and teamwork reveal the team as a collective based
on the timetabled classes, the science discipline and pedagogical discourse.
Science teachers have multiple team memberships that co-exist. Teacher social
relations mediate teamwork, as the social space provides trust and openness to
allow teachers to make their work public. The teachers who are not in the social
space experience conflict and ‘ask-and-receive’ relationships. The importance of the
safety of friends is not surprising considering the status of teachers has been
eroded to a point where teachers feel themselves devalued as professionals. Hicks
(2003) and Mackenzie (2007) note a crisis in teacher morale in Australia with
teachers feeling undervalued, frustrated, unappreciated and demoralised. Much of
this decline they attribute to increased work demands and a downgrading of the
status of the profession in the eye of the community.
In the identified conceptions of teams and teamwork, the use of the word ‘team’
could be regarded as an ‘untested assumption’. The comparisons of the
conceptions of teams and teamwork with characteristics of teams, team processes
and teamwork distilled from the team literature demonstrate little alignment.
The conventional literature indicates teamwork is based on collaboration. The
comparison of conceptions of teams and teamwork when compared with
collaboration characteristics from the literature, reveal limited collaboration of
science teachers. The schools and science departments are not considered as
learning organisations or communities of practice as the level of collaboration or
structures are not apparent in the research.
Chapter Six investigates the meaning of these findings in a context to present
implications and recommendations to Education Queensland. The chapter then
- 220 -
presents discussions about the contribution to knowledge, with possible future
research directions.
- 221 -
Chapter Six
6.1 Introduction.
This study contributes to the knowledge of teams and teamwork in secondary
schools, as it presents a theoretical model of teams and teamwork unique to this
study. The study was conducted in the science departments of fifteen Education
Queensland secondary schools.
This chapter builds on the previous chapters. Chapter One sets the context and
states the research question. Chapter Two presents a range of literature concerning
teams and teamwork in Education, Health, Sport and Industry; collaboration; school
organisation; and teacher identity. The literature presents a framework to
understand teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork. Chapter Three presents
phenomenography as the research approach, with its theoretical and analytical
framework. Chapter Four presents the results and analysis of the empirical
research, with the development of categories of description and the outcome space.
Chapter Five uses a framework derived from the literature for a comparative
investigation of the empirically identified teachers’ conceptions of teams and
teamwork.
Conceptions of teams and teamwork have been identified from the lived
experiences of science teachers. This chapter presents the teachers’ conceptions
in terms of those that ‘assist’ or ‘impede’, as a discussion framework for teams and
teamwork. The use of the labels, ‘assist’ and ‘impede’, focus the chapter on the
presentation of knowledge gained from the study and assists in developing
recommendations.
This chapter is structured in six sections (Figure 6.1). The first section interrogates
the conceptions of teams and teamwork by grouping conceptions into aspects that
assist and impede teams and teamwork in secondary schools. The ‘assist’
subsection presents social relations and the nature of teacher tasks as aspects that
assist teams and teamwork. The next subsection deals with the four identified
aspects that impede teams and teamwork. They are non-social relationships, school
policies and structures, lack of school policies and structures and vulnerability and
low self-esteem.
- 222 -
Figure 6.1
Chapter Six Outline
The implications of this study, as they relate to teacher teams, science teachers and
schools are presented in the next section of this chapter. The chapter then moves to
present the limitations of this study and an examination of its theoretical
contributions. Chapter Six concludes with suggestions for building on this study.
6.2 Teams in Schools.
Science and the teaching of science are important to the professional identity of
science teachers. They are passionate and enthusiastic about their profession, yet
their image is often ‘under siege’.
- 223 -
It is evident from the public announcements of both the Australian and Queensland
Governments that science and science teaching is regarded as important to the
future of the country and the state. At the same time, through reports and the
popular media there is an implied view that science teachers are responsible for the
‘woes’ of science education.
The managerial moves in education provide an increasing agenda of accountability
with expanding external testing programs across Australia. Furthermore, in the
Queensland’s context the science curriculum is changing, as are the testing and
reporting frameworks. Science teachers, as passionate and enthusiastic
professionals with their identity closely related to their discipline, find themselves in
a space characterised by falling student numbers, accusation of failure to respond
to the changing needs of students and the nature of science (Tytler, 2007).
Teachers feel undervalued, frustrated, unappreciated, and demoralised (Hicks,
2003; Mackenzie, 2007). They are bombarded by a deficit view that indicates what
they do at a professional level needs ‘fixing’. This in turn develops low levels of
trust, feelings of vulnerability, cynicism (Glesson & Husbands 2001). In addition they
are increasingly blamed for poor student results. Science teachers find themselves
in a system that provides little recognition for implementing continuous, badly
organised and under-resourced changes to their work (O’Brien & Down, 2002).
The science subject department structure is primary to the identity of science
teachers. Subject department structures are, or have been, implicated in the lack of
collaboration in secondary schools (Barker et al., 1999; Baloche et al., 1996;
Ivanitskaya et al., 2002). The departmentalisation in secondary schools has also
been blamed for a fragmented superficial curriculum isolated from the real world
(Little, 1999; Sizer, 2004).
These perceptions of science teachers under ‘siege’ could provide an explanation
for the limited collaborative work apparent in the experiences of science teachers.
Perhaps in times of ‘siege’ the professional and personal ‘safe space’ is found in the
science department and working closely with your friends.
The literature provides no theoretical evidence to indicate that teams are the most
appropriate organisational framework for collaboration in secondary schools, but
education systems have decided that teams of teachers in schools are important.
- 224 -
Science teachers in Queensland are officially required to comply with two sets of
Professional Standards relating to teams and teamwork, establishing benchmarks
for entry and ongoing membership of the teaching profession. The Queensland
College of Teachers and Education Queensland, both indicate that teachers
contributing to professional teams are a critical aspect of the work of teachers. The
two organisations provide two different standards relating to teams and teamwork.
Each standard has a different number in the respective documents, but carry the
same name: ‘contribute to professional teams’. The descriptions presented are
different. Education Queensland as the employing authority, and the Queensland
College of Teachers, as the teacher registration authority, define teams and
teamwork as important to the professional practice of teachers and both use similar
models derived form the Industry/Commerce literature.
However, research findings indicate that schools and subject departments do not
afford the same importance to teams and teamwork: a critical aspect of teachers
work.
The research reveals science teachers have developed their own definition of a
team, as a collective bound by the science department and the timetabled subject,
and teamwork has become an activity between friends. The teachers’ conceptions
of teams and teamwork do not match with those found in the broader team literature
or the Professional Standards that apply in Queensland.
The team arrangements have developed around the timetabled subjects that are a
focus on what science teachers do: they teach science. The team as a collective
based on ‘what you teach’ reinforces the strength of the subject as a key aspect of a
science teacher’s identity.
The team provides a sense of belonging that is directly related to the focus of the
teacher work: timetabled classes and the science department. The pedagogical and
epistemological focus of the science teacher’s work defines the team identity. The
study reveals teachers use the word ‘team’ to describe their membership in the
discourse of science and their subject speciality.
The research indicates that teams and teamwork have been left to the teachers;
there are no team policies, procedure or structures to guide them in the schools. In
Chapter Five it was speculated that the science teachers in the study had an
‘untested’ assumption of teams and teamwork as a possible reason for the
mismatch with the team literature. This apparently is not to be the case, a more
- 225 -
appropriate interpretation is that teachers have taken action and developed their
own working definition.
6.2.1 Team and Teamwork ‘Assisting’ aspects of the Conceptions
The conceptions in the study reveal two aspects that could assist teams and
teamwork in secondary schools:
Recognition of the importance of social relationships to science teachers;
and
Participation in valued tasks.
These two aspects are presented in a concept map: Assisting Teams and
Teamwork (Figure 6.2.1).
Figure 6.2.1
Assisting Teams & Teamwork
Assisting Teams & Teamwork (Figure 6.2.1) provides an insight into the importance
of social relationships and valued tasks to assisting teams and teamwork.
6.2.1.1 Social Relations
The findings of this research suggest that teams contain social spaces that are
generated by teacher friendships. There are teachers who are not included in these
social spaces. Such teachers are team members, have a team identity but no social
relationships with the other team members. This is not to say they are ignored, but
they present an individualistic orientation in the team, where teachers in the social
space present collectivistic orientation. The effect is an ‘in-social/out-social’ space.
- 226 -
The point is that strong social relationships exist in the team and these social
relationships generate collaboration.
Collaboration is a key outcome in using teams as a basic organising unit. A team is
a structural organisation that promotes effective collaboration between individuals
(Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995; Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2002; Katzenbach & Smith,
1993; Pineda & Lerner, 2006). This study contradicts the literature in identifying that
collaboration is not a function of the team, but a function of the social space and the
meaningfulness of the task in which the teachers are engaged. The team in the
conceptions presented by science teachers represents no structural or social
component to collaboration.
Science teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork uncover the importance of
social relationships to the science teachers in the study. The social space allows
teachers and their friends to develop trust, openness and confidence to collaborate.
This collaboration is experienced in personal and professional sharing based in
close teacher– teacher interactions. Teachers in the social space experience
sharing, support and openness. They willingly open themselves to the possibility of
embarrassment, loss, or emotional pain because they believe that they, another
individual, or a situation will benefit from this openness. If a teacher can trust their
colleagues and feel safe in their environment, then they can take the risk of possible
loss of face (Lasky, 2005).
Sharing with colleagues assists a team, but can be perceived as a ‘challenge to
autonomy conceived as personal prerogative’ (Little, 1982, p. 521). Sharing can
have a social cost to a teacher’s competence (Little, 1990) and increases teachers’
vulnerability, as sharing shifts teachers’ work from private to the public and
individual to the collective. Teachers, who share, open themselves to scrutiny of
their professional practice and even their status. Teacher-teacher interactions
present an increase in vulnerability and stress to the professional identity of
teachers in science. The vulnerability can induce feelings of powerlessness or
defencelessness in situations of sharing and collaborative work. Rather than
willingly opening up to such situations, teachers outside the social space withdraw,
or close themselves off in a protective space. In the current climate of ‘teacher
deficit’ models it is easy to understand the need for teachers to minimise their
vulnerability.
- 227 -
In the current context of the teaching of science, social relationships provide a
trusting space to promote collaboration, which is not a team construct in the
experiences of teachers, but a construct of friends in the team. This finding is
unique, as Health, Industry, Sport or other Education team literature suggests that
the social relationships, trust and collaboration stem from the team.
The acknowledgement of social relationships as a powerful force in collaborative
work, it demonstrates the need in teacher-teacher interactions for a trusting space.
6.2.1.2 Tasks
The involvement of teachers in meaningful valued tasks such as assessment, scope
and sequence and developing new programs could assist teachers to work in
teams, as it recognises the specialist disciplinary knowledge of teaching and
learning.
The coordination and working with colleagues on these valued tasks is not
considered a teaching task reassignment and a teaching task redefinition as
suggested by Mayrowetz and Smylie (2004), as it a fundamental aspect of the work
of science teaching.
The research finds that coordination is based on the perceived importance of the
task to the core work of science teaching, a finding congruent with Baker et al.,
(2005).
The development of Hackman and Oldham (1980) and Pounder’s (1999) Teacher
Work Framework (TWF) as identified in Chapter Two provides a possible insight
into the importance of the tasks and their relevance to the work of teachers.
Working on a task of the type identified in the research is considered by the
teachers to be important to the role of science teaching as it provides an opportunity
to contribute to the teaching and learning (task identity) and is important to the role
of teaching (task significance). The tasks identified in the research allow autonomy
and discretion with the choice of material to be used. Each of these are aspects of a
science teacher’s authority and obligation that are related to their experienced
states (TES), and provides positive feeling of meaningfulness of the teaching,
positive experiences of teacher organisation, knowledge of the results of teaching
(assessment tasks), a personal responsibility for the outcomes of the work and
some knowledge of the work of colleagues. These aspects of teachers’
experienced states moderate aspects of teacher satisfaction, effectiveness and self
efficacy. These types of teacher tasks provide a multi-dimensional input into teacher
- 228 -
professional identify. Science teachers coordinate tasks when the tasks are
considered central to the authority and obligations to science teaching.
In the current social, political and media climate, science teacher’s identity is
defined by the relationship with the discourse of science and its specialised teaching
and learning practices. Science teachers are responsible to students and the
community, as outlined in Chapter Five (Gohier et. al., 2007). The three types of
tasks: scope and sequence, new work program and assessment represent the
obligations and authority as part of their agency: pursuit of their specialist
knowledge in the discourse of science. This provides professional knowledge
authority of a meaningful role with freedom and passion (Britzman, 2000).
Tasks can provide meaningfulness to the teachers, as they enact core beliefs and
values of obligation and authority found in teaching science.
6.2.2 Team and Teamwork ‘Impeding’ aspects of the Conceptions
The conceptions reveal four aspects that could impede teams and teamwork in
schools:
Non-social relationships to science teachers; School policies and structures; Lack of school policies and structures; and Vulnerability and low self-efficacy.
These four aspects are presented in a concept map: Impeding Teams and
Teamwork (Figure 6.2.2). There are demonstrated relationships between aspects
that contribute to the meaning of ‘impede’ are outlined.
- 229 -
Figure 6.2.2 Impeding Teams & Teamwork
- 230 -
This section of the chapter provides a summary of the evidence gained in the
research for declaring aspects of teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork
(Figure 6.2.2) as impediments.
The aspects of non-social relationships and vulnerability/low self efficacy are related
to the space in which science teachers’ work. The other two aspects: school
policy/structures and lack of school polices/structures point to the ‘support vacuum’
that teachers experience as part of their conceptions of teams and teamwork.
6.2.2.1 Non-social Relationships
Conceptions reveal that non-social relationships between teachers impede
teamwork and teams. The research reveals experiences of intrapersonal and
interpersonal conflict that undermine possible social relationships.
Interpersonal conflict is internal to the teacher where teachers experience conflict
between alternatives which are opposing, experiences that contradict role
expectations or understate personal or group outcomes. These are referred to as
teacher professional conflict experiences (role identity, subject identity and de-
privatisation of practice). There is conflict with teachers exposing their own teaching
to the scrutiny of colleagues. The research reveals that conflict is expressed by the
teachers who find changes in teacher-teacher interaction levels challenge their
personal interpretative framework of role identity, subject identity and privacy of
practice.
The study also reveals that intrapersonal conflict such as incompatibilities,
disagreements and differences between teachers. The conflict arises from the
position of a teacher with respect to the social space. Teachers outside the social
space (for whatever reason), are perceived as being in conflict with teachers in the
social space. The conceptions present teacher-teacher interactions that are
characterised as judging and criticising from positions of superiority. To some
extent, teachers outside the social space are treated as ‘non-team players’, a
suggestion of the normative power of teams (although still accepted as a team
member). This perception can, as Buchanan (2000) suggests place individuals in
social isolation. The study indicates ‘social isolation’ is far too strong a term, as
these teachers still have a team identity, but they do not participate in the fractured
collaborative aspects of the team. They choose an individualistic over a collectivistic
orientation for the reasons outlined in previous sections. These conflict states are
- 231 -
not constructive, but are divisive and undermine any potential social relationships
and collegial nature of the team.
The ‘ask-and-receive’ relationship is found when teachers are outside the social
space within a subject team; this study suggests it is not conducive to collaboration.
If a teacher is ‘outside’ the social space and asks for assistance the dynamic of the
sharing changes. The power dynamic changes to the shares, who have minimal
vulnerability, since their assistance has been requested. The sharer is empowered
through the recognition of his/her expertise, knowledge and skills. This situation is a
rare example of capitalising on teacher expertise. There are no indications of ‘ask-
and-receive’ type of relationship being present in the conventional literature studied.
The research proposes that social relationships impede teams and teamwork with
respect to a non-trusting environment. Teachers outside the social space have
increased feelings of vulnerability that bring an associated sense of risk to the
notion of ‘self’. The research findings imply that the development of school
environments that diminish the risk to ‘self’ will decrease the individualistic
orientations and enhance the collectivistic orientations of teachers.
6.2.2.2 School Policies and Structures
The conceptions of teams and teamwork suggest that science teachers work in a
‘supportive vacuum’ for teams and teamwork. The research findings grounded in
teachers’ conceptions indicate a complete lack of school administration and
organisational recognition of teams and teamwork to school development,
improvements to teaching and learning or collaborative recognition of the expertise
of teachers.
The policies, structures and procedures the science teachers experience are those
relating to enforced ‘team membership’, time and bureaucracy. The science
teachers in the study experience enforced team membership. Team membership is
related to the ‘holes’ in the timetable, an operational consideration of subject and
having a teacher in the classroom.
Teamwork literature indicates that if a combination of individual team roles and
technical skills are present in a team, there will be a demonstration of a high level
collaborative effort (Prichard & Stanton, 1999). The types of specific roles include:
innovating, promoting, developing, organising, producing, inspecting and
maintaining (Belbin, 1981, 1993; Magerison & McCann, 1990, 1995; Mourkogiannis,
2007) and all acknowledge the importance of having the ‘right people’ in a team.
- 232 -
The point made by the literature is that without the ‘right’ teachers then the team
doesn’t work. Enforced team membership does not recognise the needs of a team
or the specialist knowledge and skills teachers possess and the needs of teachers.
The operational considerations of the timetable are more important.
The timetable is also a source of hindrance in the collaborative working of teams.
Teachers participating in the study are given no timetabled time during which to
collaborate. They experience communication difficulties when they are unable to
find time to get together. Common planning time, Mertens and Flowers (2003)
consider is essential for the success of teacher teams. This, they suggest, is not like
individual planning time but a common time that enables teachers to meet as ‘a
team’ to discuss curriculum and student issues. The study findings confirm the
essential nature of teacher common planning time.
Teachers in the study experience difficulties with the bureaucracy of the schools.
They refer to the lack of vision, belief and support for teamwork in schools. There
are external authorities directing teachers to work in teams, but the school does little
to support such changes to teacher work. Teachers are not empowered in the
bureaucratic structures. Teacher teams do not feature in the vertical or horizontal
structures of the schools studied.
6.2.2.3 Lack of School Policies and Structures
The second aspect of the ‘support vacuum’ experienced by teachers comes from
the lack of policies, procedures and structures for teams and teamwork.
Teacher learning, communities of practice and professional development depend on
the strength of the collaborative activities in the professional community (Little,
2002). Similarly, in Queensland, the Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study
(QSRLS, 2001) found that communities of teachers were essential to improving
professional practice. Teacher learning is a collaborative undertaking rather than an
individual activity (Cochrane-Smith & Lytle, 1999). Teams provide a framework for
teacher collaboration.
The various sets of professional standards require teachers to work in teams, be
empowered in decision making and learn in communities of practice as a
collaborative process. Yet, the science teachers experience a lack of school and
subject department policies, procedures and structures to support teams and
teamwork. The study finds that teachers experience no team leadership at any level
of the school.
- 233 -
The conceptions of teams and teamwork present a lack of team formation, renewal
and evolution necessary for teams and teamwork. These activities require clear
goals and objectives, definitions of tasks and roles and clear work plans. These
have been acknowledged as non-existent in the experiences of teachers. Team
formation is controlled by the timetable.
This study reveals that none of the teachers’ conceptions indicate any team skills as
suggested by Kay et al., (2006), Murray et al., (2005) and Pineda and Lerner,
(2006), such as adaptability/flexibility and group decision making/planning. The
schools in the study apparently have no procedures to progress deadlines or track
the action of team members. The teachers experience no recognition of needs,
expertise of team members, or sharing of recourses (as already explored). The
absence of procedures, policies and structures suggests that teams and teamwork
are not important to either the school or science department. The collaborative
organisation benefits accorded to teamwork in the broader literature seems not
relevant to the organisation of the work of teachers. This conclusion creates
difficulties and confusion for science teachers.
The key skills of group decision making/planning are not apparent in the
experiences of science teachers. There are no policies, procedures or structures for
roles and responsibilities of teachers in teams. Team rules and guidelines have not
been collectively developed; in fact they have not been developed at all. There are
no team goals, gathering or evaluating data to make decisions about problems in
the schools or science departments. The teacher workload is set by the timetable
and Education Queensland guidelines; there is no evidence of sharing the workload
amongst teachers in their timetabled subject team. These findings are a major
departure from the characteristics necessary for teams and teamwork, as expressed
in the team literature.
This study reveals that the diversity of teachers is not valued in the schools, or
science departments, but it is in the social space of the timetabled subject team.
There is no acknowledgement of the various aspects of classroom practice or the
breadth of content, knowledge and skill possessed by teachers. These are the
experiences of teachers at a school and science department level. There are no
incentives for science teachers to be involved in teacher learning based on their
expertise or interests.
- 234 -
The lack of structure, policies and procedures seriously curtails the involvement of
teachers in collaborative processes to solve problems, generate new ideas or
evaluate issues relevant to the work of teachers and student learning. The research
concludes that the schools in the study do not experience encouragement in finding
innovative or creative solutions in finding different ways of doing things.
The lack of policies and procedures that support teamwork and teams, identified in
this research study suggests that these schools are not collaborative team
environments and teacher expertise is not recognised and utilised in the ‘community
of practice’ sense already outlined. Teacher conceptions suggest a model of
education that is based on bureaucratic principles such as clear divisions of labour,
standardisation of practice with coordination and control through hierarchy. There
also is a possibility that the impost of teams created by the two sets of professional
standards is far too difficult to fit into the bureaucratic structures that currently exist.
If the team structure does not fit in current bureaucratic structures, there is a
possibility that another type of team might need to be conceptualised that is not
grounded in the notions that flow from the commercial/business world. A further
hypothesis could be that team implementation is an example of Central Office
policies being imposed on schools, without the knowledge or resources to
implement such structures, so teachers and schools choose to ignore the concept.
The third possibility is a combination of both these hypotheses.
However, the conceptions of teams and teamwork identified in this study indicate
that the schools in the study do not present as team friendly and are not
communities of practice.
6.2.2.4 Vulnerability and Low Self-Efficacy
The notions of open sharing are not apparent in the conceptions of teams and
teamwork. The only sharing happens in the social space of the subject team. As
previously discussed, much of this has to do with the vulnerability and the current
contexts in which teachers find their professional integrity under siege.
It is apparent from the literature that teams in Industry, Health and Sport do not
depend on friendship mediated collaboration. The operating theatre or the
emergency department of a hospital has a strong collaborative ethos, but do not
depend on friendships for teamwork. Each member has a specialised identity that
is recognised and respected in their work environment and in the wider community.
In the Health area for example, surgeons, anaesthesiologist and theatre nurses all
with specialist skills and knowledge work together to achieve an outcome. The
- 235 -
members of the theatre team are recognised for their specialist skills. The members
of these teams have status. Sports teams show similar attributes. High performing
teams do not depend on friendship for a collaborative relationship. The members of
these teams have specialised roles and are recognised for the specialised skills
they bring to the role of team member. They also have status in the wider
community. These teams and others from business and industry train to develop
the skills for task and develop shared mental models of the team process from the
complex emergent nature of team members’ understanding of the team task
(Hirschfield & Jordon, 2006; Murray et al., 2005; Smith-Jentsch et al., 2001; Weick,
1995). Training in teamwork recognises the expertise of the team members and
allows them to develop ways of working together.
This research reveals no such team training in the conceptions of teachers. Science
teachers are left to develop their own teamwork ‘shared mental models’. This they
create from their social relations, as this is a safe place to share both personally and
professionally.
The conceptions of teams identify a lack of recognition of the specialist science
knowledge and skills. The lack of recognition is evident at school and subject
department level. Science teachers are more than just science; as they have other
essential and specific knowledge and skills. Many teachers teach, for example Year
eight science together with a senior science subject. They have specific skills, such
as: Chemistry, Physics or Microbiology, many of these are the result of previous
study, school experience or employment. Knowledge and skills in these realms are
not acknowledged in the science department. The department and school present in
the research findings no possibilities for the variety of skills to be used to enhance
teacher learning. This brings the discussion back to vulnerability, and a safe place
to share. Teachers, as indicated in their conceptions, do not share in places that are
not safe. In spite of the deficit view of science teachers, if the schools concerned
and their science departments provided a safe environment for the recognition of
the expertise of teachers and had structures and/or policies to support this
environment, then the collaborative power of teachers could perhaps be utilised.
This section has highlighted the ‘support vacuum’ experienced by science teachers
as evident in the conceptions of teams and teamwork.
6.3 Implications
Teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork are constructed from the lived
experiences of science teachers. One of the major aims of this study is to
- 236 -
understand teachers’ experiences of teams and teamwork in order to make
recommendations about aspects of schools, science departments, and teachers’
work to assist collaborative work in schools.
The study has revealed aspects of the conceptions that impede and assist teams
and teamwork in schools. The implications of the study are addressed in the
sections: Teacher Teams, Teachers and School, as this provides a scaffold for
recommendations and future studies. This section of the chapter makes specific
recommendations to Education Queensland, Queensland College of Teachers and
secondary schools.
6.3.1 Teacher Teams
Science teachers have developed their own definition of a team: a collective bound
by the science department and the timetabled subject, and teamwork is
operationalised as an activity between friends. This is a unique definition of teams
and teamwork, and the research reveals that it has been implemented by science
teachers. This definition does not align with the current team and teamwork
literature. In the sense that it is understood elsewhere it is not a team; in the sense
revealed by the science teachers’ conception it is a team. This is their reality.
This conception of teams and teamwork will not meet Standard Nine (Queensland
College of Teachers, 2006). It requires teachers to, ‘actively contribute to a range of
school-based and other professional teams to enhance student learning, achieve
school objectives and improve the teaching and learning process’ (p.15). The
standard requires teachers to have knowledge and understanding of:
personal and team goal setting and management techniques; communication, negotiation, time management, conflict resolution and
problem-solving techniques; the principles of group dynamics; the qualities of effective team members and characteristics of high
performing teams; and the roles and responsibilities of school-based and other professional teams
(p. 15).
This study’s resultant theoretical model of teacher teams will have possible non-
compliance issues with Education Queensland’s Professional Standard Eleven. It
requires a,’ teacher to be actively engaged in collaborating and sharing with other
personnel to provide the best learning outcomes for students’( Education
Queensland, 2005, p. 29). Standard Eleven requires teachers to ‘Contribute to the
effective functioning of professional teams by:
- 237 -
Participation in a range of informal and formal professional teams is undertaken in accordance with personal expertise and interests, school priorities, position description and school-management structure;
Contributions are made to determine the goals, roles and responsibilities of work teams, consistent with the school’s policies, procedures, planning frameworks and priorities;
Open and interactive communication processes are used to obtain and share information, solve problems, generate new ideas and evaluate issues relating to student learning experiences and outcomes, and key school objectives;
Strategies for supporting and valuing the contributions of others are implemented; and
Contributions are made to the monitoring and review of work teams with the aim of enhancing team performance and achieving agreed goals (p. 29).
The implication for the theoretical team mode as currently experienced presented by
the conceptions of these teachers does not contain the same characteristics that
have been set out in the Professional Standards of either The Queensland College
of Teachers or Education Queensland. It is likely that Teacher Registration
requirements and performance indications will not be achieved while teachers hold
these conceptions.
6.3.2 Science Teachers
Science teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork confirm science teachers as
specialists in science discourse, which provides their professional knowledge
authority and a meaningful role in their timetabled subject and science department.
The pedagogical and epistemological focus of science teachers’ work is the centre
of their identity, this the research confirms. This implies the science department
provides a space where teachers can ‘weather the storm’ of being undervalued,
frustrated, unappreciated, and demoralised together. The team identity generated
by the teachers provides support as they are bombarded by a deficit view of science
teaching. The science department provides a strong collective bounded by the
discourse of science and social relations. It is also central to science teachers’
identity as it engenders a sense of worth and value.
Recommendation One
Education Queensland and the Queensland College of Teachers should recognise the unique team and teamwork model(s) in secondary schools necessary to meet their respective Professional Standards requirements.
- 238 -
These findings suggest the strength of the science collective is important to the
teaching of science and should be maintained.
Science teachers have considerable expertise in their specialist areas of science
(and others) that are not recognised in the contexts of opportunities for teacher
learning in the science department or the school. Specialist expertise should be
capitalised upon to develop teachers in learning communities.
In the development of their own team model, science teachers illustrate their own
shared mental models of teamwork, created from their inclusion in the social space,
as this is a safe place to share both personally and professionally. The ‘ask-and-
receive’ relationship is a space in the subject team, and is a unique contribution to
team literature.
The social space allows teachers to develop trust, openness and confidence to
collaborate. The implication of these findings suggests that science teachers who
experience increased levels of vulnerability will avoid collaborative work. The types
of tasks teachers engage in provide meaningfulness to the teachers, as they enact
core beliefs and values of the obligations and authority as a teacher of science.
Teams must provide a sense of trust and openness while engaging in tasks that are
meaningful and related to the core values and beliefs about teaching science for
collaboration to occur.
Recommendation Two
Future team and teamwork development in secondary schools should present models of organisation that recognise the strong association between the subject, its epistemology, pedagogical discourse and the work of science teachers.
Recommendation Three
The expertise science teachers provide to the school environment should be recognised as a resource, in roles that contribute to the enhancement of the teaching and learning in a school professional community.
- 239 -
6.3.3 Schools
Science teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork disclose that schools in the
study have policies and procedures that hinder teams and teamwork and that there
is a lack of policies and procedures to support teams and teamwork. The schools in
the study present as ‘support vacuums’. In the absence of any official team policy,
procedure and structures science teachers have developed their own team and
teamwork model.
The implications for the schools and science teachers are serious, as the
professional standards of Education Queensland and the Teacher Registration
Authority: Queensland College of Teachers provide benchmarks of knowledge and
practice in critical aspects of science teachers’ work. The research suggests that
these professional standards cannot be met in the present school environment.
A secondary school can be considered as a complex system that consists of many
components that interact at multiple levels. What is important are the relationships—
both collaborative and cooperative that hold the possibilities to solve problems and
create different solutions to school issues. This understanding posits an effectively
working school as one that contains teachers that are networked and
interconnected in learning communities.
The conceptions identified in this study reveal there is minimal potential for science
teachers to have their expertise used to contribute to teacher learning communities.
Collegial professionals can build strong professional cultures of collaborative
practice to develop a common purpose and to cope with uncertainty and complexity
Recommendation Four
Education Queensland and the Queensland College of Teachers should embark on a project to clarify the use of team and teamwork models currently operating in secondary schools.
Recommendation Five
Education Queensland should clarify for schools models of teacher teams that will enhance teacher teamwork and also move to implement such models with sufficient resourcing, including whole school professional development time.
- 240 -
of the school. The lack of structure, policies and procedures seriously curtails the
involvement of teachers in collaborative processes to solve problems, generate new
ideas and evaluate issues relevant to the work of teachers and student learning.
Teachers are not empowered in the bureaucratic structures, as teacher teams do
not feature in the vertical or horizontal structures of the schools studied. In more
team supportive environments, where strong recognition of the importance of
teacher knowledge and expertise exists there is propensity for collaborative learning
community.
The result of these findings suggests an environment where teachers are not valued
for their expertise, so situations of a community of practice in the schools studied is
not possible. In the conceptions of teams and teamwork the schools do not use the
expertise of the science teachers, outside of teaching science classroom
commitments.
It is also apparent that the team model that has formed the basis of the Professional
Standards contains recognised specialists working together. This research study
reveals a theoretical model that lacks recognition of teacher specialist knowledge
and skills. Science teachers have specialist skills other than those within the content
of science. Science teachers have specialist knowledge, for example curriculum
organisation, science pedagogy, content knowledge. Different teachers have
different specialisation, but the current system, as revealed by the eight
conceptions, labels science teacher as ‘science teachers’ with no recognition of
their specialisations.
There is, as a result of this research, the possibility for a space for the
reconceptualisation of the team notion in secondary schools, with specialists in
pedagogy, curriculum, content knowledge and laboratory knowledge forming the
basis of the team, as opposed to current practices revealed in the study.
Recommendation Seven
Education Queensland and The Queensland College of Teachers and all secondary schools should be informed of the findings and implication of the research into Science Teachers’ Conceptions of Teams and Teamwork.
Recommendation Six
Schools should review their understanding of ‘Communities of Practice’, through the investigation of policies, procedures, structures and practice with the view of modifying or developing their ‘Communities of Practice’.
- 241 -
The importance of this study is wider than the secondary schools in Queensland, as
other States of Australia and overseas education jurisdictions are trying to come to
an understanding of engaging secondary schools teachers in an organisational
framework of collaborative endeavour that recognises the importance of the
specialisation of science. In suggesting the wider importance of the study, it must
also be recognised that the theoretical model of this study is a construction of the
experiences of science teachers.
6.4 Limitations of the study
The phenomenographic approach has recognised the importance of the constructed
experiences of science teachers through qualitatively different conceptions. The
academic research has assisted in the validation of the teachers’ experiences of
teams and teamwork. The validation for science teachers comes in the generation
of a theoretical model that is a representation of their lived experiences.
The study has generated a theoretical model that identifies the limited variation in
the conceptions science teachers hold of teams and teamwork. These findings only
relate to the science teachers in a single jurisdiction in Queensland: the State
Education system. Subsequent studies in other disciplinary contexts and
jurisdictions are necessary.
Phenomenography does not confirm causation of the conceptions held by the
science teachers. The research presents an interpretation of the findings generated
by the broader academic literature and many years of experience in secondary
school science departments.
6.5 Theoretical Contribution
The conceptual framework that has shaped this study has been drawn from an
analysis of the literature in teams, teamwork, school organisation, teacher identity
and collaboration.
Teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork provide a theoretical contribution to
the knowledge of teams and teamwork in secondary schools. The findings assist in
the theoretical understanding of teams and teamwork and generate questions about
the appropriateness of the contemporary team construct in secondary schools. The
research also enhances the theory of phenomenography as a research approach.
- 242 -
This study of science teachers’ experiences reveals eight conceptions of teams and
teamwork. These conceptions present a theoretical model that provides new insight
into teams in secondary schools.
The findings of the research indicate that the ’team and teamwork’ model developed
is fundamentally different from the team and teamwork models presented in the
Education, Health, Industry/Commerce and Sport literature. The characteristics of
teams and teamwork found in that literature do not align with the theoretical model
generated from the science teachers’ conceptions.
The research findings suggest that the team represents a collective of science
teachers bounded by the Science Department and their current timetabled subject.
Collaboration was found in the study to be an activity that occurred between
teachers in the same social space. The research recognises a new category of
relationship between teachers, designated as ‘ask-and-receive’.
The research findings recognise the lack of teamwork within the science department
and the school. There is no teaming with other subject departments; all teamwork
occurs within the science department. Research findings highlight the non-
supportive team and teamwork policies, procedures and structures in the schools.
The benefits of teamwork are evident in the findings of the study and the nature of
these benefits is supported in the literature. However, these benefits are only
realised between friends. This finding is not apparent in the current team literature.
The research opens more questions about the appropriateness of teams in
secondary schools as an organisational framework for teachers’ work to generate
collaboration. The theoretical literature from Education, Sport, Industry/Commerce
and Health suggests the team framework and the task generate collaboration. This
study suggests, however, that social relationship generate collaboration, not the
organisational framework provided by the team.
The study reveals no recognition of specialised skills of the science teachers. The
current assumption of team organisation as presented in the Professional Standards
posits a group of specialists working together, a situation where specialists are
acknowledged and skills are respected. The study reveals no acknowledgement or
respect for specialist skills. The findings imply a fundamental mismatch between a
- 243 -
corporate generated team model expressed in the Professional Standards and the
theoretical model generated in the research.
The thesis in an earlier section speculated that the notion of teams and teamwork
was an ‘untested hypothesis’ of science teachers. It is more likely as a result of this
study that the expectation of teams providing an organisational framework for
collaboration in Queensland secondary schools could be the ‘untested hypothesis’.
However, this is possibly a ‘moot point’ as the context of the study recognises that
teams are a critical aspect of teachers’ work in the current Professional Standards
of The Queensland College of Teachers and Education Queensland.
The research findings have contributed to phenomenographical study by adding to
the variety of situations in which this research approach has been used to contribute
to knowledge. Phenomenography provides a relational view of constructed
knowledge that can be visually represented. The research findings have added to
the diversity of visual representations found in the phenomenographic literature.
The research provides a further development in the phenomenographic approach.
The study identified science teachers’ conception of teams and teamwork then
investigated previous academic literature for possible for explanations for the
conceptions identified. The academic literature also provided a number of
frameworks for a comparative investigation of teachers’ conceptions and currently
accepted models for teams and teamwork.
6.6 Building on the Current Study
This phenomenographic investigation has revealed the different ways in which
science teachers conceive of the phenomena of ‘teams and teamwork’. The findings
of this study present a theoretical model of science teachers’ experiences of teams
and teamwork. They also present a view of school policies and procedures that
hinder teams and teamwork.
The outcomes present a comprehensive theoretical framework, previously not
addressed. However, the understanding of teams and teamwork is far from
complete and needs further investigations.
The following recommendations for further research are suggested,
The study was conducted in the science departments of fifteen Queensland
State secondary school science departments. The replication in other
disciplinary departments and jurisdictions will add to the knowledge of teams
and teamwork in schools. The study recommends that, there be a replication
of this study in other disciplinary and jurisdictional contexts.
- 244 -
The study was conducted using science teacher participants. The study
makes recommendations for schools and school administrative policies and
procedures be designed to enhance science teaching. The study
recommends the following.
A study is conducted of school administrators to understand the conceptions they have of teams and teamwork.
A major study is conducted across secondary schools in Queensland
to identify what team and teamwork model(s) are currently being used and how they support or inhibit teachers in working in teams.
A study is conducted across secondary schools in Queensland to
clarify how the specialist expertise of teachers based in subject departments is currently being used to enhance the community of practice concept.
The study makes no theoretical claims about the appropriateness of
teams in secondary schools as an organising framework for teacher collaboration. The study recommends a project be undertaken to generate a theoretical understanding of teams as organising frameworks for collaboration in secondary schools.
The thesis has added to the knowledge of teams and teamwork in secondary
schools. It has generated doubts about the team supportive nature of school policy,
practice and structures in the secondary schools studied. It positions science
teachers in science departments that are critical to their professional identities.
The major research outcome is the theoretical model of teams and teamwork that
science teachers have implemented in the vacuum of school support for teams. This
model has no synergy with accepted views of teamwork and teams. The research
also posits a non-compliance issue between current professional standards of
teams and teamwork and the model generated by science teacher.
The use of teams and teamwork in departmentalised secondary schools does not
provide opportunities for collaboration or notions of a professional learning
community. This brings into question the appropriateness of the type of team, as
presented in the Professional Standards and the commerce, sport and health
literature. Further research is needed to construct a unique ‘team’ model that meets
the needs of departmentalised secondary schools.
The results of this study provide a clear need for further professional learning about
teams and teamwork particularly for school administrators and teacher in
departmentalised secondary schools.
- 245 -
As a result of this study, it becomes apparent that students are not receiving the
maximum benefit from the expertise held by science teachers, as this experience is
being under utilised.
The riddle expressed in the title, If teams are so good…. remains a journey that
continues………….
- 246 -
BIBLIOGRAPHY Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: the micro-politics of teacher collaboration. Teacher College Record, 104(3), 421-455. Åkerlind, G. S. (2005). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(4), 321-334
Andia, L. M. (1998). How to train with a partner (and not come to blows). Training &
Development, 52(5), 14-15.
Archer, M. S. (1996). Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Armstrong, L., & Jenkins, S. (2002). It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin.
ASTA. (2002). National professional standards for highly accomplished teachers of science. Canberra: Australian Science Teachers Association.
Baker, D. P., Horvarth, L., Campion, M., Offermann, L., & Salas, E. (2005). The ALL
Teamwork Framework. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Ball, S. (1987). The Micro-politics of the School: towards a theory of school organisation. London: Methuen.
Baloche, L., Hynes, J., & Berger, L. (1996). Moving towards the integration of the
professional and general education. Action in Teacher Education, 18, 1-9.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Human Behaviour (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. Barlex, D. (1994). Organising Project Work. In F. Banks (Ed), Teaching Technology (pp124-143). London: Routledge.
Barnacle, R. (2005). Interpreting interpretation: A phenomenological perspective on
phenomenography. In J. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing Developmental Phenomenography (pp. 47-55). Melbourne: RMIT Publishing.
Barnard, A., McCosker, H., & Gerber, R. (1999). Phenomenography: A qualitative research approach for exploring understanding in health care. Qualitative Health Research, 9(2), 115-124.
Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J. (1995). Cooperative teaching: Rebuilding the schoolhouse for all students. Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed.
Belbin, R. (1981). Managing teams: why they succeed or fail. Oxford: Butterworth
Heinemann.
Belbin, R. (1993). Team roles at work. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Bernstein, B. (1971). On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. In B.Bernstein (Ed.), Class, codes and control: Vol 2 (pp. 85-115). London: Routledge.
- 247 -
Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, Codes and Control, Vol. IV, The Structuring of Pedagogical Discourse. London: Routledge.
Bernstein, B. (1990a). Social class and pedagogic practice. In B. Bernstein (Ed.) Class, codes and control : Vol 4. The structuring of pedagogic discourse.
(pp. 63-69).London: Routledge.
Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique. London: Taylor and Francis.
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique. Lanham: Rowan and Littlefield. Beutel, D. (2006). Teachers' understanding of pedagogic connectedness. Unpublished PhD, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Blenkin, G., Edwards, G., & Kelly, A. (1997). Perspectives on Educational Change. In A. Harris, N. Bennett & M. Preedy (Eds.), Organisational Effectivenes and Improvement in Education (pp. 216-230). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourne, J. (2003). Vertical Discourse: the role of the teacher in the transmission and
acquisition of decontextualised language. European Educational Research Journal, 2(4), 496-521.
Bowden, J. (1994). The nature of phenomenographic research. In J. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenographic Research: Variations in Method (pp. 1- 16).Melbourne: RMIT: EQARD.
Bowden, J. (2005). Reflections on the team research process. In J. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing Phenomenography. Melbourne: RMIT Publishing.
Bradbury, H. (2001). Dynamics of dialogic capital in interorganisational collaboration. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Environments, Systems and Organisations, 1, 1-15.
Britzman, D. P. (2000). Teacher education in the confusion of our times. Journal of
Teacher Education, 51(3), 200-205.
Bruce, C. (1992). Research students' conceptions of a literature review. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
Bruce, C. (1994). Reflections on the experience of the phenomenographic interview, Phenomenography: Philosophy and Practice Conference. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology
Bruce, C. (1996). Information literacy: A phenomenography. Armidale: University of
New England. Buchanon, D. (2000). An eager and enduring embrace: the ongoing rediscovery of
teamwork as a management idea. In F. Proctor (Ed.), Team Working (pp. 25-42). London: McMillan.
- 248 -
Cannon-Bowers, J., Salas, S., Tannenbaum, S., & Volpe, C. (1995). Defining team
confidence: Implications for training requirements and strategies. In R. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organisations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cannon-Bowers, J., & Salas, E. (1997). A framework for developing team performance measures. In M. Brannick, E. Salas & C. Prince (Eds.), Team Performance, Assessment and Measurement (pp. 331-355). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Choo, C. (1998). The Knowing Organisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. (1999). What Makes Teams Work: Group effectiveness Research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239-290. Coldron, J., & Smith, R. (1999). Active location in teachers construction of their
professional identities. Journal Curriculum Studies, 31(6), 711-726.
Collins, A., Bercaw, L., Palmeri, A., Altman, J., & Singer-Gabella, M. (1999). Good intentions are not enough: a story of collaboration in science education and technology. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 3-20.
Conley, S., & Muncey, D. (1999). Teachers talk about teaming and leadership in their work. Theory into Practice, 38, 46-56. Cochrane-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1999). The teacher researcher movement: a decade later.Education Researcher, 28(7),15-25.
Cooney, R., & Sohal, A. (2004). Teamwork and Total Quality Management: a Durable Partnership. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 5(8), 1131-1142.
Cope, C. (2000). Educationally critical aspects of the experience of learning about the concept of an information system. La Trobe University, Bundoora.
Cope, C. (2002). Using the analytical framework of a structure of awareness to establish validity and reliability in phenomenographic research, Current Issues Phenomenography. Canberra.
Costin, V. (1999). Conceptions of history held by a group of seventeen year old
students in a Queensland school. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
Cranmer, D. (1999). Team Teaching. The British Council Journal, 10. http://www.britishcouncilpt.org/journal/j1016dc.htm
Croswell, L. (2006). Understanding teacher commitment in changing times. Unpublished PhD, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. St. Leonards: Allen and Unwin.
- 249 -
Crowther, F., Hann, L., McMaster, J., & Ferguson, M. (2000). Leadership for successful school revitalisation: Lessons from recent Australian research, AERA Annual Meeting. New Orleans.
Dahlgren, L., & Fallsberg, M. (1991). Phenomenography as a qualitative approach
in social pharmacy research. Journal of Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 8,150-156.
Dall'Alba, G. (2000). Reflections on some faces of phenomenography. In J. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 83-101). Melbourne: RMIT
Publishing. Dall'Alba, G., & Hasselgren, B. (1996). Reflections on phenomenography towards a
method. Goteburg: ACTA Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Davidson, J., & Layder, D. (1994). Methods, Sex and Madness. London: Routledge. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. J. (2000). Curriculum Forms: on the assumed shapes of
knowing and knowledge. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(6), 821-845.
Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: the challenge of lifelong learning. London: Falmer Press.
Day, C., Kingtona.A., Stobartb, G.& Sammonsa, P. (2006). The personal and
professional selves of teachers: stable and unstable identities. British Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 601-616.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Derry, S., DuRussel, L., & O'Donnell, M. (1998). Individual and distributed cognitions in interdisciplinary teamwork: A developing case study and emerging theory. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 25-48.
DEST. (2001). Backing Australia's Ability - An Innovation Action Plan for the Future 2001. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
DEST. (2003). Australia’s Teachers: Australia’s Future. Advancing Innovation,
Science, Technology and Mathematics Agenda for Action. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
DEST. (2003a). Australian Teachers: Australia's Future, Advancing Innovation, Science, Technology and Mathematics (main report). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Donato, R. (2004). Aspects of Collaboration in Pedagogical Discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 284-302.
Drach-Zahavy, D., & Somech, A. (2002). Team heterogeneity and its relationship with team support and team effectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(1), 44-66.
Druskatt, V., & Pescosolido, A. (2002). The content of effective team models in self managing teams: ownership, learning and heedful interactions. Human Relations, 55, 283-314.
- 250 -
Education Queensland. (1985). Education 2000: Issues and Options for the Future
of Education in Queensland. Brisbane: Education Queensland.
Education Queensland. (1990). Focus on Schools: The future organisational
services for students. Brisbane: Education Queensland.
Education Queensland. (1999). New Basics Project. Brisbane: Education Queensland.
Education Queensland. (2001). Queensland State Education - 2010. Brisbane: Education Queensland.
Education Queensland. (2002). School Improvement and Accountability Framework Brisbane: Education Queensland.
Education Queensland. (2002a). Destination 2010: The action plan to implement Queensland State Education. Brisbane: Education Queensland.
Education Queensland. (2002b). Education and Training Reforms for the Future: A white paper. Brisbane: Education Queensland.
Education Queensland. (2002c). Statement of Strategic Direction. In Strategic Plan 2002-2006. Brisbane: Education Queensland.
Education Queensland. (2003). Assessment and Reporting Framework Pilot Study. Brisbane: Education Queensland.
Education Queensland. (2004). New Basics Project Research Report. Brisbane:
Education Queensland. Education Queensland. (2004a). Middle Phase of Learning: A school self-audit.
Brisbane: Education Queensland. Education Queensland. (2005). Professional Standards for Teachers. Brisbane:
Queensland Government.
Education Queensland. (2007). Assessment of Professional Skill Shortages – Queensland, Australia. Brisbane: Department of Education, Training and the Arts.
Education Queensland. (2008). Strategic Plan 2008-2012: Education Queensland. Brisbane: Education Queensland.
Education Queensland. (2008a). School Improvement and Accountability
Framework (revised 2008). Brisbane: Education Queensland.
Eisen, M. (2000). Many faces of team learning. New Directions in Adult and Continuing Education, 87, 5-14.
Ellis, N. (1990). Collaborative direction for improvement of teaching. Teacher and
Teacher Education, 6, 267-277.
- 251 -
Entwistle, N. (1997). Introduction: Phenomenography in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 16, 127-134.
Enyedy, N., Goldberg, J. & Wesh, K. (2006). Complex Dilemmas of Identity and Practice. Science Education, 90, 68-93.
Fisher, R. (2007). Putting the 'team' in the Fine Arts team: An application of business management concepts. Arts Education Policy Review, 108(4), 25-32.
Fleener, M. J. (1995). Dissipative Structures and Educational Contexts: Transforming Schooling for the 21st Century, Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco: AERA.
Flores, M. A., & Day, C. (2006). Contexts which shape and reshape new teachers' identities: A multi-perspective study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(2), 219-232.
Flowers, N., Mertens, S., & Mulhall, P. (2002). Research in middle school renewal: What makes interdisciplinary teams effective? Middle School Research Articles, 1-4.
Foley, R. (2001). Professional development needs of secondary school principals of
collaborative-based service delivery. High School Journal, 85, 10-24.
Francis, H. (1996). Advancing Phenomenography - Questions of Method. In G. Dall'Alba & B. Hasselgren (Eds.), Reflections on Phenomenography: Towards a Methodology? Goteborg: ACTA Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Freebody, P. (2005). Background, Rationale and Specifications: Queensland
Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Framework. Brisbane: Department of Education and the Arts.
Friedman, V. (1997). Making schools safe for uncertainty: Teams, teaching and school reform. Teachers College Record, 99, 335-370.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2000). Interactions: Collaborative Skills for School Professionals. New York: Longman.
Fullan, M. (1982). The Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change Forces, Probing the Depths of Educational Reform. London: Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (1997). Emotion and Hope: Constructive concepts for complex times. In
ASCD Yearbook: Rethinking Educational Change with Heart and Mind. Virginia: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Gerber, R. (1993). A sense of quality-qualitative research approaches for geographical education. In J. Jaeger (Ed.), Liber Amicorum Prof Niemz. Frankfurt: Goethe University Press.
- 252 -
Gerber, R., Ottoson, T., Boulton-Lewis, R., & Bruce, C. (1993). Towards an understanding of how children understand graphic representations of qualitative data, EarL Conference. Aix-en-Provence, France.
Gibson, C., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2002). Minding your metaphors: applying the concept of teamwork metaphors to the management of teams in multicultural contexts. Organisational Dynamics, 31, 101-116. Glassop, L. (2002). The organisational benefits of teams. Human Relations, 15(2),
225-249. Gleeson, D., & Husbands, C. (2001). Managing, Teaching and Learning in a
Performance Culture. London: Routledge Falmer.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming a Qualitative Researcher: an Introduction. New York: Longman.
Goermer, S. (1999). After the Clockwork Universe: the Emerging Science and Culture of Integral Society. Edinburgh: Floris.
Gohier, C., Chevier, J., & Anadon, M. (2007). Future teachers identity: between idealistic vision and realistic view. McGill Journal of Education, 42(1), 141-156.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-607.
Goyal, M. (2005). Attitude based teams in a hostile world. Knowledge-Based Systems, 18(6), 245-255.
Grossman, P., & Stodolsky, S. (1995). Content as Context: The Role of School Subjects in Secondary School Teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5 -11.
Grumbach, K., & Bodenheimer, T. (2004). Can health care teams improve primary
health care practice? The Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(10), 1246-1251.
Guba, E. G. (1978). Towards a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation. (Vol. 8). California: Centre for Study of Evaluation.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. California: Sage Publications.
Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Hall, V. (2001). Management Teams in Education: an unequal music. School
Leadership and Management, 21(3), 327-341.
Hargreaves, A. (1993). Individualism and Individuality: Reinterpreting the teacher culture. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(3), 227-246.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Teachers' Work and Culture in the Post Modern Age. London: Teacher College Press.
- 253 -
Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teacher and Teacher
Education, 14(8), 835-854. Hargreaves, A. (1999). Educational Change: A three dimensional perspective, Learning Development Foundation Conference. Brisbane: Education Queensland.
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four Ages of Professionalism and Professional Learning.
Teachers and Teaching, 6(2), 151-182.
Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Moore, S., & Manning, S. (2001). Learning to Change: Teaching beyond Subjects and Standards. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Harman, G., Beare, H., & Berkeley, G. F. (1991). Restructuring School Management.Canberra: Australian College of Education.
Harman, G., Beare, H., & Berkley, G. (1991). Restructuring School Management.
Canberra: Australian College of Education.
Harris, K., Jensz, F., & Baldwin, G. (2005). Who's teaching science? Meeting the demands for qualified science teachers in Australian secondary schools. Melbourne: Centre for Study of Higher Education.
Hasselgren, B., & Beach, D. (1997). Phenomenography - a good look for nothing brother of phenomenology? Outline of an analysis. Higher Educational Research and Development, 16, 191-202.
Herschell, R. (1997). Conceptions of thinking legally: An interpretive approach. Armidale University of New England.
Hicks, P. (2003). Teachers: Feeling the Heat. Directions in Education, 12(16). Hirschfield, R., Jordan, M., Field, H., Giles, W., & Armenakis, A. (2006). Becoming Team Players: Team members' mastery of teamwork knowledge as a predictor of team task proficiency and observed teamwork effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 467-474.
Huntley, H. E. (2003). Beginning teachers' conceptions of competence. Unpublished
PhD, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton.
Imants, J., Sleegers, P., & Witzers, B. (2001). The Tensions between Organisational Sub-structures in Secondary Schools and Educational Reform. School Leadership & Management, 12(3), 289-307.
Ingram, H., & Desombre, T. (1999). Teamwork in Health care. Lessons from the
literarure and from good practice around the world. Journal of Management in Medicine, 13(1), 51-58.
Irwin, S. (2006). Parent conceptions of their role in early childhood education and care: A phenomenographic study from Queensland, Australia. Unpublished PhD, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Ivanitskaya, L., Clark, D., Montgomery, G., & Primeau, R. (2002). Interdisciplinary
learning: process and outcome. Innovative Higher Education, 27, 95-111.
- 254 -
Jeffrey, B., & Woods, P. (1996). Feeling deprofessionalised: the social construct of
emotions during an OFSTED inspection. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(3), 325-344.
Johansson, B., Marton, F., & Svensson, L. (1985). An approach to describing learning as change between qualitatively different conceptions. In L. West &
A. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change (pp. 233-257). New York: Academic Press.
Johnson, B. (1998). Organising for Collaboration: A reconsideration of some basic
organising principles. In D. Pounder (Ed.), Restructuring schools for Collaboration: Promises and Pitfalls. New York: State University of New York Press.
Johnson, B. (2003). Teachers Collaboration: good for some, not so good for others.
Educational Studies, 29(4), 337-350. Joyce, B., Hopkins, D., & Calhoun, E. (1999). The New Structure of School
Improvement: Inquiring Schools and Achieving Students. Milton Keynes: Open University press.
Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1996). The Evolution of Peer Coaching. Educational
Leadership, 53 (6), 12-16. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The Discipline of Teams. Harvard
Business Review, 111-120.
Kay, J., Maisonneuve, N., Yacef, K., & Reimann, P. (2006). The big five and visualisations of teamwork activity. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Berlin: Heidleberg.
Kelchtermans, G. (1996). Teacher vulnerability: Understanding it’s moral and political roots. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(3), 307-323.
Kelchtermans, G. (2005). Teachers' emotions in educational reforms: Self- understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 995-1006.
Kelchtermans, G., & Ballet, K. (2002). Micropolitical literacy: Reconstructing a Neglected dimension in teacher development. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 755-767.
Kincheloe, J., & McLaren, P. (1994). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research.In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. California: Sage Publications.
Kumar, R. (1996). Research Methodology: A step by step guide for beginners
Melbourne: Longman.
Langan-Fox, J., Wirth, A., Code, S., Langfield-Smith, K., & Wirth, A. (2001). Analysing shared and team mental models. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28(2), 99-112.
- 255 -
Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency in a context of secondary school reform. Teacher and Teacher Education, 21(8), 899-916.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lavin, M., Ruebling, I., Block, I., Banks, R., Counte, M., Furman, G., et al. (2001).
Interdisciplinary health professional education: A historical review. Advances in Health Science Education, 6(1), 25-47.
Lawler, E. (1996). Teams, pay, and business strategy: finding the best mix to achieve competitive advantage. American Compensation Association Journal, 12-24.
Lee, V. E., Bryk, A., S, & Smith, J. (1993). The Organisation of Effective Schools. Review of Educational Research, 19, 171-267.
Lembke, S., & Wilson, M. (1998). Putting the "Team" into Teamwork: Alternative Theoretical Contributions for Contemporary Management Practice. Human Relations, 51(7), 927-943.
Lingard, B., Knight, J., & Porter, P. (1993). Schooling Reform in Hard Times. London: Falmer Press.
Lingard, R., Ludwig, J., Mills, M., Bahr, M., Chant, D., & Warry, M. (2001). The Queensland School Longitudinal Study. Brisbane: Education Queensland.
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: workplace conditions for school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 325-340.
Little, J. W. (1990). The Persistence of Privacy: Autonomy and Initiative in Teachers'
Professional Relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' Professional Development in a Climate of Educational Reform. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
Little, J. W. (1999). Teachers' professional development in the context of secondary reform: Findings from a three-year study of restructuring schools, American Educational Research Association. Montreal, Canada.
Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers' communities of practice: opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 917-946.
MACER. (2003). The Middle Phase of Learning: A report to the Minister. Brisbane: Education Queensland.
Mackenzie, N. (2007). Teacher Morale: more complex than we think. Australian Educational Researcher, 34(1), 89-104.
Maeroff, G. (1993). Team building for school change: Equipping teachers for new ideas. New York: Teachers College Press.
- 256 -
Magerison, C., & McCann, R. (1990). TMS: an overview. Brisbane: Team Management Systems.
Magerison, C., & McCann, R. (1995). Team Management Accreditation Handbook. Brisbane: Team Management systems.
Mailler, E. (2006). For love or money: Perceptions and conceptions of the work ethic
held by a group of preservice teachers. Unpublished PhD, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Makar, S. (2007). Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers: Process and Debates. Brisbane: Queensland College of Teachers.
Manson, S. (2001). Simplifying complexity: a review of complex theory. Geoforum, 32, 405-414. Manz, C., & Sims, H. (1986). Leading self-managed groups: A conceptual analysis
of a paradox. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 7(2), 141-165.
Marchington, M. (2000). Team working and the employer involvement: terminology, evaluation and context. In M. Proctor (Ed.),Teamworking. London: McMillan.
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography: Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177-200.
Marton, F. (1986). A research approach to investigating different understandings of
reality. Journal of Thought, 21, 28-49.
Marton, F. (1988). Phenomenography: Exploring different conceptions of reality. In M. Fetterman (Ed.), Qualitative Approaches to Evaluation in Education: The Silent Revolution (pp. 176-208). New York: Praeger.
Marton, F. (1988a). Describing and improving learning. In R. Schmerk (Ed.), Learning Strategies and Learning Styles. New York: Plenum Press. Marton, F. (1990). Using data as experience: an introduction to phenomenography.
Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. Marton, F. (1992). Phenomenography and 'the art of teaching all things to all men' Qualitative Studies in Education, 5, 253-267. Marton, F. (1993). Ference Marton on qualitative research and phenomenography.
In Qualitative Research-phenomenography: Theory and Applications. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. Marton, F. (1994a). The idea of phenomenography. In B. Ballantyne (Ed.),
Phenomenography: Philosophy and Practice (Vol. 7). Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
Marton, F. (1994b). Phenomenography. In T. P. Huson, N. (Ed.), The International
Encyclopaedia of Education (pp. 4424-4429). Oxford: Pergamon. Marton, F. (2000). The structure of awareness. In J. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.),
Phenomenography (pp. 102-116). Melbourne: RMIT Publishing.
- 257 -
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and Awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marton, F., Dall'Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of Learning. International
Journal of Educational Research, 19(3), 272-292. Marton, F., & Pang, M. F. (1999). Two faces of variation, 8th European Conference for Learning and Instruction. Goteborg: Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Marton, F., & Pong, W. (2005). On the unit of description in phenomenography. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(4), 335-348. Marton, F., Runesson, U., & Tusui, B. (2004). Classroom discourse and the space
of learning. In F. Manton & B. Tusui (Eds.), The Space of Learning. Mahwa, NJ: Erlbaum.
Masters, G. (2008). Testing Times. ACER News, 60. Matheson, I. (1991). Walking on Water: Restructuring Queensland's Education
System. In G. Harman, H. Beare & G. F. Berkeley (Eds.), Restructuring School Management: Administrative reorganisation of Public School Governance in Australia. Canberra: Australian College of Education. Mayrowetz, D., & Smylie, M. A. (2004). Work Redsign that Works for Teachers. In
D.Mayrowetz & M. A. Smylie (Eds.), Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Vol. 103, pp. 274-302). Chicago: Blackwell.
MCEETYA. (2003). A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching Paper presented at the Curriculum Conference, Melbourne.
McGrath, J. (1997). Small group research, that once and future field: An interpretation of the past with an eye on the future. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research and Practice, 1(1), 7-27.
Medd, W. (2002). Complex and the social world. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 5, 71-81.
Melville, W., & Wallace, J. (2007). Metaphorical duality: High school subject departments as both communities and organisations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1193-1205.
Mertens, S., & Flowers, N. (2003). Show me the evidence of effectiveness,
American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting. Chicago.
Mintzberg, H., Jorgensen, J., Dougherty, D., & Westley, F. (1996). Some surprising things about collaboration - Knowing how people connect makes it work. Organisational Dynamics, 25(1), 60-71.
Morrison, K. (2005). Structuration theory, habitus and complexity theory: elective affinities or old wine in new bottles? British Journal of Education, 26(3), 311-326.
Mourkogiannis, N. (2007). How to build a winning team. Business Week, Dec 20, 1-
2.
- 258 -
Mueller, F. (1994). Teams between heirarchy and commitment: change strategies and the 'internal environment'. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), 383-403.
Munthe, E. (2003). Teachers' workplace in professional certainty. Teacher and Teacher Education, 19(8), 801-813.
Murray, S. T., Clermont, Y., & Binkley, M. (2005). Measuring Adult Literacy and Life
Skills: New Frameworks for Assessment: Statistics Canada.
Nagel, M. (2004). Queensland and Saskatchewan Middle Years experience of environmental education: An analysis of conceptions. International Research
in Geographical and Environmental Education, 13(2), 115-127.
National Curriculum. (2008). National Science Curriculum Framing Paper. Melbourne: National Curriculum Board.
Nias, J. (1996). Thinking about feeling: the emotions in teaching. Cambridge Journal
of Education, 26, 293 - 306.
Nias, J., Southworth, G., & Yeomans, R. (1989). Staff relations in the primary school. London: Cassell.
O'Brien, P., & Down, B. (2002). What are teachers saying about new managerialism. Journal of Education Inquiry, 3(1), 111.
O'Loan, J. (2008, 10/12/2008). Anna Bligh seeks help for Queensland's ailing Education System. Courier Mail.
O'Loan, J. (2008a, 11/12/2008). Poor teachers to blame for kids' bad marks says Education Minister. Courier Mail.
O'Neil, H., Chung, G., & Brown, R. (1997). Use of network simulations as a context to measure team compensates. In H. O'Neil (Ed.), Workforce in readiness:
competencies and assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Oxford University. (1979). Oxford English dictionary (compact) (Book Club
Associates Edition ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paris, C., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. (2000). Teamwork in multi-person
systems: a review and analysis. Ergonomics, 43(8), 1052-1075.
Parker, G. M. (1991). Team Players and Teamwork: The New Competitive Business Strategy. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Parker, S., Henkin, A., & Egley, R. (2005). Teacher team commitment, teamwork
and trust: exploring associations. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(5), 462-479.
Parris, M., & Vickers, M. (2005). Working in teams: The influence of rhetoric – from Sense-making to sadness. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 27(2), 277-300.
- 259 -
Parsons, T. (1971). The System of Modern Societies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Patrick, K. (2000). Exploring conceptions: phenomenography and the object of study. In J. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 117-136). Melbourne: RMIT Publishing.
Pineda, R. C., & Lerner, L. D. (2006). Goal attainment, satisfaction and learning from teamwork. Team Performance Management, 12(5/6), 182-191.
Pounder, D. (1999). Teacher Teams: Exploring job characteristics and work related
outcomes of work group enhancement. Education Administration Quarterly 35, 317-348.
Prichard, J., & Stanton, N. (1999). Testing Belbin's team role theory of effective
groups. Journal of Management Development, 18(8), 652-665.
Prins, S. (2001). Emerging coordination processes in multiparty collaboration: a psychodynamic perspective, EIASM Seminar. Brussels.
Procter, S., & Mueller, F. (2000). Teamworking. Chippenham: Anthony Rowe Ltd. Prosser, M., Martin, E., Trigwell, K., Ramsden, P., & Leuckenhausen, G. (2005).
Academics' experiences of understanding their subject matter and the relationship to their experiences of teaching and learning. Instructional Science, 33, 137-157.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1997). Using phenomenography in the design of programs for teachers in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 16, 41-54.
Queensland College of Teachers. (2006). Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers. Brisbane: Queensland College of Teachers.
Queensland Government. (1985). Review of Queensland Business Regulations. Brisbane: Committee of Review of Business Regulations (Queensland).
Queensland Studies Authority. (2005). Queensland Curriculum Assessment and
Reporting (QCAR) Framework. Brisbane: Queensland Studies Authority. Rowe, R. (1996). Towards a team based approach. Career Development
International, 1996(1/2), 19-24.
Sachs, J. (1997). Reclaiming the Agenda of Teacher Professionalism: an Australian Experience. Journal of Education for Teaching, 23, 261-275.
Sachs, J. (2001). Teacher professional identity: competing discourses, computing
outcomes. Journal Education Policy, 16(2), 149-161. Saljo, R. (1997). Talk as data and practice - A critical look at phenomenographic
inquiry and the appeal to experience. Higher Education Research and Development, 162, 173-190.
Sandberg, J. (1994). Human competence at work: An interpretive approach. Goteborg: Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
- 260 -
Sandberg, J. (1997). Are phenomenographic results reliable? Higher Education
Research and Development, 16, 203-212.
Schamber, S. (1999). Ten Practices for Undermining the Effectiveness of Teaming. Middle School Journal, 30(3), 10-14.
Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (1995). Basic Organisational Behavior. New York: Wiley.
Schneider, S., & Northcraft, G. (1999). Three social dilemmas of workforce diversity in organisations: A social identity perspective. Human Relations, 52(11),
1445-1467. Scholes, J., & Vaughan, B. (2002). Cross-boundary working: Implications for Multi-
professional Team. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 11(3), 399-408. Schrage, M. (1995). No more teams! Mastering the Dynamics of Creative
Collaboration. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: the heart and practice of the learning organisation. New York: Doubleday.
Short, P., & Johnson, E. (1994). Exploring the links among teacher empowerment,
leader power and conflict. Education, 114(4), 581-593. Sinclair, A. (1992). The tyranny of team ideology. Organisational Studies, 13, 611-
626. Sinden, J., Hoy, W., & Sweetland, S. (2004). An analysis of enabling school
structure. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(4), 462-478.
Siskin, L. (1994). Academic Departments in Secondary Schools. London: Falmer Press.
Sizer, T. (2004). Horace's Compromise: The Dilemma of the American High School.
New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Sjostrom, B., & Dahlgren, L. (2002). Nursing theory and concept development or analysis: Applied phenomenography in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40(3), 339-345.
Sloan, K. (2006). Teacher Identity and Agency in School Worlds: Beyond the All- Good/All-bad Discourse on Accountability- Explicit Curriculum Policies. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 119-152.
Smith, K. (2004). Overwhelming response to Middle Phase consultation. Education Views, 7, 2.
Smith-Jentsch, K., Campbell, G., Milanovich, D., & Reynolds, A. (2001). Measuring
teamwork models to support training needs assessment, development, and evaluation: Two empirical studies. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 22(2),179-194.
- 261 -
Smylie, M. A., Conley, S., & Marks, H. M. (2002). Exploring new approaches to teacher leadership for school improvement. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: redefining leadership for the 21st century.101st Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. (Vol. 1, pp.162-188). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
Smyth, J. (1991). International Perspectives on Teacher Collegiality: a Labour
processes discussion based on the concept of teachers' work. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 12(3), 323-346.
Smyth, J. (2001). Critical politics of teachers’ work: An Australian perspective. New York: Peter Lang.
Stadovnik, A. (1995). Knowledge and Pedagogy: The Sociology of Basil Bernstein. Norwood: New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Company.
Styhre, A., Roth, J., & Ingelgard, A. (2002). Care of the other knowledge – creation through care in professional teams. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18(4), 503-520.
Svensson, L. (1994). Theoretical foundations of phenomenography. In P. Ballantyne & C. Bruce (Eds.), Phenomenography: Philosophy and Practice Brisbane:
Queensland University of Technology. Svensson, L. (1997). Theoretical foundations of phenomenography. Higher
Education Research and Development, 16, 159-171.
Talbert, M. (1995). Boundaries of teachers' professional communities in US high schools: Power and precariousness of subject departments. In L. Sisken & J. Little (Eds.), The Subject in Question: Departmental organisation and the high school (pp. 68-94). New York: Teachers College Press.
Talbert, M., & Maclaughlin, J. (2001). Professional Communities and the Work of High School Teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Taylor, F. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Thompson, L., Aranda, E., & Robbins, S. (2000). Tools for teams: Building Effective Teams in the Workplace. Needham Heights: Pearson.
Thompson, P., & Wallace, T. (1996). Redesigning production through teamworking:
Case studies from Volvo truck corporation. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 16, 103-118.
Torrington, D., Weightman, J., & Johns, K. (1985). Management Methods. London:
Institute of Personal Management.
Turtle, M. (2008). Australian students fail the International comparison test [Radio report]: ABC Radio AM.
Tyler, W. (1988). School Organisaton: A Sociological Perspective. New York: Croom Helm.
- 262 -
Tyler, W. (2004). Silent, invisible, total: pedagogic discourse and the information age. J. Muller, B. Davies & A. Morias (Eds.), Reading Bernstein, Researching Bernstein (pp. 15-29). London: Routledge Falmer.
Tytler, R. (2007). Reimagining Science Education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) Press.
Useem, M. (2006). Management commitment and company policies on education and training. Human Resource Management, 32(4), 411-434.
Valencia, R. (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking. In Series Education and Public Policy. London: Falmer Press.
Visscher, A., & Witziers, B. (2004). Subject Departments as professional communities? British Educational Research Journal, 30(6), 785-800. Vongalis-Macrow, A. (2007). Teacher: re-territorialisation of teachers' multi-faceted
agency in globalised education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(4), 425-439.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S. & Souberman, E. (Eds). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walker, D. (1996). The contribution of the construction management team to good
construction time performance - an Australian experience. Journal of Construction Procurement 2, 4-18.
Wallace, M. & Huckman, L. (1999). Senior Management Teams in Primary
Schools: a quest for synergy. London: Paul Chapman. Wallace, J. & Louden, W. (1992). Science Teaching and Teachers’ Knowledge:
Prospects for Reform of Elementary Classrooms. Science Edcuation, 76(5), 507-521.
Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation. New York:
Free Press. Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organising. Reading, MA: Addison
Wesley. Weick, K. (1995). Sense making in organisations. London: Sage. Weick, K., & Westly, F. (1999). Organisational learning: affirming an oxymoron. In S.
Clegg, C. Hardy & W. Nord (Eds.), Managing Organisations. London: Sage. Welch, M., Brownell, K., & Sheridan, S. (1999). What's the score and game plan on
teaming in schools? Remedial and Special Education, 20, 36-49.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- 263 -
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organisation: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Organisation, Theory and Society, 7(2), 225-246. West, M., Borrill, C., & Unsworth, K. (1998). Team Effectiveness in Organisations.
International Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 13, 1-48. Wieseman, K. & Moscovici, H. (2003). Stories from the field: Challenges of Science
Teacher Education Based on Interdisciplinary Approaches. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(2), 127-143.
Wildy, H., & Wallace, J. (2004). Science as content: science as context: Working in
the science department. Educational Studies, 30(2), 99-112. Willmott, R. (1999). Structure and agency and the sociology of education: rescuing
analytical dualism. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(11), 5-20. Winter, G. (2008). Does your company have a silo mentality? Fairfax Digital:
Business Department. Melbourne. Yeh, E., Smith, C., Jennings, C., & Castro, N. (2006). Team building: a 3-
dimensional teamwork model. Team Performance Management, 12(5/6),192-197.
Zhuge, H. (2003). Workflow and agent-based cognitive flow management for distributed team cooperation. Information and Management, 40(5), 419-429.