Collaboration in school environments and educational settings

Leonard, L. & Leonard, P. (2003, September 17). The continuing trouble with collaboration: Teachers talk. Current Issues in Education, 6 (15).

The researchers explore the perceptions of teachers across one school district with regard to attributes of their teaching context that inhibit or promote the achievement of collaborative teaching. The authors argue that a negative school environment is unlikely to support implementation of teacher collaboration sufficiently robust to positively impact student outcomes.

In a follow up to a previous district-wide survey, the researchers surveyed 56 of the original 238 respondents regarding the nature and extent of collaboration in their schools. The respondents were from all school levels and had been teaching from 3 to 34 years. The qualitative survey contained open-ended questions to invite teachers to reflect on the collaborative aspects of their praxis at their schools and in the district. In particular, respondents were asked about the expectations of their educational institution and of their administrators. They were also asked about available supports for and consistent constraints of the implementation of teacher collaboration. A specific definition of professional collaboration was provided to respondents to ensure construct validity.

Results. The qualitative data was coded based on emerging themes and sub-themes. Coding was done independently and then reviewed collectively for agreement, resulting in high inter-rater reliability. Two main themes emerged from the data about the nature and extent of professional collaboration in schools and at the district level and beyond. While many respondents were able to point to supports for collaborative practices, 73.1% of the respondents reported that collaborative teaching efforts were largely inadequate. The tension between decreasing available time and increasing work demands, plus the negative mindsets of colleagues regarding collaborative teaching practices dominated the responses.

Conclusion. The researchers concluded that the success of collaborative teaching at school sites was closely linked to principals who championed collaborative teaching. Further, they argue that policymakers and district-level administrators must present unequivocal expectations to school principals if traditional leader styles are to be prevented from eroding opportunities for professional growth and promulgating student mediocrity. Both researchers are grounded in educational praxis as former teachers and administrators, and are professors of curriculum, instruction, and leadership. This qualitative study adds to the literature and was an empirically effective spin-off of previous research.

Creating Consistently Available Collaboration Time

Foundational Supports for Collaboration

Fullan and Miles (1992, p. 748) suggest that "Collaborative time for teachers to undertake and then sustain school improvement may be more important than equipment or facilities or even staff development." Leonard and Leonard (2003) argue that school leadership is a primary dependent variable in successful collaborative teaching efforts. Their research is supported by various collaborative teaching initiatives currently being implemented in schools. A strong collaborative teaching program can developed and sustained in schools, but supports customized to the school environment must be put in place and maintained. Further, both building-level and district-level administrators must believe integration leads to improved student outcomes and more satisfactory professional careers. The Iowa City School District has established a collaborative program to develop information literacy skills. The district maintains that the following attitudinal and environmental supports must be established:

A clear expectation that collaboration will occur must be communicated to staff.

Staff must be provided time for collaboration as manifested in scheduling decisions.

Budgetary support must be in evidence for needed resources and equipment.

Staff training in building-wide curricular goals must be provided and emphasized.

Ongoing support to the collaborative processes must be provided.

Practical Application of the Collaborative Planning Construct

In schools were collaborative teaching is the norm, a variety of supports become institutionalized and a learning community culture ensures that the supports do not become stagnant. Jacob Hiatt Magnet School is one such school. In 2010, Hiatt Magnet School was named a Commendation School -- one of 187 schools receiving this recognition -- for high growth on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS). Hiatt Magnet School implements a collaborative planning process that uses two key elements: 1) Weekly collaborative planning time; and 2) Rounds. Teachers meet each week for 60 minutes, during which classroom coverage is provided by specialist teachers, the assistant principal, or the principal. The collaborative teams receive guidance from members of the instructional leadership team, and employ protocols and strategies that help them to maximize their time together. Rounds have been implemented as a way for teachers to collaborate in better understanding the teaching-learning processes as they are articulated across the curriculum. Small groups of observing teachers visit individual classrooms on a pre-arranged basis. Both observing and hosting teachers understand clearly defined roles. Pre-round orientation meetings and post-round reflection / discussion meetings are held in order to maximize the collaborative nature of the visit experiences. Rounds occur throughout the school year, and as in collaborative planning meetings, coverage is provided by available building staff.

Hiatt also maintains a schedule of customized meetings. Staff development sessions are designed specifically to connect with focus areas. Collaborative assessment meeting are held by grade-level teams in order to review student performance data and student work, and to share effective strategies. Full-staff meetings provide opportunity for the support of vertical teams and to address Hiatt's instructional focus.