We talk a lot about collaboration when it
comes to teaching in modern learning environments. It’s used in terms of the
way teachers work with each other, the way teachers work with students, and students
work with students. But are we talking about the same thing?
Collaboration, when it comes down to it is
one of those words that has perhaps become slightly difficult to define.
Dillenbourg as far back as 1999 suggested that the term had become fashionable
and had resulted in overuse and overgeneralization; something that he suspected
made it difficult to articulate the various contributions that authors were
making on the subject.
So when a group of teachers we spoke with
recently talked about their team situation, a number of scenarios arose. For
example at times the group talked about working alongside each other on a
particular task, or to solve a particular problem. They’d work together, all
contributing to the discussion, until a decision had been reached, or the task
completed. Picture it in Lego, it’s everyone, hands on, building the same
model. Is this collaboration?
Or how about the example of the same group
of teachers taking a task, breaking it up into parts, and then, individually,
going off to complete the different sections of it. Later they return, between
them putting the pieces together, and using this approach, complete the task. Is
this collaboration?
Thirdly, the example of something needing
doing, an event needing organising, and one person taking it on, coming back to
explain to the group what is going to happen. Would this be collaboration?
Arguably, and coming back to Dillenbourg
(1999) in a collaborative approach work is done together whereas in a more
cooperative approach a task is split and then ‘reassembled’. He refers to this
as the ‘division of labour’ and adds that many consider collaboration to be
synonymous with collaboration. The third example above might better be
considered as ‘coordination’ with one party taking the lead role, and simply
reporting back.
A number of authors have written on the
different stages of collaboration as it shifts from coordination, to
cooperation, to collaboration (Peterson, 1991). Possibly though in a teaching
team sense, there’s not such a neat and tidy movement through the stages.
Instead depending on the task, the purpose, and the level of input required
from everyone, maybe teams shift between collaboration, cooperation and
coordination.
Perhaps therefore, when approaching a
particular task, teaching teams need to be mindful of the approach that is most
appropriate, at that particular time, for that particular job, before deciding
if they will collaborate, cooperate, or coordinate.
Or maybe, just maybe, this just a case of
semantics, and to what extent does it matter how we define ‘collaboration’
anyway? Perhaps, we just need to get on with it!
References
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by
collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning:
Cognitive and computational approaches. (pp. 1-19). Oxford: Elsevier.
Peterson, N. L. (1991). Interagency
Collaboration Under Part H The Key to Comprehensive, Multidisciplinary,
Coordinated Infant/Toddler Intervention Services. Journal of Early
Intervention, 15(1), 89.
Chris - thanks for sharing. Your writing continues to challenge my thinking about teaching. I am looking at collaboration stories between teachers and between schools.
ReplyDeleteSonya
Very insightful - I look to you and your school as a base of knowledge and innovation for which to base my beginning teaching career. Thank you for challenging my thinking.
ReplyDeleteHey Chris,
ReplyDeleteLike the research links you add to your posts!
Collaboration is a funny one, especially when we try to get specific about it, and sometimes I think it's important we do, (especially when we see it's not happening at all.)
Collaboration is rarely taught as a specific, personal skill. It needs to be. Every CV in the known universe seems to include 'team player', and though I believe each applicant thinks it's true, we know that the reality sometimes just doesn't match up.
To make a specific collaborative team work, each individual needs to work in a way that's *different* from how they'd work on their own. They may need to yield their default habits to serve a group purpose and group process. For some, collaboration means being confident and taking risks, for others, it means being quiet (for once) and letting others come forward.
Specific, altered behaviours that require different efforts for each person.
Recognising the personal expectations of collaboration gives us a better position to assess tools such as google docs. The document is simply shared publishing, but the medium encourages more collaborative behaviour. It's the behaviour that matters, and that behaviour is a personal expectation. One teacher at a time in their own minds and in their own behaviour.
The examples in your post mostly seemed to reflect flexible, adaptable teams who get things done a bunch of different ways. Maybe that adaptability is the most important thing, and collaboration is just one of the ways things need to be done. Does everyone have those skills, and how do we make them explicit?