This study described and analyzed the development and implementation of an advisory program at one urban middle school. Development of the advisory program began during the 1997-98 school year. The implementation of the program was examined during the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 school years. This school site was chosen because of the in-depth research and planning of the program beyond the typical amount performed by many schools, and the wide-scale staff participation utilized in the program's development. In order to follow the processes of development and implementation, several models of change, innovation, and organizational analysis were used to provide focus for analysis of events that occurred during the three years of the program examined in this study. Data was collected in multiple manners. A complete review of school documents concerning the advisory program was performed, and over 50 percent of the faculty were interviewed through individual and team interviews. The findings of this study include various elements concerning the development and implementation of the advisory program. Data was collected and analyzed in three main categories including a) driving and resisting factors for beginning and implementing the program, b) processes used to plan, maintain and develop the program, and c) the periods in which the program became stable. Additional considerations were examined including the evaluation of the program, future possibilities for implementation, and staff roles in the program. Recommendations of the study include: limiting the focus of the advisory program; maintaining consistent goals; starting with a limited program; securing high staff participation; providing extensive time for planning; maintaining a high level of monitoring by administration and staff leaders; providing in-depth training; and, insuring that open lines of communication exist.

This case study examined how a team of middle school teachers from different subject areas collaboratively planned interdisciplinary experiences for their students. Using fieldwork research methods, including long-term participant-observation, interviewing and document analysis, the study explored how team members planned interdisciplinary experiences. Data were analyzed through a process of searching for patterns, coding and comparison, utilizing the Hackman and Oldham (1980) model of group effectiveness as a heuristic for understanding the group processes. The results of this study raise questions about the preeminence of the "interdisciplinary thematic unit" in middle school rhetoric. The team developed a conception of interdisciplinary that progressed through phases of elusion and inclusion to allusion. Team members chose not to create any tightly-structured interdisciplinary thematic units, and they did not follow any established planning processes designed for creating such units; rather, they dialogued about their subject areas in ways that allowed them to make ongoing connections between subjects. Through their dialogues, team members gained insight into both their own subject areas and connections among subject areas. The Interdisciplinary Judgment Matrix was developed as a means of understanding team members' decision-making in determining whether to plan interdisciplinary experiences. This matrix presents the teachers' decision-making as a process of judging the relevance of potential interdisciplinary experiences both to the established curriculum and to the subject specialists’ criteria for what students ought to derive from a course. The matrix argues that team members do not merely follow a curriculum guide or textbook, but make professional judgments balancing the demands of the curriculum with subject specialists' assumptions and concerns. The study has implications for both practitioners and researchers. Middle school team members need to be given time to develop a conception of interdisciplinarity that fits with their understanding of the purposes of teaming. Also, rather than implementing pre-packaged interdisciplinary thematic units, such teams should be encouraged to dialogue about their subject areas in order to make meaningful and ongoing connections for their students. Rather than adhering to a set of steps for creating interdisciplinary thematic units, middle school teams must learn to discuss the substance of their teaching with one another. Such discussion promises professional growth through everyday occupational conditions. Based on the findings of this study, researchers might profitably investigate the role of unit planning as the common focus of collaborative planning. The study also suggests research into the effectiveness of pre-established planning models as compared to the dialoguing the study recommends. Finally, the study raises a research question about the interplay of collaborative groups with the larger culture of the school.

This case study examined how a team of middle school teachers from different subject areas collaboratively planned interdisciplinary experiences for their students. Using fieldwork research methods, including long-term participant-observation, interviewing and document analysis, the study explored how team members planned interdisciplinary experiences. Data were analyzed through a process of searching for patterns, coding and comparison, utilizing the Hackman and Oldham (1980) model of group effectiveness as a heuristic for understanding the group processes. The results of this study raise questions about the preeminence of the "interdisciplinary thematic unit" in middle school rhetoric. The team developed a conception of interdisciplinary that progressed through phases of elusion and inclusion to allusion. Team members chose not to create any tightly-structured interdisciplinary thematic units, and they did not follow any established planning processes designed for creating such units; rather, they dialogued about their subject areas in ways that allowed them to make ongoing connections between subjects. Through their dialogues, team members gained insight into both their own subject areas and connections among subject areas. The Interdisciplinary Judgment Matrix was developed as a means of understanding team members' decision-making in determining whether to plan interdisciplinary experiences. This matrix presents the teachers' decision-making as a process of judging the relevance of potential interdisciplinary experiences both to the established curriculum and to the subject specialists’ criteria for what students ought to derive from a course. The matrix argues that team members do not merely follow a curriculum guide or textbook, but make professional judgments balancing the demands of the curriculum with subject specialists' assumptions and concerns. The study has implications for both practitioners and researchers. Middle school team members need to be given time to develop a conception of interdisciplinarity that fits with their understanding of the purposes of teaming. Also, rather than implementing pre-packaged interdisciplinary thematic units, such teams should be encouraged to dialogue about their subject areas in order to make meaningful and ongoing connections for their students. Rather than adhering to a set of steps for creating interdisciplinary thematic units, middle school teams must learn to discuss the substance of their teaching with one another. Such discussion promises professional growth through everyday occupational conditions. Based on the findings of this study, researchers might profitably investigate the role of unit planning as the common focus of collaborative planning. The study also suggests research into the effectiveness of pre-established planning models as compared to the dialoguing the study recommends. Finally, the study raises a research question about the interplay of collaborative groups with the larger culture of the school. / Education, Faculty of / Curriculum and Pedagogy (EDCP), Department of / Graduate