Content area
Teamwork is a critical component in implementing effective interventions for students who experience disability. Qualitative data from a five-year design-based research project were analyzed to identify challenges that education teams faced and strategies they used when designing and implementing a set of online tools to increase awareness and engagement in hidden STEM career pathways for students who experience disability. Common challenges were related to project-specific knowledge, administrative support, and the district’s existing curriculum. The strategies teams used to overcome these challenges included reliance on a team member, task avoidance, and working within the local context. As we examined the teams’ challenges and the strategies they employed, elements of group development theory were identified. Considerations for practitioners and further research are discussed.
1. Introduction
Collaboration and team structures are ubiquitous within special education—from co-teaching to the development of an individualized education program for students receiving special education services. The implementation of many regulations for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004; IDEA) relies on teamwork and collaboration. IDEA requires joint participation among stakeholders in key areas, including special education eligibility assessments, individualized education program (IEP) development, and cooperation between special and general education teachers in inclusive classrooms. Due to legal requirements, teamwork is also a professional standard for special educators. The Council for Exceptional Children identifies “Collaborating with Team Members” as one of the seven core standards in its Practice-Based Professional Preparation Standards for Special Educators (Council for Exceptional Children, 2020).
Gray (1985) defined collaboration as “(1) the pooling of appreciations and/or tangible resources, e.g., information, money, labor, etc., (2) by two or more stakeholders, (3) to solve a set of problems which neither can solve individually” (p. 912). Collaborative approaches enhance communication abilities, foster active school engagement (including peer interactions and student-initiated communication), promote self-sufficiency, and improve academic performance (Gaviola et al., 2024; Huberman et al., 2012; Hunt et al., 2003). Barriers to effective collaboration include (1) communication challenges, such as misunderstandings, differences in educators’ communication styles, and a lack of clear and consistent communication; (2) insufficient administrative support and policy implementation, including limited administrative backing and a lack of foresight in policymaking; and (3) scheduling and time constraints (Gaviola et al., 2024).
Teamwork is defined by Merriam-Webster as a group acting together so that each member does a part that contributes to the efficiency of the whole. Salas et al. (2015) defined teamwork as an adaptive, dynamic, and episodic process that encompasses the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors among team members while they interact in the pursuit of a common goal. Successful teamwork is a complex and dynamic process that necessitates the integration of multiple actors. Scholars have examined the determinants of effective collaboration and teamwork, identifying key elements essential for optimizing team performance. A comprehensive synthesis of prior research on teamwork attributed successful teamwork to nine components: cognition, coaching, communication, coordination, conflict, cooperation, composition, context, and culture (Salas et al., 2015). The first six elements constitute core teamwork processes and emergent states, while the latter three serve as contextual conditions that shape and influence these processes. Within educational settings, Griffiths et al. (2021) emphasized that teamwork in schools requires a foundation comprising relationship building, shared values and beliefs, and active engagement. The purpose of this analysis was to examine the challenges and strategies teams used when working together to implement a long-term project.
Research Questions
What challenges did three school teams experience while implementing a design-based implementation research project?
What strategies did the teams employ to overcome the challenges?
2. Materials and Methods
A five-year design-based implementation research (DBIR; Penuel et al., 2011) study was conducted to develop, test, integrate, and disseminate new online tools within a career information system (CIS) designed to increase awareness of and engagement in hidden STEM career opportunities for students with a disability. Approval (#01102017.006) was obtained from the Human Protections Committee before initiating the research, and all participants provided informed consent prior to each research activity. We conducted a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Guest et al., 2012) of qualitative data collected from focus groups, team meeting notes, team activities, and researcher-written memos and field notes to identify the challenges teams faced in implementing the project and strategies they used to overcome the challenges.
The researchers’ stance throughout the project was constructivism, reflecting epistemological subjectivism and ontological relativity (Patton, 2015). Researchers’ knowledge was constructed from interacting with the school teams, and in turn, the school teams’ knowledge was constructed within their context and by interacting with the researchers, the project’s tools, products, activities, and ultimately the student participants, thus further informing the researchers and project materials. This iterative approach to the research is consistent with DBIR, emphasizing the role of implementation within design, particularly within the local context. DBIR seeks to establish a partnership between researchers who design interventions and practitioners who implement interventions to establish effective, sustainable, and scalable interventions (Fishman et al., 2013). The aim of DBIR is for teams to work together in ways that increase capacity for sustaining change in organizations and systems.
2.1. Participants
The project involved three high schools from varying geographic regions across a northwestern state. Given the design nature of the project, the purposeful selection of the schools was based on representation of geographic and occupational diversity across the state—suburban and rural—as well as natural and community resources and a wide range of employment opportunities in hidden STEM-related fields—those careers requiring two years or less of postsecondary education or training (e.g., electricians, plumbers, and high-tech industries). The first school was located in a rural coastal community and classified as a small high school serving fewer than 500 students in grades 9–12, 13% of whom received services as an SWD at the start of the study. Hidden STEM-related industries in the community centered on marine and natural resources. The second school was located in an unincorporated community and classified as a very small high school with fewer than 450 students in grades K-12; 14% of the students in grades 9–12 received services as an SWD at the start of the study. Hidden STEM opportunities in the community consisted of several owner/operator small businesses (e.g., welding, construction). The third school was located in a suburb and classified as a large high school with a population of 1800 students in grades 9–12, 8% of whom received services for a disability when the study began. Hidden STEM businesses within the school community were associated with (a) automotive, (b) medical field, or (c) agriculture industries. Each high school formed a STEM team consisting of (a) a certified STEM general educator, (b) a certified special educator who served students with high incidence disabilities (e.g., specific learning disability, autism, other health impairment) in grades 9 through 12, (c) a transition specialist—a school employee assigned to prepare all SWDs for employment or career-related postsecondary training—and (d) a local hidden STEM business or industry representative (i.e., community member). School team members were recruited by district administrative staff. Each transition specialist, based on their familiarity with their community and presumed existing relationships with community members, was asked to recruit their STEM community team member. Team participants (N = 12) consisted of four males and eight females; the average time in their role was 11.3 years (range of 8–16 years) for special educators, 6.3 years (range of 4–10 years) for transition specialists, 10.6 years (range of 8–15 years) for general STEM educators, and 11.6 years (range of 9–13 years) for community members. Of the three special educators, two taught at least one resource room/support pull-out content area class per day, and one only co-taught. STEM general educators taught math, science, and robotics/technology. Community members represented the science, technology, and health care fields. Team responsibilities included (a) recruiting students, (b) conducting pre- and post-tests, (c) developing and (d) implementing a STEM Action Plan to engage students experiencing a disability (SEDs) in STEM experiences in school (e.g., OCIS and STEM activities) and the community (e.g., job shadowing, internships). STEM teams met formally and informally at their school throughout the year to (a) complete study activities (e.g., prepare a OCIS program of study, conduct a community mapping activity), (b) problem-solve, and (c) plan, implement, and evaluate their action plan. Throughout the study, two members from each STEM team (N = 6) engaged in design activities directly with the research team. The Design Team worked closely with researchers to identify the specific modifications and additions to OCIS that would support students’ increased awareness of hidden STEM career opportunities.
2.2. Data Collection
Data sources for this analysis were focus groups, team meeting notes, team activity artifacts, and researcher reflections and field notes collected across the span of the project. Focus groups were conducted in project years 1, 2, and 5 with the individual STEM teams (n = 8); one team withdrew before the project ended, resulting in only two focus groups with their team. Each focus group followed a semi-structured protocol, lasted between 60 and 90 min, was audio recorded, and was transcribed verbatim (Brantlinger et al., 2005; Whittemore et al., 2001). A member of the research team listened to each audio recording while reading the transcript to verify the accuracy of the transcription and, if needed, make any corrections.
The research team regularly held STEM team meetings with each team individually throughout the five-year project. Initially, team meetings were held monthly. These meetings naturally became quarterly meetings and eventually were held once per semester as the teams became more familiar and comfortable with the project. Most team meetings were conducted via conference call, with a few in-person team meetings held at the launch of the project, as well as a multi-day training held each summer for three summers. Meeting notes were recorded by a member of the research team in situ and followed the structured agenda for each meeting. Immediately following a STEM team meeting, researchers debriefed the meeting, reviewed notes for accuracy, made corrections or elaborated for clarification, identified next steps/follow-ups, and discussed the team’s project status. Additionally, two representatives from each STEM team attended quarterly Design Team in-person meetings. Notes from the Design Meetings (n = 9) were captured by researchers during the meeting either by public notetaking, through artifacts of structured activities, or via notes captured during conversations. Following Design Team meetings, researchers reviewed notes, identified next steps/follow-ups, and provided reflections. Researcher reflections (Bassot, 2016; Rolfe et al., 2001) and field notes were recorded by the research team member and corresponded to individual team trainings or contacts with a school team member.
2.3. Data Analysis
Throughout the project, data were organized by activity (e.g., focus group, meeting notes, SWOT). The research team used these data to inform various aspects throughout the project. For this analysis, a lead researcher reviewed the project’s qualitative data and conducted a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) to identify (a) challenges faced by the teams during implementation and (b) strategies used to overcome the challenges and implement the project. Following the six phases outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006), the data sources were read and re-read, and a single code was assigned to “chunks” of data. The initial coding was deductive since the code categories—challenge or strategy—were predefined. Challenges were defined as things that were hard for the teams to do or barriers (real or perceived) to implementing the project. Strategies were defined as the mechanisms teams used to overcome a challenge.
Individual case (i.e., team) profiles were created for each team by organizing the data chunks identified as challenges and inductively coding them to form and define initial themes (e.g., students, time, needs); this is what Braun and Clarke (2006) describe in phase 4 as reviewing and refining themes. Returning to the data corpus, initial themes were defined, summary statements were drafted for each theme, and verbatim quotes were paired with the theme for each team to identify broader themes. At this point, a cross-case analysis was conducted by combining the initial themes from each school’s case profile and further refining and defining themes by returning to the data to ensure the accuracy and relevancy of quotes. The result was four salient challenges faced by the teams: (a) knowledge of the OCIS platform, (b) familiarity with hidden STEM careers, (c) lack of administrator support, and (d) the district curriculum.
After identifying salient challenges, the strategies category was examined to identify data chunks related to each of the four identified challenges. Here again, inductive coding was used to identify initial themes (e.g., letting others do it or not engaging) for each of the four challenges. Corresponding verbatim quotes aligned with the challenge and representative of the strategy were extracted from the data corpus and incorporated into the team’s case profile. A cross-case matrix was created to align challenges and strategies by team. Initial strategy themes were reviewed and refined. The result was three themes that crossed multiple challenges: (a) reliance, (b) avoidance, and (c) influence. Table 1, Cross-Case Analysis Excerpt, shows the definitions of challenges and strategies related to the final themes for each school.
3. Results
Teams faced several salient challenges while implementing the project. These challenges related to (a) knowledge of the OCIS platform, (b) familiarity with hidden STEM careers, (c) lack of administrator support, and (d) strong academic curriculum. Although the strategies used by the teams to overcome these challenges varied by unique experiences and contexts, the strategies related to (a) reliance, (b) avoidance, and (c) influence. Next, we elaborate on each challenge within the context of the team, followed by the strategies these teams employed to overcome them.
3.1. Knowledge of OCIS
Members of the three teams had varying degrees of knowledge and experience using the OCIS platform. At the start of the project, only one school was using OCIS, and only one member of that team was proficient with it. The teams’ lack of knowledge specific to OCIS meant team members did not know (a) how to navigate the platform, (b) the existing tools and activities within OCIS and their individual or collective purpose, or (c) how to leverage the immense wealth of activities, resources, and tools within OCIS as more than isolated, standalone tasks. The result of not being familiar with OCIS was that teams (a) were less able to identify current strengths of the existing tools and opportunities for refinements, (b) were delayed in identifying their project goals, (c) needed to adjust their project goals, timelines, and activities to accommodate time for learning the OCIS platform, and (d) needed to invest personal time to learn the system. Furthermore, they were less able to provide meaningful feedback and critique of potential additions and modifications within OCIS that would be beneficial for achieving the project goals.
Reliance was the strategy all three teams used to overcome this challenge—whether they relied on one person to master the system, their team’s collective knowledge, or on the OCIS expert on the research team—each team developed a dependency on one person to implement OCIS, initially. The team using OCIS at the start of the project relied on the resident expert exclusively to customize OCIS and guide students’ engagement. Other team members took little to no ownership in using the OCIS tools, initially. Reliance on this person’s expertise was also evident in Design Team meetings; other members of the Design Team were minimally engaged in discussions related to specific OCIS activities and tools and seldom expressed either agreement or disagreement with the expert’s suggestions for modifications to the platform. To overcome the lack of familiarity with OCIS, the other two schools invested in learning more about OCIS. They scheduled individual, in-person trainings and regularly requested technical assistance and ongoing support from the OCIS expert/researcher. Overtime, the additional training time empowered one team’s use and understanding of OCIS, as described by a team member: “in-person OCIS [training] is really important because … when I went to that in-person [training]… that’s what pulled me … I wouldn’t let go of it and I knew how valuable it was at that moment.” For the second team, the additional time in OCIS-specific trainings helped them learn to navigate the system, individualize OCIS, and access various built-in reports. Overtime, they developed a reliance on each other to further their knowledge of OCIS’ functionality outside of the formal trainings, as described by a team member: “[Our community member] helped me a lot; he got OCIS, and he’s like ‘this is a cool tool’. He sat down with me one day and helped me manipulate it and figure it out. And then he also came in and helped some of our students.” As a result of learning about the functionalities and capabilities of OCIS and helping each other gain skills in OCIS, they set a schoolwide goal that all teachers would use OCIS with all students, not just those students and teachers associated with the project. For these two teams, relying on one person was initially effective for accomplishing the tasks associated with OCIS. Over time, they came to rely on each other to gain knowledge about OCIS and thereby gain a better working knowledge of OCIS.
The third team’s approach to overcoming the challenge of not knowing OCIS was a reliance on the OCIS expert within the research team. When they needed to customize the system, run reports, or complete project tasks, they contacted the OCIS director to either provide a step-by-step process or make the change for them. Despite multiple individual trainings and technical assistance sessions, the school team continued to engage with OCIS in limited ways. These ad hoc trainings provided them with what they needed to know in the moment, insofar as fulfilling an immediate need and involvement with the project. They utilized the required components for the project minimally, chose not to individualize the program to its full capacity, and did not explore the program beyond the initial career assessments. The special education teacher embraced the career assessments within OCIS as they met the criteria of an age-appropriate transition assessment that could inform the development of the student’s individualized education program (IEP); however, the assessments were just the first step in increasing students’ awareness of hidden STEM careers. Their student-focused goal tangentially involved using OCIS by “… identifying STEM career pathway and the associated skills in OCIS”. By relying on the OCIS expert, their knowledge of OCIS increased minimally, thereby limiting their opportunity to take advantage of a rich resource that would have benefited them and their students. Overall, all three teams used reliance on a team member, then each other, to overcome their limited knowledge of OCIS.
3.2. Knowledge of Hidden STEM Opportunities Within the Community
All three STEM teams lacked knowledge of hidden STEM careers (i.e., careers requiring less than a bachelor’s degree for an entry-level position; see Rothwell, 2013) and therefore struggled to identify the hidden STEM industries within their communities. Anticipating this as a potential struggle at the start of the project, the research team purposefully designed team-based activities to eliminate, or greatly reduce, this potential challenge. For example, in a community mapping activity, teams were asked to drive around their community, together in one vehicle, to identify (a) hidden STEM industries and businesses in their community, (b) how the science, technology, engineering, and/or math used in each industry related to their school curriculum, and (c) how the business or industry could be involved with the school. Only one team completed the activity as designed. The other two teams completed some aspects of the activity by taking note of the businesses on their drives to and from school and thinking about the businesses located near the school campus. They cited time as the reason for not completing the activity together. By not completing the activity as designed, teams (a) lacked shared knowledge about the hidden STEM industries and businesses in their community and (b) struggled to see potential connections between the school and community. Additionally, they missed learning about each other’s skills, areas of expertise, and resources that could have facilitated project implementation down the road. As a result of not being familiar with their local community and the resources therein, the teams did not have foundational information needed to (a) develop robust team goals, (b) connect students to existing opportunities within the school and community, (c) fully capitalize on OCIS to facilitate connections between their students, school, and community, or (d) rely on each other as resource partners throughout the project.
Knowledge of the hidden STEM resources in their community and engaging with employers in these businesses and industries in their community was a fundamental component of the project. Over time, we saw the teams using two primary strategies to overcome this challenge: reliance and avoidance. Of the three teams, two teams developed a reliance on one team member to be the resident expert regarding community resources and engagement. They leaned into, relied on, and trusted one member of their team to identify hidden STEM industries, form relationships with community partners in these businesses, be the point of contact, and make connections between students’ interests and the opportunities that existed within the school and community. They relied on that person to be the conduit to community resources for other members of the team as represented by a general educator’s comment, “Sharing those partners that I and the math department can access, to bring in as guest speakers and to draw that connection, that relevance, to what we do every day—is helpful”. Initial reliance on a single team member to connect with the community was effective to the extent that there was one point of contact; it fulfilled the requirements to engage their community. However, reliance on one team member to be the conduit was ineffective for embedding authentic community experiences into the school curriculum or linking students to community experiences and opportunities. For the third team, learning about and engaging with hidden STEM resources in their community was a challenge from the start and remained so throughout the project. Their strategy to overcome this challenge was to avoid the community-related aspects of the project. Evidence of avoidance was apparent early. Their community focus group, intended for representatives of hidden STEM industries, consisted only of school, district, and state department personnel, none of whom worked in a hidden STEM field. They delayed identifying and engaging a community member for their STEM team, saying they needed a better “understanding of what our community is and what involvement looks like”. They took twice as long as the other teams to identify a community member for their team. Even then, the person they engaged did not meet the criterion of being in a STEM field that required two years or less of postsecondary education or training. At the first team training, the community member pulled the research team aside and said, “I’m not sure why I’m here or how I can help”. After that meeting, the community member was “not available” for any team check-in meetings, despite the research team’s repeated encouragements and suggestions to engage them. This team’s community component of the action plan was broad and generic, lacking details for engaging community businesses, and ultimately, went unfulfilled. Avoiding engaging a community member was an ineffective strategy for gaining knowledge of hidden STEM opportunities in their community or connecting learning opportunities between the community and school.
3.3. Administrative Support
Lack of administrator support was a challenge acknowledged by all three teams. In years two and three of the project, two schools advocated to add a school administrator to their STEM team, saying they viewed the administrator as the conduit for accomplishing their schoolwide goals. They attributed some of the underperformance of their action plans to not having administrator buy-in, saying that not having administrator support made it impossible to achieve their goals. For example, two schools struggled to find time during the school schedule to meet with the students participating in the project. They wanted dedicated time for project activities, to attend field trips together, and to develop and implement their project action plan. They believed having administrator buy-in (i.e., support) would lead to changes in the master schedule and facilitate accomplishing the school-focused project goals. One team said, “He [school administrator] makes the decisions about scheduling and what happens schoolwide. We have no control or influence of that.”. Another team reported, “[The] first admin team understood the project goals and supported the project. [The] new admin team came in and did not necessarily see the vision.” and “They needed to understand that it [the project] was supposed to [involve] a team, not a thing that you [the special educator] did by yourself. Yeah, that’s where we needed the support”.
As a strategy to overcome the lack of administrator support, all three teams focused on what they had control over—that is, what they could influence. This strategy manifested differently for the teams. For two teams, they chose to embed project goals within the courses taught by the general educators on the team. They examined what they could influence and identified what was feasible given their limitations, then forged ahead by “just do[ing] what we could do”. As a result, both teams focused on integrating community contact resources into the STEM teacher’s department to support career connections. These teams leveraged the access they had to students and resources to structure and fulfill their goal and supported each other where they could. For example, when the administrator would not release two team members to attend project-related field trips, the attending team member collected and shared relevant information with colleagues. “I was just going to meet today, actually, with South Coast Lumber and look at some of the robotics they have in the mill over there.”, to which the attending team member added, “The fisheries also have robotic opportunities, too. It doesn’t matter if it’s shrimp or cranberries, that’s how it’s [sorting] done on the south coast is by machines. And … so there’s lots of opportunity”. This exchange signaled each team member’s awareness of the project goals and opportunities and how they could contribute within their respective areas, and the limitations imposed by an administrator they viewed as unsupportive and “not understanding the vision” of the project.
The third team approached not having an administrator as a team member by engaging regularly with the administrator about the project, “I started talking to [our administrator] after our first meeting”. As needs arose, they were strategic in using their individual influence to talk to the administrator, saying, “If we needed something, if someone needed to go talk to [the administrator], [the general educator] was the one to go do it; We really worked that a little bit in our favor.” and “I’m a salesperson; that’s what I do”. Throughout the project, this team leveraged small successes to update their administrator and continue to garner his support without having him named as a member of the team. As examples of their successes and activities, they presented their project to the school board, partnered with a community college to start an exploratory course on six trades, and developed clubs related to hidden STEM (e.g., computer coding and car and auto mechanics). When asked about the need for an administrator to be part of the team from the start, a team member said, “No offense to the administrator, but like they immediately [have] to think of ‘how does this affect the school?’ By excluding them [it] allows us to be like, ‘okay, what can we come up with?” The team felt empowered to be creative and think through what they wanted to achieve through the project, identify challenges, and develop ideas for problem-solving before sharing their vision and goals with their administrator. This approach also ensured they knew what they needed from their administrator to be successful. Rather than depending on the administrator to limit or direct the project, or grant permission, they communicated with their administrator from the start, “… to at least educate [administrator], saying, ‘Hey, here’s what’s going on, and you’re going to need to…; we’re going to need your position to make this happen”.
In response to not having their administrator as a team member, one team’s approach to influencing what they could took the form of setting a school goal to “support students to participate in project-based learning or club experiences”. At first glance, the team’s goal was reasonable, achievable, and represented the strategy of influencing what they could to overcome the challenge. However, accomplishing this goal was dependent on having project-based learning and clubs available to students, and neither was the case. The participating science teacher did not implement project-based learning in her classes and was not interested in doing so. Where there were clubs or activities that students could become involved in, the students actively avoided participating in them, for example, the annual science fair. Multiple students described not participating in the science fair due to existing demands and high expectations associated with it; “You gotta be the best of the best. I just wanted it to kind of be fun”. Also, “Like you were saying … for [the science fair] there is that aspect of, ‘I’m gonna be missing class and so that’s missed information. Now I’m behind, now I’m trying to catch up again,’ and so something that could genuinely be fun and an interesting experience now becomes not only the work of that project but now the work that you’re missing in class.” Rather than working as a team to gain their administrator’s support for a different goal or identifying an achievable school goal that they could directly influence, they wrote a goal that could not fulfill the intention of creating change within the school. In doing so, they also avoided the challenges voiced by their students as reasons for not engaging in the STEM-related clubs and opportunities. Focusing on the areas they had control over was an effective strategy for developing and implementing their STEM Action Plans.
3.4. Strong Academic Curriculum
Each team described their districts’ strong academic curriculum and the expectation of students attending college as a challenge for implementing a project focused on hidden STEM career options requiring two years or less of postsecondary education. In all three cases, the strategy employed by the teams to overcome this challenge was again to focus their action plan on the things they could control. For two schools, the district’s strong academic curriculum resulted in few or no career-related classes (e.g., construction and welding). For one school, career-related courses had been eliminated several years prior to starting this project and were just beginning to be reintroduced into the district’s curriculum. The available classes were limited and isolated. The district’s focus was on meeting state standards that, by their interpretation, could only be accomplished through structured, academic classes—“math in the math wing, science in the science wing”. When the construction teacher asked the math teacher whether students could receive credit for demonstrating math skills in a construction class, the math teacher was hesitant and superficially supportive, saying “I’m not sure about credit but I’m sure that we could figure something out in terms of, like, you know, a cross-curricular project that would be applicable”. For example, the general educator worked within his classroom and academic department to identify how the academic content could be linked to career opportunities in the community that utilized specific academic skills. After attending a STEM field trip with students to a local optics company where he saw geometry being used in the creation of optical lenses, he was able to incorporate authentic examples of application into his lesson plans and link the lesson objectives to specific careers in their community. The transition specialist structured the time she had with students to engage them in OCIS activities.
At another school, the strong academic focus meant that only advanced placement (AP) courses were taught, and every student was required to take the AP tests. As a district, they provided a niche curriculum that attracted out-of-district students, whose resources helped sustain the district. The only exception to the all-AP curriculum was a required computer science course taken by all sophomores. The implementation of the highly rigorous academic curriculum meant teachers had no variability in the curriculum content, nor did they believe they could afford to take time to deviate from the aggressive timeline. They indicated that incorporating hands-on or career-focused activities was not an option given the rigor and pace of the curriculum. For this school, the district’s curriculum offered no career-focused opportunities—either through coursework or activities—to explore career pathways as part of the school day. As such, there was no natural fit for the learning that could be afforded through OCIS within the district’s curriculum. In this school, the general educator incorporated project goals into the computer science course, and the transition specialist arranged for the community member to help students become familiar with OCIS tasks and activities. Each team member used the means they had to leverage the implementation of the project activities, working within the rigorous academic curriculum.
At the third school, several career-related courses were available, and the faculty embraced the integration of science, technology, engineering, and math. In this school, the strong academic focus curriculum bolstered a culture of high expectations acknowledged by both teachers and students. When talking about STEM, general and special teachers emphasized the importance of competition and being competitive “in today’s world”. Describing the integration of the STEM content areas, one teacher said, “I think that’s a forefront of what we’re trying to do as a school, as a community, making sure that students can see like, practical life applications and instilling that and maximizing that through competition. And I think it’s really great when you can make science competitive in a healthy way”. This comment sparked several minutes of conversation, with several teachers trying to distinguish between being competitive and competing; “as they [students] progress through high school I think they understand more like, the universal concept of being competitive and competing with yourself. I think the idea of being competitive, setting oneself up for success happens”. Justifying the competitive culture of the school, teachers said, “The real world is a competition.” and “I think that we as educators do our kids a great service when we give them an opportunity to compete”. Although teachers may have intended for the competition to be healthy, that messaging did not always come through to students. Students described being pushed into higher-level academic courses, “That push to like, there feels I think, at this school in particular, there’s this big push to like, be, like, pushing, pushing, pushing. Like, I remember like, my freshman year my counselors were like, how many AP classes are you taking?’ Like, this year my counselors want to know AP classes, AP classes. It’s like, is there something wrong with taking grade level classes at the grade that you’re at?” Several students indicated they did not participate in the STEM opportunities available within the school (e.g., science fair, clubs) because of added stress, competition, and expectations of high performance. Describing the science fair, students said, “the scores and everything and it’s a [sic] added on stress, just like he said [referring to a student’s prior comment]; The fact that, and once again, at [this school] there’s just a higher expectation. There’s just an expectation here of, you know, everyone’s here [motions a height with his hand] and we’re kind of here [motions a higher height with the other hand], and that’s how they [teachers] kind of expect it”. “You gotta be the best of the best. I just wanted it to kind of be fun.” For this school, the team set a goal to support students interested in participating in extracurricular STEM-related activities. Team members would give their time before and after school to help students with extra activities and projects—for example, to prepare for the science fair. The team’s intent was to alleviate the stress felt by students when trying to engage in activities “just for fun” by providing extra support. However, their most successful implementation of project activities resulted from the special educator’s use of OCIS career assessments. These assessments were fun and engaging for students and, importantly for the special educator, fulfilled the requirement of conducting a yearly transition assessment with each student.
In all three cases, focusing their efforts on the areas over which they had control was an effective strategy. By creating and implementing action plans for their unique context, each school team helped students increase awareness of and engagement in hidden STEM career opportunities for students with disabilities by exploring the new tools and resources within OCIS, connecting hidden STEM careers to the academic courses, and building career opportunities within their local community.
3.5. Group Development
During the implementation of the project, differences in how teams worked together were apparent to both the research team and the school teams themselves; some teams worked well together, and others struggled. As researchers, we recognized areas of struggle and routinely asked teams to identify their challenges so that we might offer suggestions or solutions to ensure the success of the project. Through the process of reading and re-reading the multiple data sources to identify teams’ challenges and strategies, evidence of group development—“interaction among team members evolving through well-documented stages and resulting in members of mature groups interacting in very different ways from members of new groups” (Sweet & Michaelsen, 2007, p. 34)—was apparent. To better understand the teams’ challenges and the strategies they employed, we looked at group development frameworks by Tuckman (1965), Tuckman and Jensen (1977), and Wheelan (2005, 2009). The basis of Tuckman’s (1965) group development theory is “a four stage model in which each stage needed to be successfully navigated in order to reach effective group functioning” (Bonebright, 2010). Based on a further review of the literature, Tuckman and Jensen (1977) added a fifth stage to the model, depicting the end or disbandment of a group. Wheelan’s (2005) integrated model of group development sought to consolidate several similar group development models. Given the variations in the nomenclature of the group stages and the broad familiarity with Tuckman and Jensen’s five-stage model—forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning—we used the Tuckman and Jensen model and included corresponding and expanded descriptors described by Wheelan (2005) to explore stages of group development within the three STEM teams and how, if at all, the perceived stage of development may have influenced the challenges and strategies evident in this project.
The first stage is forming, in which individuals come together for a specific purpose. This stage is characterized by polite and courteous interactions, undefined roles and responsibilities, dependency on leadership, and orientation tasks. The second stage, storming, is characterized by conflict and resistance relative to interpersonal issues. Norming is the third stage, in which behaviors and standards focus on tasks rather than individuals. The fourth stage is performing, in which behaviors support task completion. The final stage is adjourning, in which the group disbands and members transition to other tasks and projects. This stage is characterized by celebration and reflection.
To further explore group development, codes for a thematic analysis were identified deductively using the five stages—forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. This coding scheme was further refined by identifying representative and illustrative excerpts of the five stages of group development from project data (see Table 2). The data corpus was re-read, and data chunks were coded using the group development coding scheme to identify stages of group development within the teams. Linkages between the challenges and strategies and stages of group development are discussed next.
4. Discussion
This analysis of qualitative data from a five-year DBIR project sought to identify challenges teams experienced and the strategies they used while participating in the development, testing, integration, and dissemination of new online tools within a career information system (CIS) designed to increase awareness of and engagement in hidden STEM career opportunities for students with a disability. With respect to research question 1, the salient challenges faced by the teams centered on (a) knowledge of the OCIS platform, (b) familiarity with hidden STEM careers, (c) lack of administrator support, and (d) strong academic curriculum. As for research question 2, the strategies teams used to overcome these challenges were unique circumstances and included those related to (a) reliance, (b) avoidance, and (c) influence. Inherent to both research questions are team characteristics and behaviors. We explored group development as a mechanism for better understanding the teams’ successes, challenges, and the strategies they employed. Examples of group development characteristics within this five-year project are described next.
4.1. Forming
Team formation is characterized by dependence on others, orientation to the task, finding one’s place within the project, and establishing relationships with other members of the team (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977; Wheelan, 2005). Few established relationships existed within the teams at the start of the project. Only the transition specialist and special educator on each team had an established relationship; while they had some students in common, different roles and responsibilities in their work with students meant they often worked closely, but independently, of each other; for example, the special educator and transition specialist may have had students in common, but they were not working toward a shared goal or activity for individual students. None of the general or special educators worked together in a collaborative or co-teaching model, and as for community team members, only one transition specialist had an established relationship with their community team member. Reflecting on the project at the end of the first year, both the groups of community members and general educators described being under-utilized within the project and unsure of how to contribute. While teams were in the forming stage—i.e., developing relationships, learning about and from each other—few collaborative activities were identified or implemented through the project action plan. Although some team members were making changes in their specific roles—for example, the transition specialists were implementing new learning activities, exposing students to different work experiences, and linking these to OCIS activities—they continued to work in silos, not as a team. As a result, students in this project were left without cross-curricular experiences that would have helped them connect their academic classes (e.g., science, technology, and math) with their career interests.
Wheelan (2005) describes newly formed teams’ dependency as looking to “the leader for guidance”. In this project, we saw the teams be dependent on their school leadership. Teams justified their desire to include school administrators as formal members of the STEM team by saying it was the administrators who made the decisions, and that without the “missing member”, they floundered. As the project progressed, we saw all three teams revisit the forming stage (e.g., learning how to contribute to specific tasks, establishing relationships) due to turnover within the group membership. For two of the teams, re-forming occurred quickly and nearly seamlessly. They quickly oriented a new member to the project and continued moving forward. One team simultaneously straddled forming and storming for a few years. They experienced turnover in their team for three years, which resulted in continually orienting a new team member to the purpose and team goals. While the orientation was occurring, one team member assumed the responsibility to ensure team progress. As a result, time that could have been spent with students, developing collaborative projects, and maximizing students’ learning in multiple environments was lost.
4.2. Storming
Interpersonal conflict, polarization, and resistance to group influences characterize the storming stage. Evidence of storming across different teams occurred in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways. In some cases, team members quietly and privately acknowledged to the research team that a member was shouldering the responsibility of the team to the exclusion of other team members; varying team members described “doing it all” and not trusting team mates to follow-through on commitments. Community members intimated their desire to be more engaged by saying, “I’m happy to help.” and “Don’t assume I’m too busy [to be involved}. Ask me”. In these teams, opportunities to plan and execute meaningful community activities with students, or incorporate community members’ expertise into classroom activities, were missed and left students to intuit connections between school and community opportunities on their own.
In less subtle ways, some team members openly shared their discontent by leaving or refusing to attend trainings with other team members, showing jealousy of team members (“why was she selected for the extra training [Design Team Meetings] and not me? She doesn’t know anything about our students.”), openly resisting decisions and processes in which they were not part of the initial conversation, or suggesting different options, causing the team to rehash a situation, only to move forward with their previously determined decision or process. In these instances, the animosity of the individual members with each other negated the team approach. For one team, the storming stage left one person being the “go between” with other members. As a ‘team’, their inability, or unwillingness, to develop shared goals, problem-solve collaboratively, and share the workload increased the burden and stress of trying to implement the project. We saw evidence of this burden and stress in a variety of ways—fewer student responses and activities completed within OCIS, delays in receiving project materials (e.g., pre/post-measures), and responses and input from only one member of the team. As a result, activities were either not implemented or not implemented with fidelity; goals to increase student opportunities schoolwide and extend student learning to the community went undeveloped or unaddressed.
4.3. Norming
This stage is characterized by trust and group cohesion. There was evidence of teams having developed structures and processes that facilitated getting the work done, whether that work was focused on meeting data collection procedures and timelines, arranging field trips, or implementing OCIS activities. They knew who was doing what and how they each contributed to the overall project. Trust was evident for a couple of team members who described how they stepped back from “doing it all” and from being the voice of the project to letting other members of the team figure out the solutions. “I had to learn to stay in my lane. [Teammate] would tell me, ‘stay in your lane. Go faster but stay in your lane’”. Teams described their levels of understanding by saying, “I think us four [sic] get it; as we’re starting to recognize and see how feasible these two-year paths are for these kids and getting [students] to where they need to go.” and, “I think that you let the team—the core team—decide what goals they’re going to set for themselves; because that’s where we really got to”. At this point, two teams had momentum around their shared goals and better understood how they individually contributed to their success. Evidence of norming behavior was not always the ideal behavior from the research perspective. Within a short period of time, all three community members ended their involvement with the project, citing changes in their work life—new positions, roles, and responsibilities. Nevertheless, the teams continued to implement their action plan and meet their goals without a community member, which raised the question of how involved the community members were if these things continued despite the absence of a team member. It was impossible to determine whether the team filled the void left by the community member or whether there was really a void to begin with. At least one team replaced their community member, and at the time the project ended, they were working to integrate the new member into the project and identify how he could be involved.
For the two teams that reached the norming stage, they functioned cohesively through the logistics of the project (e.g., completing pre-/post-measures and providing feedback on activities). Additionally, these teams learned to successfully, and independently, customize OCIS to provide students with a sequence of career exploration activities that spread to schoolwide use of OCIS with all students, not just those who received special education services.
4.4. Performing
Goal attainment within flexible and functional roles and high productivity characterize the performing stage. Factors indicating teams were performing included clear progress being made on their student, school, and community goals. “We wouldn’t have made the changes, without a team focusing on the same things”. Team members gained confidence in their project-related work. For one team, this meant no longer relying on another team member to access OCIS, “Before, I would always have to call [team member]. Now I can just go [and] look [at student activities for myself], you know.” and “I love the OCIS, I got way more involved in OCIS than I ever did before. Now I feel like I can get through the program and like actually find kids’ work and use it in my IEPs, you know, which is very helpful”. As progress was made on their goals, teams emailed the research team just to share success stories, “I have a student who is in the middle of an 8-week paid internship (paid by [local business coop]) at [local business working] in the area of welding and container repair”. Also, “Four of our students are attending the [trades] program at [the community college]. They attend high school for half a day and then go to the college the second half of the day”. Further evidence of a performing team was seen in who and how team members participated in the team check-ins. Performing teams had multiple members on the calls, and each member contributed to the conversations. They shared their experiences, elaborated on each other’s comments, and provided updates to different aspects of the project. We saw the effect of a performing team on students’ learning during student focus groups. Multiple students effortlessly referenced specific activities of OCIS, their connections to local jobs, and their STEM courses in school. As one senior said, “There’s a lot more [hidden STEM] jobs than you expect”, describing what he learned from the field trips and community speakers. A student in a science course shared, “I was able to become a student scientist for a NASA branched program. I am looking at multiple photos across a screen that were produced by the Pan-STARRS telescope up in Hawaii, and I am looking for unidentified comets and asteroids”. His special educator elaborated, saying, “this project let him connect his special interest [astronomy] to a potential career and see the importance of doing well in other classes”.
4.5. Adjourning
This stage is characterized by the separation and disbandment of the group, reflection, and celebration. Teams experience excitement and/or sadness as the group’s time comes to an end. Of the three participating schools, one team ended participation prior to the project concluding. In doing so, their exit was a matter of fact, with the point of contact stating they would return the project materials. There was no indication to the research team that the STEM team members were sad, excited, or felt a sense of pride or satisfaction in their involvement in the project. If anything, the messenger conveyed a sense of relief, referencing many changes in both the personal and professional lives of the team that prevented them from continuing, and unfortunately, they had to “turn down a great opportunity”. As for the other two teams, their adjournment reflected pride and satisfaction in their work and the team’s accomplishments. In debriefing the project, they acknowledged an over-reliance on a single team member and how hard it must have been on that person to “carry the project”. Reflecting on the project, they attributed the disproportionate workload to a variety of circumstances, including lack of administrative buy-in, scheduling changes, and lack of time with students. Nevertheless, they shared their successes and accomplishments, complimented each other, and acknowledged learning about and seeing new opportunities for students. “One of the most positive things for me was I was able to use [ OCIS] and see what the kids were doing and talk to [the students] about it even. Yeah, I think that was, that was a strength”. They also reflected on how the project changed them and influenced their teaching and involvement within the school. “The community mapping … changed the way [I teach], like, I will always do my job differently now and I love it”. Also, “With our school and our teachers and [this team] … I don’t think I would’ve had the confidence to do it [engage with the broader school goal]. I think I would’ve just stayed in my little lane of getting kids jobs and such, but then when I started having it open up as a school, [thinking] how we can make kids’ lives better in high school, I think it built my confidence to really reach out and start talking to people and bringing people into the [school] space”. In recapping the initial purpose of the project, one team member ended by saying, “We see how successful we are; because yeah, we can say we successfully explored [hidden STEM opportunities] but we also successfully did. Like these kids are working [in hidden STEM] jobs”.
4.6. Group Development in Relation to Challenges and Strategies
Looking holistically at challenges and the strategies used to overcome the challenges, within a group development framework, we see areas of potential linkages, although certainly not causality. Research on effective collaboration within teams has shown the importance of relationships, shared goals, and active engagement (see Griffiths et al., 2021)—characteristics that are reflected in the stages of group development for these teams. For example, it took time for the newly formed teams to develop meaningful relationships, orient to the project tasks, and establish group structures that eventually contributed to their collective success. Some teams resisted engaging in activities that were intentionally designed by the research team to help them form relationships within their team, learn about teammates’ resources and expertise, and develop project-specific knowledge that would be foundational to achieving their project goals.
Although two teams looked to their school administrator for guidance relative to the project, one team’s dependency on their administrator resulted in them stalling or completely avoiding key aspects of the project. The teams that identified areas they could influence developed a reliance on each other that helped them perform as a team and achieve their team goals. They found ways to continue to move forward in their action plan without strong support from their administrator. For example, when the full team could not attend a field trip, attending members collected and shared information that was relevant to the other team members. This enabled the information to be incorporated into other areas of their action plan, further developing a reliance on their team and facilitating the team’s performance.
Consistent with group development theory, we observed interpersonal conflict, characteristic of storming, between some team members. Experiencing this stage of group development may have contributed to one team avoiding key elements of their action plan. Without working through personal conflicts to develop effective group structures, they functioned in isolation from each other, with each doing his or her own thing without regard for their shared goals or how they would contribute to the overall project goal. Developing a reliance on their team members, coming to trust each other, understanding and accepting each team member’s unique contributions, and recognizing areas they could influence as a team helped two teams establish group norms and processes, thereby resulting in their working through the storming stage quickly, or perhaps bypassing it altogether. In turn, these groups’ norms contributed to teams’ high performance and to meeting their team goals. For the team that exited before the project concluded, we wondered to what extent not developing groups norms may have contributed to the decision to withdraw early. A high turnover rate in team membership resulted in multiple cycles of ‘re-forming’ and leaving one team member, seemly, to bear the responsibilities intended for a team.
As the project ended, one team acknowledged their missteps and less-than-ideal implementation while reflecting on their collective successes and accomplishments. Despite not implementing their action plan in the way they initially envisioned, they achieved most of their goals. Both teams that completed the project successfully contributed to developing, testing, integrating, and disseminating new strategies and online tools designed to increase awareness of and engagement in hidden STEM career opportunities for students with a disability, within the OCIS.
4.7. Teamwork in Relation to Students with Disabilities
The assumption of teamwork and collaboration permeates the field of special education, given the influence on many educational elements that affect the success of students who have a disability. Decisions such as whether to remove a student with a disability from a general education environment, and if so, for which class/es or for how much of their school day; whether modifications or accommodations are appropriate, and if so, which ones for which class/es; and what services, supplemental aids, and supports would benefit the student—are intended to be made by a students’ IEP team, inclusive of at least a general educator, special educator, the student and their family, among others. Each member of the student’s IEP team contributes knowledge and expertise to developing and implementing an education program that is designed to help the student make meaningful progress in their education. With general educators as the content experts and special educators as the instructional design experts, teamwork and collaboration are needed to help students master content, learn appropriate behaviors, demonstrate skills, access resources and services, and participate in a variety of school experiences. Teamwork and collaboration enable teachers to plan and implement effective instruction for individual students as well as groups of students. Through teamwork and collaboration, educators can better provide support for students’ academic, social, and emotional growth. In this project, we used a collaborative team approach to design online tools for OCIS to increase awareness of and engagement in hidden STEM career opportunities for students with a disability at not just an individual student level but also through engagement at schoolwide and community levels.
4.8. Limitations
Themes from this analysis should be considered in the context of specific limitations. First, throughout the project, we routinely and specifically asked questions about the challenges teams were facing and the strategies they were using to overcome them. We did so with the intent of supporting the teams’ successful implementation of the project and creating an environment in which teams learned from each other, not conducting a study on challenges and strategies. A project focused on identifying challenges and strategies would have resulted in different questions and likely different responses. Similarly, stages of group development were not the original focus of the five-year project, nor did it become so at any point during implementation. Therefore, the data sources used for this analysis were not designed to address group structures or development directly. Here again, had we asked questions related to group development, the themes identified here may have been different. In reviewing the data corpus, there are questions we wish we had asked, rephrased, or probed related to challenges, strategies, and group development. Further explanation and elaboration may have resulted in different understandings. For this reason, the themes identified herein reflect points in time across a five-year project. Moreover, had we taken a prospective approach to this research, we would have collected data on several additional variables not available in the current dataset. For example, although we collected participants’ basic demographic data—gender, race/ethnicity, years of experience, and content area taught or business/industry—we did not collect data related to types of group or team experiences participants have had previously, their role in other groups (leader, member), the purpose of other teamwork groups, or their motivation/preference for working in a group/team structure. Similarly, with regard to the school context, we collected data about the size and structure of the school, geographic location, hidden STEM-related businesses and industries located within the community, and the use of OCIS. However, we did not collect data to analyze what effect, if any, school context has on teamwork (e.g., whether a team approach is used by the faculty, how teams are constructed and managed, how active faculties are—or are allowed to be—in the decision-making processes affecting school climate, policies, and procedures). Despite these limitations, we believe the findings have practical implications.
4.9. Implications for Practice and Research
The challenges teams faced and the strategies they employed to overcome them were not unique to this project. In fact, a lack of specific content knowledge, the need for administrator support, and working within the limits of existing curricula are typical and easily anticipated. However, the underlying structures of the team and how those characteristics influenced project success have implications for practice and research in two ways. First, at a practice level, simply putting a group of individuals together to form a “team” does not guarantee they will function effectively. Leaders and teams need to be aware of and anticipate the stages of group development. Furthermore, recognizing the stages in situ and being prepared to navigate through them could facilitate successful implementation and perhaps help teams avoid some challenges altogether or provide mechanisms for the team to work through challenges in healthy and productive ways.
Second, further research is needed to examine how the stages of group development influence teamwork, collaboration, and ultimately the attainment of project goals. Wheelan (2005) summarized the gaps in the current literature related to group development and the need for ongoing research in this area. She outlines considerations for future research, including formulating research questions, participant populations, and study contexts. Given that much of the work in education, particularly special education, involves teamwork and collaboration, examining group development in these contexts would seem to be a natural extension to planned research without adding undue burden to a new project. An extension or parallel line of inquiry to group dynamics would be an examination of the power structure and dynamics within the group. Exploring established power structures and dynamics and the extent to which the structure or power changes, or not, over time may further inform what influences group development stages and the progression, or lack thereof, through the stages. These topics are beyond the scope of the current analysis, given our existing data.
Each author contributed to the work in substantial ways. Specifically, conceptualization, M.B. and C.Y.A.; methodology, C.Y.A. and M.B.; validation, C.Y.A., M.B. and B.P.; formal analysis, C.Y.A.; investigation, C.Y.A., M.B. and B.P.; resources, M.B. and C.Y.A.; data curation, B.P., M.B. and C.Y.A.; writing—original draft preparation, C.Y.A., B.P. and L.W.; writing—review and editing, C.Y.A., B.P., L.W. and M.B.; visualization, C.Y.A. and B.P.; supervision, C.Y.A. and M.B.; project administration, C.Y.A. and M.B.; funding acquisition, M.B. and C.Y.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Oregon (protocol code 01102017.006, 10 February 2017l).
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article due to restrictions associated with confidentiality and the lack of informed consent to release data to a third party.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
| AP | Advanced placement |
| CIS | Career Information System |
| DBIR | Design-based implementation research |
| IDEA | Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act |
| IEP | Individualized education program |
| OCIS | Oregon Career Information System |
| SED | Students experiencing disability |
| STEM | Science, technology, engineering, and math |
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Cross-Case Analysis Excerpt.
| Challenge/Strategy | School 1 | School 2 | School 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Theme: Administrator support: their knowledge of the project, willingness to be a problem-solving partner, understanding of project goals, encouragement; examples of administrators not supporting the project, or perceptions of being unsupportive | The administrator in place at the start of the project attended project orientation and focus group, met with transition specialist to talk about the project, shared experience of having taught in magnet CTE/STEM school, and was encouraging. Loss of supportive administrator; new administrator did not understand project goal and did not have same experiences No support for the team working together Eliminated cohort Denied or restricted access to field trips | Administrator willing to listen and yet protective of established curriculum Not willing to change curriculum focus or risk less rigor in curriculum Unwilling to encourage any changes within the curriculum (e.g., allow hands-on activities) Change in (new to district) administrator Admin open to discussions; asked for information, still wavering on restrictions | Disconnect between district admin who committed to the project and the school admin Little interaction between administrator and STEM team Team attributed lack of success in developing and implementing action plan to “things beyond their control”—master schedule and teaching model (full inclusion model) |
| Strategy— | Presented project at school faculty meetings Advocated for team approach with administrator Worked around restrictions; pulled students out of homeroom “Did it anyway” | Early and frequent regular communication with admin Shared successes Made presentations to school faculty, district staff, and school board Leveraged individual relationships with admin to garner support Worked within limitations | Asked for administrator to be added to the STEM team Narrowed project goal to what two members of the team could do—provide support if students asked Advocated for OCIS to be used as an alternative to the other career platform for SWDs |
| Theme: District/school curriculum—where/how STEM content is addressed; CTE courses available; use of problem- or project-based learning, hands-on activities, restrictions/limitations | Few CTE courses; just restarting CTE in district CTE/hSTEM segregated in learning opportunities and physical location within school Robotics Club | No CTE courses Only Robotics Club Only uses AP curriculum No time for hands-on activities and not allowed or encouraged by administration STEM taught in general ed. S-T-E-M courses Career awareness not addressed formally | STEM-focused curriculum schoolwide with many CTE courses in school; lots of access and opportunities available to students to learn about careers (strength) Multiple club options: Math Club, Science Club, Science Fair, Robotics Resistance to problem- or project-based learning No opportunity to interact with CTE (special ed. teachers support academic classes only) |
| Strategy— | Started clubs (e.g., Fisheries) Collected information on behalf of other team members Set project goals for their classroom and within their responsibilities—connecting to their curriculum, obtaining jobs for students, conducting transition assessments Took risks and accepted consequences for performing team activities | Created clubs Set project goals for their classroom and within their responsibilities—connecting to their curriculum; arranging training programs; creating the students’ IEP Made hSTEM visible within the school—posters, student recognition for job obtainment | Focused on using OCIS for transition component of the IEP Set goal to support individual students’ involvement |
| Theme: Teams’ Familiarity with hidden STEM careers; identifying local business or industries; recognizing S-T-E-M within work environments; seeing linkages between school curriculum and businesses; connecting student interests with community and STEM options | Not able to name/identify hSTEM businesses in community Could not describe linkage between academic coursework with career skills Had relationship with several community partners, few of whom were in hSTEM | Not able to name/identify hSTEM businesses in community Could not describe linkage between academic course work with career skills Some community partners, few of whom were in hSTEM | Not able to name/identify hSTEM businesses in community Could not describe linkage between academic coursework and career skills No community partners |
| Strategy— | Completed community mapping activity in silos One team member attended community focus group; attentive—used information learned to change activities Completed SWOT; thorough; sees lots of potential connections and opportunities One team member sought relationships with hSTEM employers and businesses, looked for training and work opportunities for students specific to their hSTEM career interests (based on OCIS results), identified potential connections between school and the community, and shared resources and contacts Had students conduct community mapping activity | Team completed community mapping activity as intended One team member attended community focus group; attentive Team completed SWOT; thorough; recognized weaknesses and threats could be big challenges; open to opportunities One team member joined local community groups (trades); attended CTE conference; visited CTE program; formed relationship with community college and created six-week career exploration program | Completed community mapping activity from memory; incomplete information Wrong participants invited to community focus group—no one from the community Two team members attended community focus groups, but inattentive, in/out of room; no notes Completed SWOT; lots of gaps—struggled to identify weaknesses, opportunities, or threats Did not engage any community partners; delayed or skipped community activities |
| Theme: Knowledge of OCIS—who is using OCIS, how often, and in what format | One person consistently using CIS; highly proficient OCIS available schoolwide; not well utilized Used to fulfill career learning requirement | No use of OCIS Not available in school | No use of OCIS Similar platform available; not well used in school; not used by special education staff Different platform fulfills career learning requirement |
| Strategy— | Customizations, feedback, input made by current user with input from team Student use through cohort meetings with the transition specialist Other team members learned OCIS through demonstrations by current user and as needed (e.g., career assessments) Each team member became more proficient in their use (even limited use) over time | Requested individual team trainings; attended by all four members of STEM team Requested technical assistance from OCIS on individual components when they encountered a problem OCIS activities divided across team members; helped each other learn about OCIS—one focused on customizations, three focused on students’ use of OCIS Began with small customizations, then expanded over time | Requested individual team trainings; attended by one member of STEM team consistently Requested written/recorded directions for using CIS Requested “help” customizing tools and resources within OCIS Asked OCIS expert to make changes |
Representative and illustrative excerpts of group development.
| Group Development Stage and Characteristics | Representative Excerpts from Data Corpus |
|---|---|
| Forming—Characterized by concerns with orientation; dependency on relationships with leaders, other group members, or pre-existing standards; focus on specific group task/s; establishing relationships; low productivity. | “We [gen ed] don’t feel fully utilized, yet. My content knowledge not being fully utilized.” And “We [community members] are 10% utilized but see huge potential in year 2.” |
| Storming—Characterized by conflict and polarization around interpersonal issues and resistance to group influence and task requirements. | “A lot of the time and energy has fallen on [one person’s] shoulders.” |
| Norming—Characterized by trust and cohesiveness; relationships develop, new standards evolve, and new roles are adopted. Intimate, personal opinions are expressed. | “I think us four get it; as we’re starting to recognize and see how feasible these two-year paths are for these kids and getting [students] to where they need to go.” |
| Performing—Characterized by goal attainment, roles becoming flexible and functional, high productivity, and openly and freely communicating. Work occurs within time limits. Decision making and problem-solving are evident; less reliance on single ‘leader’. | “I love the OCIS, I got way more involved in OCIS than I ever did before. Now I feel like I can get through the program and that like actually find kids work and use it in my IEPs, you know, which is very helpful.” |
| Adjourning—Characterized by group separation and group termination; strong interpersonal feelings are developed; the “death of the group”. Successes are celebrated. | Reflecting on changes, “The community mapping … changed the way [I teach], like, I will always do my job differently now. And I love it.” |
Bassot, B. The reflective practice guide: An interdisciplinary approach; Routledge: 2016.
Bonebright, D. 40 years of storming: A historical review of Tuckman’s model of small group development. Human Resource Development International; 2010; 13,
Brantlinger, E.; Jimenez, R.; Klingner, J.; Pugach, M.; Richardson, V. Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children; 2005; 71,
Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology; 2006; 3, pp. 77-101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa]
Council for Exceptional Children. Initial practice-based professional preparation standards for special educators; 2020; Available online: https://exceptionalchildren.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/K12%20Initial%20Standards%20and%20Components.pdf (accessed on 28 May 2025).
Fishman, B. J.; Penuel, W. R.; Allen, A. R.; Cheng, B. H.; Sabelli, N. Design-based implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of research and practice; Yearbook on the Nation Society for the Study of Education Columbia University: 2013.
Gaviola, J. L.; Lacuña, G.; Manigos, S. Teamwork of general and special education teachers in managing the education of learners with Autism. Advanced Qualitative Research; 2024; 2,
Gray, B. Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human Relatins; 1985; 38,
Griffiths, A.-J.; Alsip, J.; Hart, S. R.; Round, R. L.; Brady, J. Together we can do so much: A systematic review and conceptual framework of collaboration in schools. Canadian Journal of School Psychology; 2021; 36,
Guest, G.; MacQueen, K. M.; Namey, E. E. Applied thematic analysis; SAGE: 2012.
Huberman, M.; Navo, M.; Parrish, T. B. Effective practices in high performing districts serving students in special education. Journal of Special Education Leadership; 2012; 25, pp. 59-71.
Hunt, P.; Soto, G.; Maier, J.; Doering, K. Collaborative teaming to support students at risk and students with severe disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children; 2003; 69,
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq; 2004; Available online: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/qualitative-research-evaluation-methods/book232962 (accessed on 28 May 2025).
Patton, M. Q. Qualitative research and evaluation methods; 4th ed. Sage: 2015.
Penuel, W. R.; Fishman, B. J.; Cheng, B. H.; Sabelli, N. Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher; 2011; 40,
Rolfe, G.; Freshwater, D.; Jasper, M. Critical reflection in nursing and the helping professions: A user’s guide; Palgrave Macmillan: 2001.
Rothwell, J. The hidden STEM economy; Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution: 2013; Available online: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-hidden-stem-economy/ (accessed on 5 May 2025).
Salas, E.; Shuffler, M. L.; Thayer, A. L.; Bedwell, W. L.; Lazzara, E. H. Understanding and improving teamwork in organizations: A scientifically based practical guide. Human Resource Management; 2015; 54,
Sweet, M.; Michaelsen, L. K. How group dynamics research can inforthe theory and practice of postsecondary small group learning. Educational Psychology Review; 2007; 19, pp. 31-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9035-y]
Tuckman, B. W. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin; 1965; 63,
Tuckman, B. W.; Jensen, M. C. Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies; 1977; 2,
Wheelan, S. Group processes: A developmental perspective; 2nd ed. Allyn & Bacon: 2005.
Wheelan, S. Group size, group development, and group productivity. Small Group Research; 2009; 40,
Whittemore, R.; Chase, S. K.; Mandle, C. L. Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research; 2001; 11,
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.