This week I am thinking about Collaboration. John Hattie conducted a large-scale educational study, one of the largest of its kind and published his findings in a book called Visible Learning in 2014. Among the many factors studied, around 254 I believe, collective efficacy comes in as the most important factor for a school’s success.


Collective efficacy requires a variety of factors to be effective, one of which is collaboration.


In thinking about collaboration and reading about it we often discuss how to set up collaborative teams in education. For example, we could go by subject matter, or grade level, or a cross-curricular, etc. We could also talk about the tools of collaboration and ways to facilitate collaboration. Using technology such as common cloud folders, video conferencing software, etc.


To dig deeper though to a more fundamental level, what does the process actually look like? Here are some thoughts on different types of collaboration and how it interacts with you as a leader:



The Thought Exchange collaborative model is a fairly shallow model of collaboration. Essentially, they are just conversations between educators.


As you might imagine this happens in the staff room quite often when educators are just sitting and chatting. This can be an extremely powerful force for good or bad depending on the nature of the conversation. I personally love to be a part of conversations where educators are exchanging ideas, new things they have learned or things they have tried, positive successes, etc. They can also be the basis of book clubs where people share their thoughts from a text or article. These sorts of exchanges help to fill my cup and refresh my zest for learning. 


However, sometimes Thought Exchanges can lead to educators simply complaining about students or they spiral into the negatives about ‘the system’, etc. These tend to drain morale and create a negative dynamic on staff. One way to help combat this is to simply be present when staff gather, such as lunch times. Many teachers do not want to lead a negative discussion when administrators are around, and if they do, you have the opportunity to join the conversation to turn it around (be careful not to help drive the downward spiral!). 


Also, not all conversations about problems are negative. There are hard parts of our roles, to deny they exist is not fair to anyone. However, it is important not to sink into these conversations as mentioned above. Acknowledging struggles with empathy but not piling on can be powerful in helping educators to be heard and valued. Similarly, keeping them solutions focused can allow an organization to work through some of their challenges and emerge stronger than before.


If you are looking to encourage these positive Thought Exchanges, a prompt or organizer can help to guide things along. Establishing norms and expectations for these conversations can help to established psychological safety. 



Here someone has an idea or plan already constructed and feedback is sought on how to improve the plan. This is certainly far superior to one person driving the project with no input, but often the plan is already set and done and still mainly involves a disproportionate amount of effort amongst participants.


Administrators often fall into the feedback model, and sometimes this is most appropriate simply because of the division of labour and nature of the roles. As the instructional leader in the school one of your responsibilities is to make decisions. However, a leader who does not get feedback on those decisions before they are made will certainly get feedback after! Gathering input from others can at least help a leader to consider options and possible fallout to refine a plan or prepare for it’s execution. 



In this version of collaboration educators get together and swap resources. The benefits here are that both now have more resources than before. The downside is that resources were still created by individuals and would need to be customized to the individual classes to be effective.


This is a fast and efficient way to work together in that educators do not need to be in the same time or place. An email or the sharing of a digital folder can be done in a few moments. It avoids the need for scheduling and is easily done across a distance or between schools. 


The main catch to this one is that those involved with the materials exchange often both need to feel they are getting something out of it for them to want to continue (a notable exception to this is when experienced teachers help new teachers get up and running in the profession there is rarely the expectation of reciprocity, which is often unfortunate since our newer teachers often have a lot of great things to offer).


When resources were material things I think that there was often the burden of time and energy to create duplicates of work that, if it wasn’t reciprocated, could make someone resentful that they were sharing their materials and others were not. It is understandable not to want to part with resources that may have cost money or have been labour-intensive to create. In the digital age though, resources can be shared and duplicated with a few clicks, so this same time-intensive labour is not a factor anymore. However, feelings of giving without getting something in return can still be a barrier to this type of collaboration so it is important when trying to facilitate this collaboration that all parties see it as being beneficial.



This is a bit of an extension of the materials exchange. In this version educators agree to divide tasks and go work on them individually. For example, In this unit one teacher makes the tests, the other makes the assignments and then the next unit, they swap. This is similar to the materials exchange in that created products are shared but is one step closer to true collaboration. 


In the work divide, time is shared even more than the materials. It also allows for educators to work more closely together to be involved in one another’s classrooms. Here, reciprocity is key since educators are now relying on one another to create parts of a whole. There is a lot of trust involved that can devolve quickly if all parties are not contributing. 


In this version of collaboration educators collaboratively construct materials or plans. Here no one has singular ownership but rather everyone contributes a piece of it. A culture of non-judgment is vital since educators need to be able to put forth ideas to build on without fear of being ridiculed by colleagues. Norms are especially important in this type of collaboration.


For whole school events, co-construction is the best way to go since co-construction both increases and decentralizes ownership, so projects do not live and die with a single person. It also requires less buy-in, since buy-in means you are trying to get staff into your idea rather than them jointly owning the idea. While a leader may still be taking the lead, they shift from being a top-down giver of instructions and more of a facilitator to reconcile ideas. 


It is unfortunately time and space intensive in that you need to be able to facilitate getting those involved together. This can sometimes be accomplished with creative and deliberate scheduling where certain teachers have non-teaching periods at the same time. This is most effective in that it builds in time together in a repeated and consistent way. Other times it can happen is during professional learning days or during whole school events where not all teachers are needed (though it is always nice when everyone can be involved). The main thing to keep in mind is that asking teachers do do this after school on a regular basis may not be appropriate or considerate of the other demands on them.


To be clear, the intent here is not to advocate for one of these over another as different situations call for different types of collaboration. It is not always convenient or practical for everyone to co-construct everything, nor is it possible to get colleagues input on every lesson plan that happens. Sometimes a work divide is most practical for day to day. 


I think though there is merit in identifying which type of collaboration is happening since doing so immediately lends itself to being more intentional about it. Selecting the right tool for the right job usually leads to better results.