A CASE STUDY ON SPECIALIZATION MODELS IN PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHING

Year 2022, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 205 - 231, 30.06.2022

Burak Cesur , Canay Demirhan İşcan

https://doi.org/10.55020/iojpe.1053854

Abstract

The aim of the present study is to evaluate specialization models in primary school teaching based on the opinions of teachers and academicians studying teacher education. The research is considered to be important in that it is one of the first studies in the national literature on the related issue and it reveals advantages and disadvantages of each model. Multiple case-holistic design, one of the qualitative research methods, was followed in the study since it focuses on data obtained from primary school teachers working in private schools that adopt different specialization methods as well as academicians specializing in the field of teacher education. In order to receive opinions from participants, two different data collection tools were used, which were the Private School Teacher Interview Form and the Academician Interview Form. 33 participants were interviewed using the determined data collection tools in the 2018-2019 academic year. A content analysis method was used in the analysis of the obtained qualitative data. According to the results of the study, advantages and disadvantages of each model were identified. It was recommended as a result of the study that it might be effective to use departmentalized classroom models and looping models simultaneously in order for the students to establish positive relationships with teachers and for teachers to develop professional knowledge and skills.

Keywords

Primary school teaching, specialization, self-contained classrooms model, departmentalized classrooms model, looping model

References

• American Association of School Administrators. (1965). Departmentalization in elementary schools. Educational Research Service, (No. CIRC-7) Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED017329.pdf
• Anderson, R.C. (1962). The case for teacher specialization in elemantary school. The Elemantary School Journal, 62(5), 253-260.
• Başaran, M., & Güçlü, F. (2020). İlkokulda derslerin branş veya sınıf öğretmenleri tarafından işlenmesine ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri [Teachers' views regarding the teaching of courses in primary school by branch or primary school teachers]. Turkey Education Journal, 5(2), 444-459.
• Berry, D., & O’Connor, E. (2010). Behavioral risk, teacher-child relationships, and social skill development across middle childhood: A child-by-environment analysis of change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 1–14.
• Bezeau, L. (2007). Educational administration for Canadian teachers (Chapter 8). Retrieved February 29, 2018, from http://www.unb.ca/education/bezeau/eact/eact.htm
• Bridges, S., & Searle, A. (2011). Changing workloads of primary school teachers: “I seem to live on the edge of chaos.” School Leadership & Management, 31(5), 413 – 433.
• Burke, D. L. (1996). Multi-year teacher/student relationships are a long-overdue arrangement. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(5), 360-361.
• Burke, D. L. (1997). Looping: Adding time, strengthening relationships. Eric Digest. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education (ERIC Identifier ED414098)
• Chan, T. C., & Jarman, D. (2004). Departmentalize elementary schools. Principal, 84(1), 70-72.
• Chang, F. C., Muñoz, M. A., & Koshewa, S. (2008). Evaluating the impact of departmentalization on elementary school students. Planning and Changing, 39(3), 131-145.
• Chirichello, M., & Chirichello, C. (2001). A standing ovation for looping: The critics respond. Childhood Education, 78(1), 2-10.
• Christone, P., & Shneyderman, A. (2004). Looping: An empirical evaluation. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice, 5(1), 47–61.
• Cook, A., & Rushton, B. S. (2007). Student transition: Practices and policies to promote retention. Boston MA: Harvard Publishing.
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1–46.
• Dilci, T., & Kalkan, G. D. (2013). The problems that primary school teachers’encounter in the first five years in their professions. Çukurova University Faculty of Educational Journal, 42(1), 127-140.
• Dunn, M., (1952). Should there be any set type of elementary school organization?. Elementary School Journal, 53(4), 199-206.
• Elkind, D. (1988). Rotation at an early age. Principal, 67(5), 11-13.
• Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. The Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 290–305.
• Ewing, A. R., & Taylor, A. R. (2009). The role of child gender and ethnicity in teacher–child relationship quality and children's behavioral adjustment in preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(1), 92-105.
• Freiberg, E. J. (2016). The relationship between academic performance and elementary student and teacher attitudes towards departmentalizing. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Arizona, United States. Retrieved form http://hdl.handle.net/10150/319905
• Goldhaber, D., Cowan, J., & Walch, J. (2012). Is a good elementary teacher always good? Assessing teacher performance estimates across subjects. Economics of Education Review, 36, 216-228.
• Gözütok, F. D. (2007). Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri [Teaching principles and methods]. Ankara: Ekinoks Publishing.
• Grant, J., Johnson, B., & Richardson, I. (1996). The looping handbook: Teachers and students progressing together. Peterborough, NH: Crystal Springs Books.
• Groves, S. (2000). An exploration of ideas, issues and trends in education; Keeping Teacher, Students in the ‘‘Loop’’. The Los Angeles Times, 2–5.
• Grubb, N. (2007). Dynamic inequality and interventions: Lessons from a small country. Phi-Delta Kappan, 89(2), 105-114.
• Güzelbey, B. B. (2006). İlköğretim 1.2.3. sınıf öğretmenliği ile 4.5. sınıf öğretmenliğinin uzmanlık alanına dönüştürülmesine ilişkin bir araştırma (Gaziantep örneği) [An analysis of the teachers and the school directors opinions about the transformation of 1.2.3. class and 4.5. class teaching into two specialized fields in primary schools (a case study in Gaziantep province)] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Gaziantep University, Turkey.
• Helen, G., Janet, B., & Kathleen, S. (2008). A case for content specialists as the elementary classroom teacher, The Teacher Educator, 43(4), 302-314.
• Hill, A. J., & Jones, D. B. (2018). A teacher who knows me: The academic benefits of repeat student-teacher matches. Economics of Education Review, 64, 1-12.
• Hood, L. (2009). “Platooning” instruction: Districts weigh pros and cons of departmentalizing elementary schools. Harvard Education Letter, 25(6), 1-6.
• Jack, D. M. (2014). Self-contained versus departmentalized settings in urban elementary schools: An analysis of fifth-grade student mathematics performance. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Mercer University, Georgia, United States.
• Jacoby, D. (1994). Twice the learning and twice the love. Teaching Pre K-8, 24(6), 58-59.
• Lacina-Gifford, L. (2001). The squeaky wheel gets the oil, but What about the shy student. Education, 122(2), 320-321.
• Liu, F. (2011). Pre-service teachers' perceptions of departmentalization of elementary schools. International Journal of Whole Schooling 7(1), 40-52.
• Lobdell, L. O., & van Ness, W. J. (1963). The self-contained classroom in the elementary school. The Elementary School Journal, 63(4), 212-217.
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2013). The constructivist credo. California, CA: Left Coast Press.
• Lowery, N. (2002). Construction of teacher knowledge in context: Preparing elementary teachers to teach mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics, 202(2), 68–83.
• Markworth, K. A., Brobst, J., Ohana, C., & Parker, R. (2016). Elementary content specialization: Models, affordances, and constraints. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1-19.
• Martin, M., Fergus, E., & Noguera, P. (2010). Responding to the needs of the whole child: A case study of a high-performing elementary school for immigrant children. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26(3), 195-222.
• McGrath, C. J., & Rust, J. O. (2002). Academic achievement and between-class transition time for self-contained and departmental upper-elementary classes. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(1), 40-43.
• McPartland, J. M. (1990). Staffing decisions in the middle grades: Balancing quality instruction and teacher/student relations. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(6), 465-469.
• MoNE (2017). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri [Teaching profession general competencies]. Retrieved from http://oygm.meb.gov.tr
• MoNE (2018). Milli eğitim istatistikleri (örgün eğitim, 2018/19) [National education statistics (formal education, 2018/19)]. Retrieved from https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/icerik_goruntule.php?KNO=361
• Meeks, R., & Smoot, S. (2008). Does looping enhance student achievement? The Corinthian: The Journal of Student Research at GCSU, 10(9), 65-75.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.), California: Sage Publications.
• Minott, R. C. (2016). Elementary Teachers' Experiences of Departmentalized Instruction and Its Impact on Student Affect (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). William Howard Taft University.
• Moore, D. W. (2008). Classroom organizational structures as related to student achievement in upper elementary grades in Northeast Tennessee public schools. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). East Tennessee State University, Tennessee, United States. Retrieved from: http://gradworks.umi.com/33/23/3323683.html
• Myrberg, E., Johansson, S., & Rosén, M. (2019). The relation between teacher specialization and student reading achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63(5), 744-758.
• Otto, J. H. (1931). Specialization in teaching in elementary school. Elementary School Journal, 32(1), 17-21.
• Parker, A., Rakes, L., & Arndt, K. (2017). Departmentalized, self-contained, or somewhere in between: understanding elementary grade-level organizational decision-making. Educational Forum, 81(3), 236-255.
• Poulou, M. (2007). Personal teaching efficacy and its sources: Student teachers’ perceptions. Educational Psychology, 27(2), 191-218.
• Rasmussen, K. (1998). Looping: Discovering the benefits of multiyear teaching. Education Update. 40(2), 3-4.
• Reitz, C. D. (2012). Elementary classroom organization delivery model and ıts effect on student achievement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State University, United States. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10919/77314
• Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 700–712.
• Roberts, J. M. (2003). A comparative study of student performance in elementary looping and conventional classrooms in selected northern California schools. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of La Verne, La Verne, California.
• Rudasill, K. M., Reio, T. G., Jr, Stipanovic, N., & Taylor, J. E. (2010). A longitudinal study of student-teacher relationship quality, difficult temperament, and risky behavior from childhood to early adolescence. Journal of School Psychology, 48(5), 389-412.
• Schonert-Reichl, K., & Zakrzewski, V. (2014). How to close the social-emotional gap in teacher training. Greater Good Science-based practices for a meaningful life, 6, 2016.
• Senemoğlu, N. (2013). Gelişim öğrenme ve öğretim kuramdan uygulamaya [Development. learning and teaching: From theory to practice] Ankara: Yargı Publishing.
• Shane, H. G. (1960). Grouping in the elementary school. The Phi Delta Kappan, 41(7), 313-319.
• Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75.
• Strohl, A., Schmertzing, L., Schmertzing, R., & Hsiao, E. (2014). Comparison of self-contained and departmentalized elementary teachers' perceptions of classroom structure and job satisfaction. Journal of Studies in Education, 4(1), 109-127.
• Smylie, M. A. (1992). Teacher participation in school decision making: Assessing willingness to participate. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 53–67.
• Tok, H., & Bozkurt, A. (2010). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin 1. 2. 3. sınıflar için ayrı ve 4. 5. sınıflar için ayrı yetiştirilmeleri konusunda sınıf öğretmenlerinin görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi. [Evaluating class teachers’ opinions about training class teachers as a fırst level (1st, 2nd 3rd Grades) and as a second level (4th, 5th grades) teachers differently]. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 9(2), 759-778.
• Wilkins, J.L. M. (2010). Elementary school teachers’ attitudes toward different subjects. Teacher Educator, 45(1), 23-36.
• Yearwood, C. (2011). Effects of departmentalized versus traditional settings on fifth graders’ math and reading achievement. (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Liberty University, United States.
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences]. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.