Collaborative Departmental Teaching

Collaborative Departmental Teaching

Marc J. D’Amico, MA

Michael J. Marotto, PhD

The following essay is the first in a series of commentary on a Collaborative Departmental Teaching (CDT) model for the elementary classroom. It is our intent to define this model from a professional perspective and to promote its implementation to those who have the desire and insight to adapt it to their schools. We write in support of the model’s theoretical import and in advocacy of its practical application.

When considering progressive models of learning in the elementary grades, models that challenge traditional, oftentimes outdated concepts of the role of the teacher, departmentalization, or platooning, should alert the attention of the contemporary educator. Departmentalization, the teaching configuration where the same teacher instructs the same subject in one grade or across grades has benefits for both students and teachers as the result of its fundamental concept of subject specialization. Specialization of this type, particularly in the subjects of Mathematics, Reading, and Writing, supports personalized instruction with a discipline-intensive focus that aligns developmentally with the individual learning needs of the student. Departmentally taught classes in World Language, Health, Art, Music, and Physical Education have been accepted components of a comprehensive elementary experience for decades, and in the hands of progressively-minded building administrators, this model can appropriately be adapted to Mathematics and Language Arts as well.

But the argument against academic departmentalization in elementary grades made by staunch proponents of the traditional unification model of instruction should not be dismissed by departmentalization advocates. The case for maintaining the traditional mode of elementary teaching -- one teacher responsible for delivering instruction in all academic subjects -- has merit through a range of learning perspectives, most significant that elementary students are at the developmental stage of their learning requiring a unified approach to instruction, one that can be best effected by one teacher. Thematic connections and skill transference -- learning essentials -- are developed through a deliberate strategic approach to lesson planning and implementation and are conspicuously absent when not purposefully evident in the elementary classroom; therefore, it is necessary to consider this point when designing a departmentally-based model, and, as a result, collaborative departmentalization becomes an effective method of delivering quality subject-specific instruction while maintaining a viable strategic focus on thematic connection and skill transference, learning processes central to the concept of unification. In this model, the same teacher teaches the same subject within one grade and routinely collaborates with the other grade-level, subject-specific teachers to plan lessons with common, connected themes. This planning results in thematic connections that can readily be reinforced from one subject to another (and from one lesson to another) and in targeted, identified skills that the student can transfer naturally from one problem-solving context to another. All grade-level teachers have scheduled time to confer about strategic methods for improving the teaching of individual subjects, and teachers enjoy the benefit of planning collaboratively, thereby avoiding the negative effects of planning, implementing, and assessing lessons in isolation... an inherent pitfall in the departmentalization model. All the teachers in the grade must actively be involved a dialogue about this form of collaboration, which then becomes a variation of the teaching concept of departmentalization. An added dimension to collaborative departmentalization is the inclusion of building-based learning specialists and coaches to the team who, with a directed purpose, can move regularly from one classroom to another and one teaching context to another to supplement the learning across subjects in an identified grade. Content support of this type when combined with a team teach who specializes in the instruction of math, reading, or writing will enhance content focus, thereby providing students with a more concentrated, challenging approach to learning. Also, the introduction of building-based learning specialist to assist team teachers in the planning and implementation of this focus will establish a unifying linguistic connection to all content areas, addressing the theoretical imperative that all teachers are teachers of language. And the signature collaborative characteristic of the model extends beyond the grade-level team; cross-grade team collaboration within the building is an essential component to the overall goal of individualized instruction. The collaborative process must also extend to the middle school where not only is departmentalization formalized, but its successful implementation will also become evident and realized. Ideally, the teachers in the collaborative team in question will rotate the teaching of the departmentalized disciplines (a three-year rotation is recommended) to build inter-team skill and to give substance and purpose to the collaboration about subject-specific planning, implementation, and assessment.

Collaborative departmentalization of academic subjects in elementary education can be one of the most beneficial instructional concepts building administrators can design and support. However, its design must be, as its implementation, collaborative: the teachers charged with its development must be included in the fundamentals of its planning. Additionally, this model must be promoted judiciously, implemented with a clear understanding of the stages of students’ emotional and intellectual development; consequently, collaborative departmentalization is appropriate for grade five and, with close consideration, for grade four.

Multiple indicators must be considered to assess the model’s successful consequences: standardized test scores, summative assessments, formative assessments and unit test in the subjects that are individually taught; teachers’ commentary and review during and after each model year; observations of student learning behaviors across content areas recorded and reviewed ethnographically; and the quality of students’ transition to middle school. These assessment criteria are correlative and require thorough examination and time before any causal relationships can be verified. As with all instructional models, successful implementation depends equally on the expertise and motivation of the teachers and support staff implementing their design and on the commitment of building-based administrators to support their efforts.

CDT Highlights:

*collaborative departmentalization in grade five can enhance instructional focus in math, reading, and writing, a model supported by effective implementation and reflective practice;

* if CDT is to develop progressively, the team dynamic must remain active through regular meeting time where teachers confer together about the planning and implementation of each departmental subject;

*a linguistic connection must become the focus of this collaborative planning to establish the intellectual foundation of learning of students at this stage of their cognitive development;

*this learning connection must be extended conceptually in grades K-5 with building-based support staff (reading teachers, coaches) working directly with teachers to lead this unification initiative;

*with modification, CDT is age-appropriate for grade four;

*teachers implementing CDT require professional development that is specifically designed and directed to the social-emotional and intellectual stages of development of their students to inform their collaborative planning beyond their immediate classroom observations.