Literature ReviewA theory that supports the theoretical foundation of this study is systems theory. Systems theory can be applied to any system existing in nature, technology, or the human domain (Boulding, 1991). Systems theory involves systems thinking, which means focusing on the whole rather than individual parts (Mele, Pels, & Polese, 2010). The individual parts are important as their interactions create the essence of the whole, as they are rationally connected to each other (Mele et al., 2010). The individual parts share a purpose that requires understanding the coherence of the inputs and outputs that emerge from the whole, rather than simply focusing on the sum of the parts. The focus of systems theory is on the interactions of the parts (Mele et al., 2010). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Systems theory can be described as a systematic approach to categorizing anything. Its founder, Ludwig van Bertalanffy (Hammond, 2003) proposed that the concept was a universal practice that allows components of any system and no particular system to interact with each other. Although this concept was published in 1934, it is still applied today in all disciplines of academia. Even outside of common academic fields, systems theory is used even in the seemingly most mundane areas of life. Systems theories will not always work according to the same structure, but the concept itself essentially applies to anything that uses a system to function. “General systems theory has been proposed as the basis for the unification of science.” (Kast & Rozenzweig, 1972) Bertalanffy was a biologist himself. While systems theory may have originated from scientific foundations, it can be universally applied to virtually any aspect of life that requires some form of ordered structure to sustain itself. (Boulding, 2003) This can be applied to everyday situations such as business management, urban planning or academic institutions. Of course, we will use this concept to establish the most ideal elements to effectively plan the ideal curricula for the latter. The purpose of action research is to improve or refine a process (Brydon-Miller, et. Al, 2003). One of the main advantages of action research is that it is always relevant to the participants' situation. (Sagor, 2000) Since Kurt Lewin founded the concept of action research, this term has found its way into a multitude of applications. Ultimately, the underlying principle of action research is to promote constant change and development with the aim of improving something. (Dickens & Watkins, 1999) Action research is often used in education because it promotes teamwork among educators through the sharing of new ideas (Scott-Ladd & Chan, 2008). Action research involves the same seven steps, regardless of the situation or context (Scott-Ladd & Chan, 2008). The seven steps are: (a) selecting the focus of the study, (b) clarifying existing theories on the topic, (c) identifying relevant research questions, data collection, data analysis, reporting the results of the study and thus transform informed action research (Sagor, 2000). Action research has three main purposes. The first aim of action research is to build a reflective practice. (McNiff, 2016, p. 3) The second purpose of action research is to achieve progress (Scott-Ladd & Chan, 2008). The third purpose of action research is to build a professional culture within the organization(Scott-ladd & Chan, 2008). One of the key components of successful action research is for team members to agree on the type of research needed and the outcomes to be achieved. be achieved. (McNiff, 2016, p. 34) To do this, faculty must agree on a single research topic (McNiff, 2016, p. 34). One aim of the action research was to help professional teachers become even more professional in their classroom teaching (Chan-Ladd, 2008). Action research also helped revitalize and motivate teachers who were exhausted by the lack of student progress (Sagor, 2000). Schools must meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student population (McNiff, 2016, p. 3). Diversity can pose a challenge to meeting standardized testing requirements (Cassell, 2006). One of the main motivations for teachers is that they want to know that they are making a difference in the lives of their students. Negative pressures can often cause teacher burnout and loss of motivation (Sagor, 2000). Action research that leads to meaningful data is the best path to success in a standards-based school system (Sagor, 2000). The results of this study could represent a significant contribution to the teaching profession. This section examines the ways in which action research and systems theories can be applied to this study. We will cover applied literature and explore ways in which educators can collaborate with their faculty leaders to improve curriculum design for their students. We will discuss the significant pros and cons between departmentalized and self-contained classrooms. Elementary education has a long history of self-contained classrooms in U.S. education. The modern self-contained classroom consists of one instructor, teaching up to X number of children, who teaches each required content area. This setting remains common for students with special needs, students in alternative schools, and at the elementary level in the general education setting (Lane & Wehby, 2005). On rare occasions, elementary-age students were identified as gifted and attended self-contained classrooms (Hayden, 2007). The advantages of the autonomous environment are that the teacher has more opportunities to learn students' individual strengths, weaknesses, and learning styles (Ackerlund, 1959). There is more flexibility in the program and a better possibility of integrating different content areas (Lane & Wehby, 2005). Additionally, students have more effective learning time in the classroom because they do not waste time moving to another environment (McGrath & Rust, 2002). Researchers have described the effects of departmentalization and autonomous classrooms. Early research focused primarily on finding ways in which students could distribute their learning abilities, interests, and intellect among peers. As the 20th century progressed, curricula expanded to many different subjects and learning styles, creating many different optimal study programs for students on all spectrums of the learning curve, specific classes targeting single core subjects and specialized classes for children who do not fit into a traditional curriculum (Gray, 2008). The researchers then determined that while most students are at the middle end of the learning curve and can therefore adapt to a standard curriculum with little or no difficulty, some students have special needs that can be better addressed on a personal level. (Lane & Wehbly, 2005). The researchers concluded that self-contained environments were better for gifted students because students canlearn without fear of social implications and because they were not singled out as separate from their peers. Chan and Jarman (2004) highlighted several qualities of departmentalization. for example, the ways it helps students assimilate into middle school formats, builds school-wide instructional teams, and promotes teacher retention. Departmentalization is positively related to teacher retention, which has been shown to have significant positive impacts on student achievement (Barmby, 2006; Vanderhaar, Mu, & Rodosky, 2006). The idea of ​​departmentalization began with John Dewey, a teacher and philosopher, who believed in the need to educate the whole child and encourage a free flow of ideas based on students' individualized interests (Stuckart and Glanz, 2010). Dewey (1938) identified three important goals of child education across the curriculum, including the development of intelligence, the acquisition of socially useful skills, and the healthy growth of the individual. Dewey also emphasized the importance of teaching the whole child by paying close attention to the student's personal experiences when constructing lessons and addressing society's problems through the lesson. This is the opposite of the philosophy that exists today regarding standardized testing and curriculum standardization. McGrath and Rust (2002) addressed several aspects of meeting the social and emotional needs of elementary students and the academic achievement level of those students. Researchers examined the relationship between elementary school classroom organizational structures and standardized achievement scores, transition time between classes, and instructional time. The study involved 103 fifth-grade participants and 94 sixth-grade participants from two schools in a school district in rural Tennessee. Students at school A attended departmental classrooms; while the students of school B attended independent classrooms. The socioeconomic levels of each school were similar with approximately 27% of students in each school receiving free or reduced lunch. Student scores on the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP), which measured achievement of basic skills in reading, spelling, language, mathematics, study skills, science, and social studies, served as the dependent variable for the study. McGrath recorded both transition and instructional time for two full days through direct observation. Results indicated that students in self-contained classes performed significantly better than those in departmental classes when considering the total battery, language arts, and science portions of the test, with no differences found in reading, math, and social studies. The average transition time of 3.27 minutes in self-contained classrooms was significant compared to departmental classrooms with an average transition time of 4.55 minutes. Despite these differences in transition time, there was no significant difference in actual instruction time with departmentalized classes averaging 48 minutes of instruction per hour while self-contained classes averaged 46 minutes of instruction per hour . Interestingly, anecdotal observations also revealed that self-contained classes offered instruction in additional academic areas not addressed in departmental classes, including computer use, creative writing, and journal writing. This finding was congruent with those of other studies supporting the idea that departmentalization and scheduled class change timesthey should not be used in elementary schools because it limits what teachers can offer instructionally to their students (Dunn, 1952; Harris, 1996; McGrath and Rust, 2002). McPartland (1987) used data from a sample of 433 schools in PEQA to examine subject quality alongside teacher/student relationships with the aim of uncovering the effects of departmentalisation. He hypothesized that departmentalization would produce higher quality instruction and knowledge-based teachers in the single subject area they were learning. McPartland based his hypothesis on the belief that departmental instruction allowed teachers to specialize while self-contained classrooms allowed teachers to meet the needs of the whole child. McParland stated positive results in the development of the whole student. Students in the study completed achievement tests in reading, writing, math, social studies, science, analytical thinking, and answered 14 survey questions about their perceptions of school. Study results indicated more positive teacher/student relationships in autonomous classrooms as opposed to departmentalization. On the contrary, the results indicated that departmentalization improved the quality of teaching due to teachers' specialization in the subject. McPartland concluded that schools could use departmentalization if the teacher took responsibility for the needs of the whole child in the classroom, or the school should assign the student to a staff member as a mentor. McPartland's research is relevant to this study because the findings revealed the strengths and weaknesses of both classroom organizational structures. Departmentalization allows teachers to be experts in their field, which prevents teachers from having teachers teach subjects in which they do not feel comfortable and competent. Chan and Jarman (2004) found that teachers in self-contained classrooms are forced to teach subjects they neither enjoy nor feel comfortable teaching. “Teachers do not have to be jacks of all trades, but can be masters in their fields” (Chan and Jarman, 2004, p. 70). Baker (2011) conducted a qualitative study that explored the decision-making process behind the choice to departmentalize the 9th grade at a recently chartered school in a small, rural district in Pennsylvania. He found that the institution exerts significant influence on decision making and observed firsthand the benefits and limitations of departmentalization (Baker, 2011). This led her to conclude that semi-departmentalization can effectively reduce the limitations typically associated with departmentalization by balancing a student-centered approach with content specificity (Baker, 2011). Yearwood (2011), examined whether fifth-grade students received instruction from a departmentalized classroom had higher t-scores on the reading and math section of state assessments than fifth-grade students who were placed in self-contained classrooms during the same school year. Yearwood used a convenience sample of approximately 2,152 fifth-grade students attending public school in a rural county in Georgia. In 14 schools, mean individual criterion-referenced proficiency test (CRCT) scores were obtained and analyzed for proficiency aligned with state performance tests in reading and mathematics, the two benchmark content areas assessed for Adequate Annual Progress (AYP) in Georgia. The author used archive scores from2010 Georgia CRCT student achievement in the reading and math section of the CRCT. Yearwood reported that in both reading and math, students placed in departmentalized classes performed better than fifth-grade students in self-contained classroom structures. This finding contradicted previous researchers who found no statistically significant differences in student outcomes between classroom settings. Yearwood found a statistically significant difference in fifth graders' math achievement scores based on their placement in departmental settings. Another researcher examined attitudes and outcomes of students transitioning to middle school from departmentalized or self-contained classroom organizations. Disseler used 700 randomly selected sixth-grade students from a rural area of ​​North Carolina, using the end-of-grade math and reading assessment (GMRA) system used in the district to measure student achievement. Using multivariate analysis, Pillai's Trace and Post hoc analyses, Disseler found no significant interaction between the organizational structures found at the elementary level regarding concerns about transition, gender, or outcomes. School years 2010. The survey was optional. Students were asked to list the name of the school they attended in fifth grade. Disseler (2010) also asked teachers to complete surveys in which they were asked to predict their end-of-year assessment of how well students would score on a post-year test in their specific departmentalized classroom organization or traditional self-sufficient. Once the assessment was completed, the scores were compiled and analyzed. The scores were analyzed from the perspective of how well students performed on the fifth-grade assessment versus how well teachers were able to accurately predict their scores. The passage of Public Law 94-142, The Education of All HandicappedChildren's Act, creates a significant transformation in the education of students with disabilities (GA DOE, 2010). He introduced the concept of the least restrictive environment (LRE) to ensure students with disabilities have the right to education, to the extent possible, among the general student population (Cawley, Hayden, Cade, & Baker-Kroczynski, 2002). Public Law 105-17, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), was an amendment that supports the LRE mandate and provides that SWDs have access to and make progress in the general education (GE) curriculum to the best of their ability their capabilities (Cawley, et al., 2002). The NCLB Legislature Act of 2001 ensured that every child, regardless of disability, achieved the required advanced level of academic achievement by the 2013-201 academic year (GA DOE, 2010). Accountability reform has proven to be beneficial to students with disabilities as school systems have been required to increase instruction and provide opportunities for children with special needs to learn the same curriculum as other students (Nagle, Yunker, & Malmgren, 2006). research study the problem was that there was a lack of research on students' academic success in terms of the type and organization of the classroom learning environment in the research site. Few students in the research site had the opportunity to explore the benefits or differences between receiving instruction in self-contained classrooms versus the departmentalized model of instruction. The goal of this research was to increase student achievement. InThis very important time period for test scores and school grades, it is imperative that individual schools find the best teaching methods to ensure the success of their students. Culyer et al. (2002) conducted a research study similar to the current study. The study investigated the relationship between elementary school classroom organizational structure (e.g., self-contained or departmental formats) and standardized achievement scores. It also examined the transition time between lessons and its effect on instructional time. Participants in Culyer's (1992) study included 103 fifth-grade students and 94 sixth-grade students from one school district. Based on previous findings, it was predicted that students in self-contained classes would perform significantly higher than comparable students from departmental classes, would take substantially less time to change classes, and would spend more time on instruction. The results of Culyer's (1992) study indicated that the self-contained group earned substantially more points on the Total Battery, Language, and Science subtests than the departmentalized classroom group. Students in departmental classes took significantly longer to transition from one subject to another than students in self-contained classes. No differences were found in terms of teaching time. The results were consistent for both fifth- and sixth-grade students. Every public school in Florida receives a school grade at the end of each school year. School grades are determined based on students' performance on the state assessment (FCAT). Schools may receive a grade in the AF range. School grades also determine school funding and other important aspects of program planning for the upcoming school year. Based on achievement data from Elementary Using data from previous school years when the school was self-contained, there is substantial data to suggest that this may be the best method for increasing achievement levels at Elementary X (Florida Department of Education, 2015). When looking at the departmental approach, each The class teacher is responsible for instructing students on a single subject or on some groups of subjects. In this type of education, the teacher works in his or her own area of ​​expertise while the students move on to other teachers. The departmentalized model can provide additional teaching time for practical teaching and provide more resources for each class of students (Gess-Newsome, 1999). Gough (1982) states, “Specialization also frees teachers from the isolation of the self-contained classroom, where no other adults are available to provide insights into social interactions and instructional problems” (p. 41). One possible rationale for departmental classrooms is cost reduction due to fewer teachers needing prep work. Departmentalized classes in the upper elementary grades were scheduled similarly to middle school, with one teacher responsible for conveying subject matter content to multiple students (Slavin, 2007). The self-contained model of classroom organization consists of students assigned to a teacher who is responsible for covering all content areas during the school day. In the traditional, self-contained classroom, one teacher was responsible for the daily teaching of all content areas of the.