Departmentalized versus self-contained classroom effectiveness: a literature review

Departmentalized Classroom vs. Self-Contained Classroom: Pros and Cons
Literature Review
Introduction
The issue of whether teachers should be specialized, like doctors, focusing on a single subject all throughout the day, or whether they should run their own self-contained classrooms and teach a variety of subjects, being the sole teacher responsible for giving students a general education is a matter that researchers have analyzing extensively in recent years. This literature focuses on the most recent academic studies on the pros and cons of both departmentalized classrooms and self-contained classrooms. The aim of this literature review is to explore the findings of this research and synthesize these findings into a cohesive expression of what the evidence indicates.
Review of the Literature
Markworth, Brobst, Ohana and Parker (2016)

Synthesis
Departmentalized Classrooms
Pros
Markworth, Brobst, Ohana and Parker (2016) show that in departmentalized classrooms, the pros are that it eases the role of the teacher and can facilitate the overall flow of the curricula in a more strategic manner: this in turn allows for a greater emphasis on specific subjects by teachers qualified to teach on them. However, Baroody (2017) found that the only time in which departmentalized classes was associated with greater levels of teaching effectiveness was in the English language arts classes—and even then the effectiveness was not determined to be meaningfully significant.
Departmentalized classrooms can be appealing to teachers who appreciated being able to engage in specialized research and thus pursue their professional development and growth (Markworth et al., 2016). While this may not have much bearing on their effectiveness in the classroom according to Baroody’s (2017) study, it does suggest that departmentalization can improve teachers’ satisfaction and increase their level of job appreciation. This in and of itself has positive ramifications for schools and students, as happy teachers are more likely to be effective teachers, even if their effectiveness is not able to be measured in quantitative terms. Qualitatively speaking, specialized teachers are bound to be able to deliver more in-depth information on specific topics or on the subject they are most highly trained in. Minott (2016) performed such a qualitative study on teachers in departmentalized classrooms and found that they reported both positive experiences and significant effectiveness.
The discrepancy between the findings of Minott (2016), whose study design was phenomenological and the findings of Baroody (2017), who used a quantitative descriptive statistics design, indicates part of the problem of examining a topic such as this one using only one method: it makes the data less reliable and raises questions about validity, trustworthiness and credibility. Minott (2016) addressed issues of validity, credibility and quality in his study, discussed using bracketing to remove potential researcher bias, and using researcher reflexivity. However, the study did not discuss issues of verification or validation and thus only superficially established trustworthiness. For a phenomenological study which focuses on the subjective experiences of participants as its main data source, the researcher needs to provide compelling evidence of trustworthiness in the methodology and Minott (2016) simply did not do that: thus, the findings of the study may be taken with a grain of salt. However, Baroody’s (2017) quantitative study is similarly impaired in that the researcher suggests that correlation is causation. This is a common problem in quantitative research: a study may examine the relationship of variables or test a hypothesis by measuring the impact of one variable on another—but unless the study clearly controls for all variables, its validity will be called into question. Baroody’s (2017) study did not touch on a number of variables that could have impacted the results and so the significance, validity and reliability of the study’s findings can all be called into question. These two studies serve equally to represent the problematic nature of research on the issue of departmentalization vs. self-contained classrooms: neither provides a convincing methodology—yet that is what is needed to better understand what is happening in these models.
The study by Strohl, Schmertzing and Schmertzing (2014) provide a good example of a better approach to the topic. They also used the qualitative method like Minott (2016), but they utilized the case study design and provided an excellent triangulation of data sources to enhance the credibility of the study. They obtained data from interviews with focus group members, interviews with individual departmentalized teachers, teacher journals, and questionnaires. By triangulating their data they could better identify what information was corroborated by other data sources and what information was not. The researchers were also careful to describe the findings as perceptions (primarily of the teachers involved) rather than as cold, hard facts. Strohl et al. (2014) concluded that the perceptions of the teachers were reinforced by literature published on the subject and that teachers preferred departmentalized classrooms over self-contained classrooms because of “lighter workload, more focused and higher quality instruction, and increased self-efficacy” (p. 1). This makes sense because in a departmentalized classroom teachers can re-teach the same material again and again without having to create lesson and study plans for a variety of other subjects. The study by Hsiao, Schmertzing Schmertzing and Strohl (2014) corroborated these findings by examining teacher morale through the case study design: Hsiao et al. (2014) found that teachers in departmentalized settings had a higher morale than teachers in self-contained settings and that those teachers with experience in self-contained classrooms preferred departmentalized classrooms as they had a lighter workload and a higher sense of job satisfaction.
Freiberg (2014) found that in departmentalized classrooms students also become more confident about being social beings and developing teacher-student relationships that help to boost their educative experiences. This finding contradicts the findings of Harris (1996) and Gerwetz (2014), who reported that departmentalization can negatively impact a young learner’s sense of stability and capability of developing positive relationships with teachers. Freiberg (2014) conducted a longitudinal analysis of the long-term effect departmentalization on students’ emotional well-being and found that overall these students were better prepared for transitioning between classes in the later years.
Cons
The cons of departmentalized classrooms are that it can amplify the role of the teacher in one specific subject area, which can put a great deal of stress and focus on the educator that would not be there in a self-contained classroom (Markworth et al., 2016). Additionally, Baroody’s (2017) study of 464 classrooms and use of regression analysis to calculate and measure teaching effectiveness based on classroom model indicating no significant difference in overall teaching effectiveness from one model to the next. Thus, departmentalization could be just an unnecessary step that requires more specialization than is really needed and can lead to overburdening teachers with amplified expectations of effectiveness that are not realistic.
The study by Ray (2017), moreover, directly contradicted the view of Strohl et al. (2014) with regard to what the historical research has said on the effectiveness of departmentalization vs. self-contained classrooms. Strohl et al. (2014) noted in their conclusion that the positive perceptions and attitudes of teachers toward departmentalization were backed up and supported by the literature. Ray’s (2017) argument was that the historical research did not back up that argument—but Ray (2017) based this assessment on research conducted in 1965 by the American Association of School Administrators. The issue of whether historical research that far back should really be considered relevant was not discussed; moreover, Ray (2017) conducted statistical analysis similar to that of Baroody (2017) but came to an opposite conclusion—namely, that the results of the analysis were too inconsistent to be of any merit and that no statistical significance could be found indicating one way or another that departmentalized classrooms were any better at enhancing student achievement than self-contained classrooms. In this regard, the study by Ray (2017) corroborated the findings of Baroody (2017) with respect to a lack of statistical significance showing one model to be better than the other. However, Ray also noted that the problem of controlling for variables is a serious one that should be considered in future research if anyone is to try to make sufficient sense of the comparison. Ray (2017) identified some of these factors as likely being impactful on the efficacy of one classroom over another: they included the amount of training the teacher had, the leadership of the principal, the use of technology in the classroom, and the level of parent involvement in the lives of the students.
Ray’s (2017) study showed most importantly that the model of the classroom is largely immaterial, at least for now in so far as the available statistical data shows. There are myriad other factors that contribute to a student’s success in the classroom and that was Ray’s (2017) ultimate finding. Departmentalization may make some teachers feel more satisfied about their workload or about their professional development, but in terms of actually contributing to the growth of student achievement, the statistical evidence simply is not there.
Yet, as Gewertz (2014) shows, departmentalization also requires teachers to spend more time on professional development, and though some may be okay with that idea, not every teacher is willing or has the time to do that. Professional development presupposes that teachers want to specialize in a single area, and for many elementary school teachers specialization was never front and center in their minds when they began working on acquiring their educational degree. Elementary education has typically always been associated with general studies and self-contained classes—so it can be quite a surprise for teachers at the elementary levels to be told that now they must specialize their content areas when the departmentalized model of classrooms is introduced into their school. Additionally, Gewertz (2014) shows that some younger students do very poorly with transitioning from classroom to classroom throughout the day: they are not encouraged by having to pack up their things every 50 minutes or so and trudge along to another classroom to receive instruction from an unfamiliar face. They tend to act out and become disruptive, which can denigrate the entire experience for the whole group and leave negative impressions about education on the minds of other learners in their environment.
The study by Chennis (2018) was narrowed to focus on comparing the impact of departmentalization on the reading success of fifth graders using the Virginia Standards Assessment as a measure. The study’s methodology was well-thought out and appropriate for the research purpose. Covariance was analyzed, which was also an appropriate method to examine whether there was any statistical difference between student reading scores in a departmentalize classroom versus a self-contained one. The findings of the study showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the two.
However, Chennis (2018) noted that the study was limited by its 1% exploring power, which does suggest that conducting a study of this nature in the first place is somewhat superfluous: there is an evident need in statistical for both greater sample size and larger time frames to show how data over a longer duration adds up to tell a story. Convenience sampling likewise does not allow for a robust reliability to be achieved, and Chennis (2018) used such for the study. Instead, what would be more satisfactory would be a randomized controlled-trial design using the same methodology for data collection; however, such a study would be far more comprehensive and therefore more difficult for a single researcher to conduct alone. That type of research would be so extensive that it would require substantial funding to complete and either a grant would have to be sought or an organization involved in researching these types of issues would have to conduct it. That is the only conceivable way that adequate statistical data on the topic will be obtained.
The need for such a comprehensive study is backed up by the study by Crayton (2016), which generated the same inconclusive results. Crayton (2016) used surveys and direct observation of departmentalized and self-contained classrooms to provide data on which classroom model was more effective than the other. Again, the data showed inconclusive results—no statistical significance, and little to go on in the way of quantitative findings to make an assessment one way or another of any value or practical use.
Self-Contained Classrooms
Pros
One of the main pros of self-contained classrooms is that they provide stability and consistency, which is needed for younger students (Harris, 1996). Moreover, they help students to develop consistently as a group rather than individually with risk of digression among some students, as is the case with departmentalized classrooms, according to the findings of Harris (1996). The study by Harris (1996) is helpful in showing how for younger students the benefits of a self-contained classroom outweigh the appeal of the departmentalized classroom. While other studies have shown no statistical difference between the two in terms of student achievement, Harris (1996) was able to show that students in her sample at least did perform better as a whole in self-contained classrooms when compared to students in departmentalized classrooms. The main problem that Harris (1996) noted was that students at the elementary and 6th grade level are not mature enough to require frequent changes of setting throughout the day or to handle such with finesse. Some can do it, but as a whole the same cannot be said for everyone. Thus, this study shows that at least in the 1990s self-contained classrooms provided greater stability and consistency for young students, which in turn allowed them to achieve more academically.
Gewertz (2014) describes the positives that self-contained classrooms can give to young students, and they echo the findings of Harris (1996): those positives include stability and consistency but also the possibility of a bond being developed between teacher and student that allows for the production of greater confidence and the fulfillment of learning needs that are particularly strong at such young, developmental stages of life. By continuously rotating kids in and out of a classroom multiple times per day, the young learner acquires no sense of stability or continuity and is allowed no time for connecting to the teacher in a relational way throughout the course of the day as would be the case in a self-contained classroom. This notion is also observed by Hart, Oesterle and Swars (2013) in their study of student and teacher perspectives on specialized learning in mathematics: students felt disoriented about the subject and the purpose for the changes was not made clear to them. They were not enthusiastic about it and they viewed their teachers as coming across as confused as well, as though they were dealing with a great deal of pressure and anxiety to deliver a specific lesson that was never actually made clear in the first place. In self-contained classrooms, there is less pressure and anxiety because teachers are not expected to be masters of content areas but rather to give students the basics and rudimentary knowledge of content areas in a stable environment that facilitates relational development between the student and the teacher in best-case scenarios (Harris, 1996). There is also little proven need for specialization in elementary classes as the students are unlikely to benefit from extensive discussion on many topics as they will lack the maturity and experience to see or feel the significance of in-depth considerations, which a teacher with a specialized focus on a particular content area could give. Such focus would be better served in the junior high or high school years.
Thomas (2016) showed that teachers in self-contained classrooms at the second grade level were happy to have the opportunity to teach one theme across a variety of subjects, which they would not have been able to do in a departmentalized setting. Thomas (2016) also showed that students in self-contained classrooms in the second grade performed and progressed in reading skills acquisition in alignment with educational standards and that there was no statistically significant difference between self-contained classrooms and departmentalized ones in terms of how well students acquired reading skills throughout the year. The findings of Thomas (2016) support the findings of Harris (1996) and the reporting of Gewertz (2014) and they also confirm the analysis of Hart et al. (2013) with regard to the importance of bringing clarity to the minds of young learners.
Cons
In giving both sides of the issue, Gewertz (2014) also notes that elementary schools are experimenting with departmentalization because they have Common Core standards to meet and they feel that with departmentalization, teachers who specialize in certain areas will be able to help students meet those standards better than teachers who simply focus on general subjects and are not well-versed in any one subject. While this is the basis of the argument made by school districts, according to the research by Gewertz (2014), the argument does not appear to be valid on the face of it as, a) there is no empirical data to indicate that specialization or departmentalization improves academic learning of students in elementary school; and b) the contrary appears to be the case, as Harris (1996) has shown: students at the young age lose all sense of consistency and stability—some will progress and some will fall behind, but as a group disparities will appear that would not in a self-contained classroom.
Nonetheless, the argument makes sense, for in self-contained classrooms, students will tend to rise or fall as a group—so if the teacher fails to connect with students, the group overall will likely suffer academically. On the other hand if the teacher is able to connect with students in a meaningful way, the entire group will likely profit. In a departmentalized classroom, it is more on the individual student to succeed or not on his or her own. The student is expected to take ownership of his learning and embrace the educative experience by becoming an active learner—a concept that is inherent in the movement from one class to another: the student is actively getting up and going to another classroom to engage with ideas there.
Another con of the self-contained classroom is that teachers appear to prefer it less to the departmentalized model, wherein teachers can have a lighter workload and focus on one specific subject rather than on multiple ones (Hsiao et al., 2014; Parker, Rakes & Arndt, 2017). However, the preferences of teachers are likely to vary widely and one single case study is unlikely to have a great deal of transferability across various regions and settings. For this reason, Woods (2017) advises that administrators canvas their teachers to obtain a better understanding of what model of classroom teachers would like to have and then to base a decision on the input of teachers as well as other stakeholders, such as parents in the community. After all, their children are the ones who will be receiving instruction. All the same, the idea of a lighter workload is bound to be compelling for some teachers, though at the same time the thought of more in-depth professional development may be a turn-off for others.
Synthesis
Statistical research did not support the argument that departmentalization was more effective in enhancing student achievement than self-contained classrooms (Chennis, 2018; Ray, 2017). However, for enhancing the job satisfaction of some teachers, departmentalization was found to be successful (Minnot, 2016; Strohl et al., 2016). This suggests that the primary beneficiaries of one model over the other are the teachers, which is really no small finding, for it indicates a major way to help promote teacher satisfaction. The promotion of teacher satisfaction could in turn lead to reductions in teacher turnover and to the cultivation of happier workplace environments. That in turn could facilitate the educative experience of students and lead to more success over time. A longitudinal study would likely need to be conducted to measure long-term outcomes of departmentalization to test these assumptions, but there is certainly justification for conducting such research. Freiberg (2014) did conduct one such longitudinal study and found that though teachers experienced more difficulty in meeting the emotional needs of students in departmentalized classrooms, they did feel that they were able to better prepare the students for transitioning into junior high, and students themselves appeared to be able to adjust to the transitioning more successfully when coming from departmentalized classrooms as opposed to self-contained ones. Thus, one sees again a trade-off between accomplishing one positive while suffering one negative when it comes to departmentalization. However, this finding with regard to smoother transitioning should not be surprising because if students are already familiar with departmentalization at a younger age, of course the transition at an older age is going to be easy. As for the impact on actual academic learning, the evidence is still out with respect to whether departmentalization actually boosts the ability of students to learn in one model of classroom better than in another.
Overall, the themes that emerge from this literature review are that hard, statistical evidence is lacking to support one style of classroom modeling over another. Teacher preference may end up being the better factor to utilize in choosing a model for one’s school; however, there may be disagreement among teachers as to preference, especially if there are generation gaps among them, as the older generation will be more likely to favor the self-contained style (Ray, 2017). Harris (1996) found that self-contained classes were better at providing stability and consistency for young students and was one of the few studies that actually focused on the benefits for learners as opposed to the benefits for teachers.
Conclusion
There are considerable trade-offs between comparing the two models of classroom education: on the one hand, some teachers prefer departmentalization, as it reduces their workload and allows them to pursue specialized professional development. On the other hand, some teachers feel that younger students handle transitioning from class to class poorly and become disruptive as a result of departmentalization; they feel that younger students, primarily at the elementary school level, benefit more in terms of stability and consistency from having a self-contained model of education. The empirical evidence indicating the extent to which students benefit academically one way or another has so far been largely statistically insignificant; studies examining the social and behavioral impact of departmentalization have produced mixed results. The research thus indicates that both models of classroom education can help students to succeed academically but there is no significant difference between the two aside from teachers’ preferences and the possibility of emotional disturbance in some younger students who are not mature enough for transitioning.

Concept Map


References
Baroody, A. E. (2017). Exploring the contribution of classroom formats on teaching
effectiveness and achievement in upper elementary classrooms. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28, 314-335. doi:10.1080/09243453.2017.1298629
Chennis, S. T. (2018). The impact of traditional and departmentalized classroom
instructional settings on fifth grade students’ reading achievement (Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University). Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2806&context=doctoral
Crayton, M. (2016). Classroom structures: A deeper look into departmentalized and self-
contained elementary classrooms (Doctoral dissertation, Trevecca Nazarene University).
Freiberg, E. (2014). The relationship between academic performance and elementary
student and teacher attitudes towards departmentalizing (Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona).
Gewertz, C. (2014, February 19). Platooning on rise in early grades. Education Week, pp.
1, 16-17.
Harris, M. B. (1996). The Effect of Departmentalization on the Reading Achievement of
Sixth-Grade Students. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED395298.pdf
Hart, L. C., Oesterle, S., & Swars, S. L. (2013). The juxtaposition of instructor and
student perspectives on mathematics courses for elementary teachers. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(3), 429-451.
Hsiao, E., Schmertzing L., Schmertzing R., Strohl, A. (2014). Comparison of self-
contained and departmentalized elementary teachers’ perceptions of classroom structure and job satisfaction. Journal of Studies in Education, 4, 109-127. doi: 10.5296/jse.v4i1.4802
Markworth, K. A., Brobst, J., Ohana, C., & Parker, R. (2016). Elementary content
specialization: models, affordances, and constraints. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 16.
Minott, R.C. (2016). Elementary teachers’ experiences of departmentalized instruction
and its impact on student achievement (Doctoral dissertation, William Howard Taft University). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED572010
Parker, A., Rakes, L., & Arndt, K. (2017, July). Departmentalized, Self-Contained, or
Somewhere in Between: Understanding Elementary Grade-Level Organizational Decision-Making. The Educational Forum, 81(3), 236-255.
Ray, S.J. (2017). Departmental classroom environments verses traditional classroom
environments in second through fourth grades: A quantitative analysis (Doctoral dissertation, Linwood University). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.libproxy.hbu.edu/docview/1886845024/10D214336AF84A5APQ/2?accountid=7035
Strohl, A., Schmertzing, L., & Schmertzing, R. (2014). Elementary Teachers'
Experiences and Perceptions of Departmentalized Instruction: A Case Study. Journal of Case Studies in Education, 6, 1-17. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1060635.pdf
Thomas, K. L. (2016). Departmentalized versus self-contained balanced literacy
instruction: its effects on second grade comprehension levels (Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston). Retrieved from https://uh-ir.tdl.org/uh-ir/handle/10657/1412
Woods, K. C. (2017). The impact of departmentalized classrooms versus self-contained
classrooms on fourth-and fifth-grade students' reading and math achievement (Doctoral dissertation, Wingate University).