Some trace interest in learning teams to Sarason’s conclusion that schools need to be places of learning for teachers as well as students if we are to improve classroom instruction (Sarason, 1971, pps. 123-124). Many ideas and reforms emerged in the 1980s and 1990s that moved teacher collaboration and learning to center stage (see e.g., Bird & Little, 1986; Collegial Learning, 1987; Fullan, 1991, Hord, 1997; Lieberman, 1995; Little, 1982; Little & McLaughlin, 1993; Murphy & Hallinger, 1993; Rosenholtz, 1989; Rowan, 1990; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).

Inspired partly by previous research and experience in the commercial sector (e.g. Senge, 1990), attention began to focus on “creation of working conditions in schools that enhance the commitment and expertise of teachers (Rowan, 1990, p. 353).” One reason was the discovery that whole school reform models struggled to achieve their ambitious aims if they relied on the traditional “loosely-coupled” model of teachers working autonomously to develop and implement improved instruction (Elmore, 2003). These ideas and experiences magnified interest in learning communities or teams as vehicles of school reform and instructional improvement (e.g., Annenberg Institute for School Reform, 2005; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999; Elmore & McLaughlin, 1988; Elmore, Peterson, & McCarthey, 1996; Franke, Carpenter, Levi, & Fennema, 2001; Hord, 1997; Kruse, Louis, & Bryk, 1994; Lieberman, 1995; Murphy & Hallinger, 1993; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995; Peterson, McCarthey, & Elmore, 1996; O'Neil, 1995; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Vescio, Ross, & Adams, in press; York-Barr & Duke, 2004).

However, the intuitive appeal of learning teams must be measured against the sobering reality of a limited research base. First, definitions of learning teams range from large groups that teach varying subjects and grades meeting to discuss shared students or read and discuss research articles, to small groups that teach the same subject focusing exclusively on improving instruction and learning (Vescio, et al., in press, 2007). Second, few studies have investigated the impact of learning teams on student achievement, and even fewer have demonstrated a positive effect (Goldenberg, 2004; Vescio, et al., in press; Whitehurst, 2002). Vescio, et al. (in press) identified 55 books, papers, and articles on learning teams or communities. Only eight reported student achievement data, and none of these employed a true experimental or quasi-experimental design.

Finally, Fullan (2000) noted that many collaborative teams and communities were identified for investigation after they were successful. Investigating and describing already successful cases depends on retrospective accounts of how they got started and what they did to achieve success. Studies are needed that implement an explicit, repeatable framework and document changes in student achievement from “before the beginning (Fullan, op. cit, p. 4).”