i

Below the Green Line: Collaboration, Constructive Conflict and Trust in Teacher Professional Communities

by

JENNIE L. SNYDER B.A. (University of California, Riverside) 1986 M.A. (University of California, Irvine) 1993

DISSERTATION

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

in

Educational Leadership

in the

OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES

of the

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

DAVIS

Approved:

________________________________________

(Dr. Paul Porter), Chair

________________________________________

(Dr. Paul Heckman)

________________________________________

(Dr. Michal Kurlaender)

Committee in Charge

2010

ii

Below the Green Line: Collaboration, Constructive Conflict and Trust in Teacher Professional Communities

ABSTRACT

This mixed method, multiple case study explored the conditions that nurture and

support the development of productive, student-focused collaboration aimed at fostering

teacher engagement and learning, which is the foundation of instructional improvements

in practice. This study examined the role of social relationships, especially mutual trust

and the ability to constructively address conflict, in the development of teacher

professional communities based on authentic collaboration.

Data collection included a survey, interview responses and site observations. The

survey included items that measured aspects of the teacher learning community, faculty

trust in colleagues and the principal, social interactions and perceptions of the school.

Quantitative data was analyzed using SPSS to conduct independent samples t tests and

Pearson product moment coefficients. Interviews were digitally transcribed and analyzed

for key thematic patterns that provided richness to the interpretation of the survey results.

Key findings from the study suggest dimensions of trust that are most critical for

effective collaborative work. Benevolence, reliability and competence were found to be

important dimensions of trust in colleagues; whereas, honesty, benevolence and

competence emerged as the basis for trust in the principal. Trust serves as a necessary

precondition for collaborative work among teachers in that it reduces feelings of

vulnerability and creates an atmosphere of safety in which educators can take risks and

explore new practices. However, while trust may be a necessary condition for supporting

collaborative efforts among teachers, it is not sufficient. Even in a high trust work

environment, teachers may not address conflict directly and this may limit the

iii

effectiveness of their joint work. Findings also suggest that being able to engage multiple

perspectives and address divergent points of view directly is essential in moving a

professional community toward student-focused collaboration.

Implications for practice focused on developing the necessary communication and

conflict resolution competencies necessary to facilitate cultural change. Directions for

future research are presented to further develop our understanding of the interconnections

between trust, constructive conflict and teacher collaboration.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to the teachers and principals at the two

elementary schools who participated in this study. Even in the midst of their busy and

demanding lives, they devoted their time and attention to providing valuable insights that

formed the basis of this work. Their willingness to openly share their experiences greatly

enhanced my understanding of our collaborative work as educators.

The staff at Schaefer Elementary School deserves my thanks and appreciation.

Throughout this journey, they provided encouragement and humor. At key moments,

they afforded me the space in which to explore and engage in the process of inquiry and

reflection.

I extend my gratitude to my fellow travelers in Cohort 3 of the Capital Area North

Doctorate Educational Leadership (CANDEL) program. From the beginning of our

journey together, they generously gave of themselves and their time to listen, discuss,

critique and support my process of discovery. I consider myself fortunate to have been in

the company of such talented and courageous scholar-practitioners.

I am deeply appreciative of my dissertation committee for sharing their keen

insights and expertise at critical points throughout the process of research and discovery.

Dr. Paul Heckman challenged my thinking about critical engagement and cognitive

conflict that helped me refine the questions that guided my research. Dr. Michal

Kurlaender provided invaluable suggestions on the methodological issues that framed the

study. In doing so, she helped provide both direction and focus to my research. Dr. Paul

Porter shared a passion and genuine interest in my project from the very beginning.

v

Through every stage of my work, he provided just the right mixture of encouragement

and constructive criticism that greatly enriched my learning.

I wish to thank my parents, Kenneth and Jeanmarie, for their unwavering support

in all of my endeavors, especially this one. I will always be grateful to them for nurturing

within me curiosity about the world and a heartfelt desire to pursue my own learning and

place within it.

My deepest appreciation goes to Vanessa, my partner in life, who has walked

every step of the path with me. Her love, patience, understanding and continued

encouragement gave me the energy and determination to see this endeavor through to

completion.

vi

DEDICATION

To Marshall, Ida, George and Mae:

In loving memory

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Social Network Analysis Showing Frequency of Interactions at

Elementary School A . 91

Figure 2: Social Network Analysis Showing Frequency of Interactions at

Elementary School B . 92

Figure 3: Social Network Analysis Showing Types of Help Sought at

Elementary School A . 95

Figure 4: Social Network Analysis Showing Types of Help Sought at

Elementary School B . 96

Figure 5: The Above and Below Green Line Model developed by Margaret

Wheatley (1992) and Tim Dalmau (2000) (Flavell & Foley, 2006).............152

Figure 6: Model of the Formation of Teacher Professional Community

(Grossman, Wineburg, and Woolworth, 2001) .............................................. 159

viii

List of Tables

Table 1: Dimensions of Professional Learning Communities 30

Table 2: Elementary School A Academic Performance Index 49

Table 3: Elementary School A 2009 Annual Yearly Progress in English

Language Arts ... 50

Table 4: Elementary School A 2009 Annual Yearly Progress in

Mathematics 50

Table 5: Elementary School B Academic Performance Index 51

Table 6: Elementary School B 2009 Annual Yearly Progress in English

Language Arts ... 52

Table 7: Elementary School B 2009 Annual Yearly Progress in

Mathematics 52

Table 8: Sensitivity Analysis of Non-Responders .. 55

Table 9: Comparison of Site Meetings at Elementary School A and Elementary

School B.... 71

Table 10: Descriptive Statistics for Teacher Perceptions of School by Site 73

Table 11: Descriptive Statistics for Teacher Learning Community Measures

by Site .. 74

Table 12: Results of Independent Samples t tests on Teacher Learning Community

Measures . 75

Table 13: Descriptive Statistics for Dimensions of Faculty Trust in Principal

by Site ............................................................................................................. 77

ix

Table 14: Results of Independent Samples t tests on Dimensions of Faculty Trust

in Principal .. 77

Table 15: Standardized Scores for Faculty Trust in Principal at Elementary School A and Elementary School B ................................................................ 79

Table 16: Descriptive Statistics for Dimensions of Faculty Trust in Colleagues

by Site ...............................................................................................................80

Table 17: Results of Independent Samples t tests on Faculty Trust in Colleagues . 81

Table 18: Standardized Scores for Faculty Trust in Colleagues at Elementary

School A and Elementary School B ............................................................... 82

Table 19: Descriptive Statistics for Conflict-Avoidance Measures by Site .................... 83

Table 20: Results of Independent Samples t tests on Conflict-Avoidance

Measures ......................................................................................................... 84

Table 21: Descriptive Statistics for Conflict-Embrace Measures by Site ........................ 85

Table 22: Results of Independent Samples t tests on Conflict-Embrace

Measures ........................................................................................................... 86

Table 23: Correlations: Dimensions of Faculty Trust in Principal, Teacher

Learning Community, Conflict-Embrace and Conflict-Avoidance

Measures .87

Table 24: Correlations: Dimensions of Faculty Trust in Colleagues, Teacher

Learning Community, Conflict-Embrace and Conflict-Avoidance.... 89

Table 25: Demographic Characteristics of Interview Participants.. 99

Table 26: Focus for Collaboration Elementary School A .. 114

Table 27: Focus for Collaboration Elementary School B .. 115

x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Abstract. ii

Acknowledgements.. iv

Dedication. vi

List of Figuresvii

List of Tablesviii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...... 1

Rationale for the Study1

Statement of the Problem.. 10

Conceptual Framework......15

Research Questions... 19

Significance of the Study...20 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE21

Teacher Privatism and Isolation 22 Collegiality and Teacher Professionalism ....24 School as Community Model 26

Models of Learning Communities.28 Critiques of the School as Communities Approaches ...31

Authentic Collaboration.33 Definition...33

Organizational Learning.34

Types of Organizational Learning.35

xi

Organizational Learning and Conflict...37

Trust...39

Definition of Trust.40

Trust in Schools.40

Trust in Professional Communities ...42

Trust and Student Outcomes .43

Summary ...43

CHAPTER 3: METHODS 45

Rationale for Multiple Case Study Approach45

Site Descriptions ...47

Elementary School A 49 Elementary School B 51

Sample ...54

Participants 55

Data Collection .55 Survey Instrument .55 Measures of Faculty Trust.56 Measures of Frames of Reference for Approaching

Conflict .58 Social Network Analysis Measures ..58

Interviews ..59

Observations ..60 Procedures .61

Limitations of the Present Study ...63

xii

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS ... 65 Site Observations ..65 Observations at Elementary School A ..66 Observations at Elementary School B ..68 Faculty Survey ..71 Perceptions of School ...............72 Teacher Learning Community Measures ..73 Faculty Trust .75 Faculty Trust in Principal .76 Faculty Trust in Colleagues ..79 Frames of Reference for Approaching Conflict Measures ...............82 Correlational Analysis ..86 Social Network Analysis ..............89 Frequency of Interactions .89 Types of Help Sought by Colleagues ...92 Interviews .97 Overview ..............97 Description of Interviewees ..97 Elementary School A 97 Elementary School B 97 Thematic Patterns ..99 Schoolwide versus Grade Level Only Focus ..100 Collaboration ...102

xiii

Faculty Trust ...............117 Frames of Reference for Approaching Conflict ..124 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...133 Summary .133 Research Questions .133 Overview of Findings .134 Dimensions of Trust Most Critical for Authentic Collaboration 134 Ways Trust Fosters Authentic Collaboration ..138 Conditions that Support the Development of Trust Among Faculty ..140 Faculty Trust and Frames of Reference for Approaching Conflict 144

Communication and Conflict Resolution Competencies 147

Theoretical Frameworks .150

Margaret Wheatleys Above and Below the Green Line Model 150 Grossman, Wineburg, and Woolworths Theory of Teacher Community .154

Implications for Practice .159 Recommendations ...163 Suggestions for Future Research 168 REFERENCES .170 APPENDICES .185

Appendix A: Faculty Survey Questions ...184 Appendix B: Faculty Survey Cover Sheet .186 Appendix C: Faculty Survey ..187

xiv

Appendix D: Teacher Interview Questions 191 Appendix E: Experimental Subjects Bill of Rights ..193 Appendix F: Participant Consent Form .194

1

Below the Green Line: Collaboration, Constructive Conflict and Trust in Teacher Professional Communities

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

For the past several decades, policymakers and the general public have demanded

higher levels for academic achievement for all students. State and federal accountability

mandates have exerted pressure on educators to adjust their instructional practices to

meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student body. As a result, educators have

undertaken a number of reform efforts to make schools more responsive to the students

they serve. Educational researchers and practitioners have explored teacher professional

communities as one type of school reform to improve student learning and outcomes for

student success.

Rationale for the Study

Before educators can begin a process of inquiry to examine the conditions that

foster the learning of children in schools, it is essential that they examine their own

professional learning and growth. Seymour Saranson, in his book, The Predictable

Failure of Educational Reform, argues that it is not possible to enrich the conditions of

student learning in an environment that is impoverishing for teachers. It is, therefore,

equally important to focus on creating the conditions of productive learning for teachers.

He suggests that facilitating the development of both children and adults in schools:

increases the chances that more teachers and students will experience the sense of

growth, without which life is a pointless bore (p. 138) (Sarason, 1993). If educators are

to engage in a collective process of critically examining instructional practices and the

2

professional knowledge upon which these practices are based, it is essential that we also

work to create conditions that support teacher engagement and growth.

One of the most impoverishing conditions of teachers work lives has been the

isolation in which they toil. In his 1975 sociological study, Dan Lortie noted that:

work relationships of teachers have been marked more by separation than by

interdependence (p. 23). Moreover, he concluded that:

The teachers craft, then, is marked by the absence of concrete models for

emulation, unclear lines of influence, multiple and controversial criteria,

ambiguity about assessment timing, and instability in the product (p. 136).

Lorties research highlighted the deleterious effects of teachers working in the egg crate

school (p. 14).

Almost ten years later, John Goodlad made similar observations in his 1984 study,

A Place Called School. He noted that: The classroom cells in which teachers spend

much of their time appear to be symbolic and predictive of their relative isolation from

one another and from sources of ideas beyond their own background of experience (p.

186). Teachers work in relative isolation and rarely, if ever, have the opportunity to

participate in collective dialogues with other teachers regarding instructional practices.

Goodlad found that: there was little data to suggest active, ongoing exchanges of ideas

and practices across schools, between groups of teachers, or between individuals even in

the same schools (p. 187). This sense of isolation is not conducive to teacher

engagement and learning.

Educational researchers have highlighted the negative effects of isolation on

teachers professional growth and learning (Little, 1990c; M. W. McLaughlin, 1992;

3

Talbert & McLaughlin, 2002). Over the past few decades, the dominant arrangement of

the privatization of instructional practice has been grounded in the loose-coupling

model that locates the individual classroom as the site for decision-making regarding

what is taught, how learning is assessed and what instructional practices are used as

matters left to individual teachers (R. Elmore, 2008; R. F. Elmore, 2000; Weick, 1976).

Elmore (2000) argued that critical decisions about the technical core of education:

detailed decisions about what should be taught at any given time, how it

should be taught, what students should be expected to learn at any given time,

how they should be grouped within classrooms for purposes of instruction, what

they should be required to do to demonstrate their knowledge, and perhaps most

importantly, how their learning should be evaluated -- resides in individual

classrooms not in the organizations that surround them (pp. 5-6).

Furthermore, Elmore (2000) noted that placing individual classrooms as the locus for

instructional change has created a buffer between instruction and critical scrutiny from

outside inspection, interference or disruption (p. 6).

By constructing a buffer around the classroom, the loose-coupling model has

dampened innovations in teaching and learning (R. F. Elmore, 2000). In practice,

changes in teaching practices are guided by individual values, interests and choices and

may not be productive for the learning of certain students (Elmore, 2000, p. 5).

Critically examining teaching strategies and making improvements is largely left up to

the discretion of individual teachers. Elmore concludes: because teaching is isolated

work, instructional improvements occur most frequently as a consequence of purely

voluntary acts among consenting adults (p. 7). The isolation in which teachers work

4

helps to explains why only superficial changes occur within schools and why more

collaborative approaches to instructional innovation have been so difficult to implement

and sustain.

Starting in early 1990s, the conception of the isolated classroom began to be

challenged by an emerging body of research that looked at the teachers workplace as a

site of professional learning (Louis, 2006b). Judith Warren Littles research focused on

the ways teachers learn from each other (Little, 1990b). Little posited a typology of

forms of collegiality that included storytelling/scanning for ideas, aid/assistance, sharing

and joint work. She argued that the most common types of interaction among teachers

involved sharing stories about their classrooms or scanning peers stories for ideas,

offering or asking for assistance related to a specific area of concern, and sharing tips on

teaching. In seeking out information from their peers, teachers selectively engaged in

exchanging ideas. Consistent with the model of loose-coupling, the decision to adopt

suggestions or not were a matter of individual discretion. Despite giving the appearance

of meaningful collaboration, these more superficial types of interactions among teachers

served to reinforce independence and isolation by leaving decision-making about

instructional practices up to each teacher and his or her preferences. In contrast, the more

rare form of teacher collaboration, Little (1996c) noted that joint work involves:

shared responsibility for the work of teaching (interdependence), collective

conceptions of autonomy, support for teachers initiative and leadership with

regard to professional practice, and group affiliations grounded in professional

work (p. 519).

In her research, Little found few examples of meaningful, collaborative work.

5

Another related strand of research focused on collaborative efforts in the context

of teachers work in schools. Cuban (1992) argued that professional communities were a

key part of teachers professionalism and served as as a way of addressing the

uncertainties, ambiguities, and moral dilemmas of teaching students at different levels of

schooling (p. 9). Working together in collaborative groups provided teachers with a

forum for resolving issues that arise from their own teaching experiences. By sharing

problems and working collectively, teachers could receive support in dealing with

challenges in the classroom, improve their practices and in so doing, foster a higher

degree of professionalism.

Building on notions of professionalism, another strand of research called for

policy to link support for student achievement and sustained learning opportunities for

teachers. McLaughlin and Talberts research placed professional communities in the

context of school reform by emphasizing the importance of the connection between

academic achievement for students and teacher professional learning (M. W. McLaughlin

& Talbert, 1993). Other studies contrasted the notion of professional communities with

efforts to create effective schools (Darling-Hammond & et al., 1994; Louis, Kruse, &

Raywid, 1996) For these researchers, developing capacity among teachers provided the

best way of improving schools, instead of focusing on efforts that sought to simply

impose new school structures or implement new curricula as a way of making schools

more effective. By fostering teacher professional learning through collaborative work,

educators could bring about more systemic change aimed at making schools more

engaging and democratic places for adult and childrens learning.

6

The vision of the potential of collaboration led to studies that began to identify

characteristics or key elements of teacher professional communities grounded in

meaningful, student-focused collaboration. Researchers identified a variety of structural

elements such as time, space, physical proximity, interdependence of teaching roles as

well as processes such as communication systems that facilitated the formation of

professional communities (Hord, 1997; S. D. Kruse, Louis, & Bryk, 1995). They also

highlighted the importance of conditions that characterize social relationships within the

group (e.g., trust, respect, supportive leadership) and organizational qualities (e.g., shared

vision and values) (Hord, 1997; S. D. Kruse, et al., 1995; M.W. McLaughlin & Talbert,

2001; Westheimer, 1998).

Toward the end of the 1990s, as discussion within the larger policy arena shifted

toward accountability both for teacher performance and student learning, the notion of

professional learning communities (PLCs) began to be cast as a school reform strategy

directed toward meeting state and federal mandates for academic outcomes (Dufour &

Eaker, 1998; Hord, 1997). With the creation of standards for curricular areas and the

system of accountability that demands greater levels of student achievement,

policymakers and educational leaders have looked to teacher collaboration as a promising

approach to breaking down the buffer around isolated classrooms and improving student

achievement.

The potential of collaboration received support from educational research that

pointed to the various benefits of professional communities for strengthening teacher

learning and instructional practices (Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994, 2002). Collaborative

arrangements have been identified as a source of learning that is embedded in teachers

7

work with students as opposed to professional development workshops that may only be

tangentially related to their actual work in classrooms (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).

Others have noted that building a community of learners helps teachers to begin to

understand and critique their own thinking that allows them to move beyond superficial

topics commonly heard in discussions among faculty such as bell schedules, classroom

materials, etc. (Wilson & Berne, 1999). Engaging in more meaningful on-going dialogue

creates opportunities for teachers to move toward deeper learning that leads to

fundamental rethinking and changes in instructional practices (Scribner, Cockrell,

Cockrell, & Valentine, 1999). Collaboration allows for a pooling of intellectual and

material resources to share strengths and provide support for refining strategies (Hord,

1997; Huffman, Hipp, Pankake, & Moller, 2001; Little, 2002; Smylie, 1996). Working

collectively also holds the potential to stave off the impact of stress and demands of

teaching and thereby may help to minimize staff turnover (Little, 1990a). The presence

of collaborative arrangements among teachers has been linked to greater student

achievement (Goddard, Goddard, & Tschannen-Moran, 2007; Louis & Marks, 1998;

Strahan, 2003). This body of work suggests that when teachers work together on

instructional practices, their professional knowledge and student learning is enhanced.

Given the beneficial outcomes noted in the literature, researchers and consultants

moved in to respond to the widespread interest in developing professional learning

communities. According to DuFour, et.al. (1998), PLCs are distinguished by: 1) a

shared mission, vision and set of values focused on student learning, 2) engagement in

collective inquiry within the context of collaborative teams and 3) an action-orientated

approach to continuous improvement measured by results. The various handbooks and

8

workshops suggested a range of strategies and structural recommendations to develop

this kind of professional working group among teachers (Dufour, 2004; Dufour & Eaker,

1998; Schmoker, 2006). This literature, devoted to the implementation of PLCs, focused

primarily on creating time, making the groups purpose explicit, training and support for

staff to collaborate, establishing group norms, and accepting responsibility to work

together to accomplish common goals. The implications of these recommendations

suggest that to implement PLCs, one need only to put the pieces in place and the results

will follow.

Despite these glowing accounts of PLCs as a reform strategy within the context of

school accountability, advocates noted common pitfalls that could derail collaborative

efforts. Drawing upon the work of Kotter (1996), DuFour, et.al. (1998) argued that

educational leaders, eager to implement PLCs, often: allow too much complacency, fail

to create sufficiently powerful guiding coalitions, underestimate the power of vision,

under-communicate vision, permit structural and cultural obstacles to block the

change process, or fail to create short term wins (pp. 51-53). While these authors

acknowledge that making changes is hard work, the recommendations presented to

educational leaders suggest that the difficulties encountered in establishing professional

learning communities can be addressed by simply focusing on group processes or

procedural aspects of the collaborative work.

Other educational researchers have offered more cautious assessments of

professional communities as a way of reforming schools grounded in teacher

professionalism. Huberman argued against the model of collaboration and asserted that

teachers craft knowledge and professional rewards were firmly rooted in the artisan

9

model of teaching. He pointed out the conditions of teachers work lives that made

collective work difficult and unsustainable. He also cautioned against the encroachments

of the so-called effective schools movement that would stifle teacher creativity and

individuality (Huberman, 1993).

Still other researchers acknowledged that moving toward creating more

collaborative working arrangements might be problematic. Based on her research on

schools that had attempted to create more collaborative cultures, Little (1990b) pointed

out that the connection between collegial work and changes in instruction cannot be

assumed to be direct or sustained. She argued that such work groups can be both a

vehicle for change and for maintaining the status quo (Little, 1990b). McLaughlin and

Talberts study of collective work of high school math teachers cautioned against making

collegiality, or personal social ties, the primary focus on professional collaboration

(M.W. McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001). Their work supported the notion that working in

collegial relationships is not sufficient. In some instances, these kinds of working

relationships can serve to reinforce weak instructional strategies. This research suggested

that efforts to create collaborative working arrangements that lack a clear, student-

focused purpose can result in a perpetuation of the status quo with little meaningful

instructional changes that improve outcomes for students.

Still other researchers noted that the potential benefits are difficult to achieve in

practice (L. Leonard, 2002; L. Leonard & Leonard, 2003; L. J. Leonard & Leonard,

2005; Wood, 2007). Leonard and Leonards research on teachers perceptions of the

value of collaboration and the degree to which these practices occur at their sites offered

insights into the some of difficulties practitioners have encountered. In surveys, teachers

10

reported that while collaboration was perceived as highly desirable and beneficial for

student learning, the lack of a trusting and caring work environment impeded their efforts

to work together productively toward common goals. These studies suggested that the

relational aspects of the group process such as trust and mutual caring and regard may be

critical in facilitating authentic collaboration.

Statement of the Problem

Questions emerge about why, despite the potential benefits to be gained, efforts to

establish collaborative groups among teachers have missed the mark. Part of the

explanation lies in the lack of precision in defining the terms and application of the

concept of teacher collaboration. Little (1990b) noted that despite the enthusiasm for

the notion of teachers working together to improve their practice the concept of

collaboration has remained conceptually amorphous (p. 509). More recently, DuFour

(2004) noted that the term professional learning communities has been applied to a

wide range of activities involving every imaginable combination of individuals with an

interest in education (p. 6). He warned that: the term has been used so ubiquitously

that it is in danger of losing all meaning (p. 6). Educators have applied the term

professional learning communities to describe activities ranging from grade level or

department meetings to groups of teachers getting together to plan lessons or to meet at a

specified time each week to talk about any given topic or to deep, meaningful shared

dialogue about improving instructional practices.

In his study of teacher communities, Westheimer noted that the lack of conceptual

clarity has made it difficult for practitioners to establish professional communities

(Westheimer, 1998, 1999). He noted that despite their potential for instructional

11

improvement, many reforms aimed at fostering teacher community have met with

resistance. And others have vanished amid the intractability of traditional school culture

and organization (p. 72). He argued that the reason for these obstacles can be found in

the very different types of professional community researchers, consultants and

policymakers envision (p. 72). The common characteristics identified in the literature

(i.e., shared beliefs, participation, interdependence, dissent and attention to

relationships) tend to obscure more fundamental differences in the ideologies and

mental models educators bring to the task of facilitating the development of professional

communities. Some groups are defined by the high degree of individualism and perceive

their collective work as secondary; others identify their purpose as a collective venture.

These divergent perspectives make a difference in the process of establishing and

sustaining professional communities. As a result, Westheimer (1999) points out policy

makers and practitioners rarely characterize the nature of such communities, focusing

instead on the conditions necessary for their growth (p. 77). This lack of clarity in the

nature and purposes of communities has led to a mix of confusion, mild concern and

doubt in the implementation process (Westheimer, 1999, p. 77).

Another part of the explanation for these difficulties, addressed in the research

literature on professional learning communities and collaboration, may be found in the

way formal educational leaders, such as school and district administrators, fail to

adequately take into account how mandated forms of collaboration fail to incorporate the

experiences of teachers (Hargreaves, 2003; Wood, 2007). Another weakness in the

literature on the purposes and characteristics of learning communities does not

adequately address the experiences and perceptions of teachers in the process of

12

developing PLCs. In other words, much of the popular literature on PLCs does not bring

into sharp focus the extent to which the hierarchical, top down approach to

implementation of school reforms, in general, and in this case PLCs, in particular, stands

in direct contradiction to the very notion of teachers working together to examine and

refine their instruction. Some authors (Schmoker, 2006; Strahan, 2003) suggest that by

simply putting certain structures in place such as scheduling planning time, having

common assessments, using specific meeting protocols that teachers will develop a sense

of collective self-efficacy and therefore lead to improvements in student achievement.

The process of creating structures for collective work, however, does not, in and

of itself, lead to the kind of authentic, student-focused collaboration envisioned by school

reform advocates. At the local level, educational leaders in districts and at school sites

grabbed onto the new idea of PLCs as a way of grappling with the challenges of

meeting external pressures to improve student achievement. The implementation of

professional learning communities became inextricably linked with the larger school

reform efforts as part of the shift in the policy context to hold schools more accountable.

With many of these local attempts to implement collaboration among teachers at school

sites, practitioners tended to place attention on putting the structural and process pieces in

place (i.e., creating schedules to allow for team time, establishing forms/protocals to

log team meetings, review of student work/data, etc.). While this approach holds appeal

for educational leaders who can, in essence, feel in control of the process, often time,

these efforts fall short of their intended purpose of facilitating genuine, student-focused,

professional dialogue among teachers.

13

In the literature, some researchers have critically examined the purposes that

various collaborative efforts serve as a way of contrasting the centrality of power

relations embedded within these interactions. Hargreaves (1991) argued that:

there is no such things as real or true collaboration or collegiality. There are

only different forms of collegiality that have different consequences and serve

different purposes (p. 49).

In his conception of collegiality questions of who guides and controls these interactions

figure centrally (p. 49). He does draw a distinction between collaborative cultures that

are teacher guided and those that are administratively controlled. More organic forms of

collaboration are characterized as spontaneous, voluntary, development-oriented,

pervasive across time and space, and unpredictable; whereas contrived collegiality is

characterized as administratively regulated, compulsory, implementation-oriented, fixed

in time and space, and predictable (Hargreaves, 1991, 1994). Drawing upon

Hargreavess work, part of the explanation for the tendency of well-intentioned efforts to

implement professional communities to become derailed can be found in who steers the

process. If teachers see collaboration as another in a series of top down directives over

which they have little or no control, then there is a greater likelihood, that the process will

be understood as going through the motions to fulfill an administratively regulated

requirement, not as a valuable forum for meaningful dialogue with ones colleagues to

enhance their professional learning.

Hargreavess work points to the centrality of power relations in distinguishing

between different types of collaboration and the purposes they serve. To fully understand

the conditions that support the development of more authentic, student-focused

14

collaboration, the issue of the allocation of power needs to be taken seriously. Saranson

(1993) cautioned: Any effort to deal with or prevent a significant problem in a school

system that is not based on a reallocation of power a discernible change in power

relationships is doomed (p. 28).

Wood (2007) in her study of two middle schools noted the impact of contrived

collegiality on teacher learning. She observed that while some teachers enthusiastically

engage in conversations about students and their learning and ways of making their

instruction fit student needs; others seemed to go through the motions, complying with

the objectives of others. Teachers who felt like they had control over the issues

addressed, and who saw a direct link between their collective work and their classrooms

tended to believe that their collaboration with other teachers was meaningful. On the

other hand, teachers who participated in contrived exercises tangentially related to their

work in the classroom tended to view collaboration as going through the motions (Wood,

2007). Although these studies distinguish between authentic collaboration and its more

contrived forms, more critical attention is needed to identify the underlying conditions

that make a difference.

Grossman, Wineburg and Woolworth (2000) sought to explore the conditions that

supported the development of professional community among high school teachers. In

their study, they noted that in order to move toward deeper levels of engagement and

critical dialogue groups needed to break through the facades of pseudocommunity. At

this stage of group development, participants tend to play community, acting as if we

all agree (p. 955). There is an illusion of consensus that hides underlying conflicts of

thinking, conceptual models, and assumptions. Conflict is suppressed and not dealt

15

openly. By avoiding conflict, teachers were not able to address key issues that surfaced

in discussions with other participants. Grossman, et.al. argue that a central fact lies at

the heart of pseudocommunity: there is no authentic sense of shared communal space

but only individuals interacting with other individuals (p. 956). Thus, the presence of

pseudocommunity serves to dampen the kind of open and honest dialogue needed to

critically examine and change instructional practices.

Conceptual Framework

A potentially useful conceptual framework for exploring why the well-intentioned

efforts to implement professional communities tend to fall short of their larger purpose

fostering genuine, student-focused collaboration -- can be found in the work of Margaret

Wheatley. In her book, Leadership and the New Science, she suggests that as educational

leaders attempt to deal with changes, they tend to focus most of their attention on

rational elements of their organizations above the green line such as strategies,

processes, and structures (Dalmau, 2000; Wheatley, 2006).1 By attending to these more

visible aspects of the organization, they attempt to exert control over the change process

(Wheatley, 2006). In essence, the observable aspects of organizations align with

expectations of the traditional role of school administrators namely to manage people and

procedures aimed at achieving specific objectives. In their initial efforts to implement

PLCs, school leaders have placed their primary focus above the green line toward

those aspects of the organization that are visible, and seemingly controllable. Along

these lines, educational leaders focus their efforts on creating schedules and blocks of

1 The Green Line model was originally developed by Tim Dalmau based on the work of Meg Wheatley.

16

time for teachers to meet, implementing team meeting logs and agendas to monitor group

processes, structuring protocols to guide goal setting and discussion. In so doing, many

schools reform initiatives that have only attended to the aspects of collaboration above

the green line fall prey to contrived collegiality or collaboration lite (DuFour, 2003;

Hargreaves, 1991, 1994).

Applying Wheatleys conceptual framework to teacher collaboration helps us to

understand the difficulties noted in the literature with implementing these practices.

Even though much of the literature on professional learning communities has identified

critical processes, structures and strategies aimed at facilitating teacher collaboration that

are focused on student learning (Bolam, MacMahon, Stoll, Thomas, & Wallace, 2005;

Hord, 1997; Louis, Kruse, & Marks, 1996; Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008), this work

does not help us to understand the essential elements below the green line how trust,

mutual relationships based on respect, and the free flow of information make authentic

collaboration possible. Taken as a whole, these studies highlight the importance of

structural, process and strategic factors in fostering collaboration. These studies have

identified the need for creating time to meet, physical proximity and size of school to

facilitate interaction, interdependence of teaching roles, maintaining a focus on student

learning, communication systems in building and sustaining teacher professional

communities. All of these aspects that bring teachers together for collaborative purposes

lie at the surface. While research suggests that these structures and processes may be

necessary for the development of professional learning communities, they are not

sufficient.

17

Louis (2006b) noted that practitioners have failed to appreciate the depth and

complexity required to bring about cultural change by portraying the development of a

PLC as an innovation to be implemented (p. 8). To ensure deep learning and authentic

engagement also requires going beneath the surface to explore the conditions that

facilitate healthy relationships and open dialogue in which all participants have access to

information about the organization and how it is performing. Moreover, people in the

organization need to feel safe in taking reasonable risks, asking questioning and

challenging each others ideas and practices. If educational leaders are truly interested in

fostering the kinds of conditions that support more authentic collaborative working

arrangements among teachers, then, Wheatleys conceptualization urges us to shift our

field of vision to examine the dynamics below the green line to the less visible, but

very powerful aspects of organizations that hold the potential for adaptation and growth.

Wheatley suggests that to facilitate this kind of adaptive change and growth needed for

organizations to thrive, special attention needs to be paid to the open and free access to

information and developing relationships based on mutual respect and care. In so doing,

people in the organization can develop a deep sense of identity based on shared values

and purposes.

The underlying conditions, noted by Wheatley, are consistent with the literature

on professional learning communities. Findings from this body of research suggest that

key elements such as openness and access to expertise and information, the existence of

supportive leadership and relationships based on mutual respect and trust as well as

shared values support both the development and sustenance of professional communities

(Bolam, et al., 2005; Hord, 1997; Lieberman & Miller, 2008; Mulford, 2007; Stoll,

18

Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas, 2006). Kruse, Louis and Bryk (1994) noted that

the more relational aspects such as openness to improvement, trust and

respectsupportive leadershipare more critical to the development of professional

community than structural conditions (p. 6). Mulford (2007) also emphasizes the

importance of the social aspects of professional learning communities by arguing that:

how people communicate with and treat each other (p. 177) are essential before moving

on to the development professional communities focused on learning. He points out that:

success is more likely where people act rather than are always reacting, are empowered,

involved in decision-making through a transparent, facilitative and supportive structure

and are trusted, respected, encouraged, and valued (p. 177).

Research has noted the importance of trust in providing conditions supportive of

constructive conflict in the formation of professional communities. Literature on

organizational learning suggests that conflict is an essential element of professionals

challenging underlying assumptions and developing refined practices based on new

understandings (C. Argyris & Schon, 1978). The body of research on trust has identified

the importance of this variable in creating an atmosphere of openness and honesty within

groups (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). Other studies have suggested that a groups

orientation or frame of reference in dealing with conflict (Achinstein, 2002a; Uline,

Tschannen-Moran, & Perez, 2003) is foundational for organizational learning. However,

while researchers suggest that a groups ability to address conflict in healthy and

productive ways is grounded in relations of trust, few studies have explicitly explored the

relationship between these two variables.

19

While studies have identified elements below the green line as being important

in fostering meaningful collaboration, there is still a need to explore how the presence of

these conditions help to cultivate the less visible, yet deeper and more critical aspects of

professional communities. This study incorporated the above and below the green line

conceptual framework in examining aspects of professional learning communities.

Specifically, this study examined how relational trust and the ability to deal with conflict

productively contributes to developing and sustaining teacher professional communities

focused on authentic, student-focused dialogue.

Research Questions

This study was designed to help develop a deeper understanding of the conditions

that nurture and support the development of productive collaboration aimed at fostering

teacher engagement and learning, which is the foundation of instructional improvements

in practice. As such, it examined the conditions that support the free flow of information

throughout the organization that is critical for people to work together and to be able to

create and sustain relationships characterized by a mutual respect and caring. This study

also explored how the relational foundation within a school organization allows for the

development of core identities grounded in shared values. Based on the review of the

literature, the present study focused attention on the role of social relationships,

especially the ability to constructively address conflict and mutual trust, in the

development of teacher professional communities focused on authentic collaboration.

Specifically, this study was guided by the following research questions:

What set of conditions support the development of trust among faculty?

20

How is trust related to a professional communitys frame of reference for

handling conflicts?

In what ways does trust foster authentic collaboration (see definition below)?

What dimensions of trust (based on Tschannen-Moran and Hoys definition) are

most critical to make authentic collaboration possible?

As teachers collaborate, what communication and conflict resolution

competencies are needed to nurture teacher trust in one another?

Significance of the Study

The current study examined these questions from the perspective of

organizational change processes and a conceptual framework based on the work of

Margaret Wheatley. Given the difficulties encountered in building high performing

professional communities, gaining a clearer perspective on how the elements below the

green line such as relational trust and a groups approach to handling conflicts can

contribute to creating and sustaining healthy working relationships could potentially help

practitioners to develop a broader repertoire of instructional strategies to improve student

learning. An exploration of these questions helps us to discover how to engage in

genuine dialogue and critical reflection to uncover the underlying dynamics that help to

develop and sustain authentic, student-focused collaboration.

21

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

To place the current study into a meaningful context, several broad areas of

educational research are presented. The review of relevant literature begins with an

exploration of the sources of teacher privatism and isolation within the dominant

structure of schools that emerged at the turn of the twentieth century. It is precisely this

image of the cellular arrangement of schools as composed of isolated classrooms that

the advocates of school reform have sought to counter in the pursuit of educational

improvement. Educational leaders and researchers have called for a fundamental

rethinking of schools, moving away from the notion of schools as formal organizations

based on hierarchical controls to communities focused on learning and continuous

improvement. Within this framework particular attention is focused on the emergence of

the conceptualization of teacher professional communities as a school reform strategy.

This body of work helps to distill key criteria to develop a working definition of

authentic collaboration that is incorporated into the present study.

The review then moves on to highlight the ways researchers have examined

collaboration as a basis for organizational learning. The research on organizational

learning illustrates how constructive conflict can serve as the basis for challenging

existing beliefs and practices. The studies presented contextualize the present studys

focus on the intersections of professional learning and conflict. Finally, relational trust

or faculty trust has been identified as the glue that holds together professional

communities. Educational researchers conceptualizations of faculty trust have

emerged over the past few decades. Their work suggests strong connections between this

22

construct and organizational behavior as well as student outcomes. The present study

seeks to understand how the various dimensions of trust are related to a teacher

professional communitys ability to engage in meaningful, student-focused collaboration

that is characterized by an ability to constructively address divergent point of view and

resolve conflicts.

Teacher Privatism and Isolation

For much of the twentieth century, the administrative progressive framework of

schooling gained ascendancy. According to this perspective, educational leaders sought

to create a rational view of school organization along the lines of the corporate model

(David Tyack & Hansot, 1982). The dominant view, according to Tyack (1974),

emphasized science, administrative efficiency, and professional specialization (p.

180) in the pursuit of bureaucratic control all along the line (p. 192). In the one best

system, principals and supervisors were mere inspectors, certifying compliance with

the rules; most teachingwas mechanical (D. Tyack, 1974). The administrative

progressives conducted the business of schooling through top down mandates intended to

ensure the efficient operation of teaching and learning.

The egg-crate organization of schools, the focus of Dan Lorties seminal study

(1975) , emerged in the context of administrative efficiency. Lortie documented the

impact of the conditions of teachers work lives on the teaching profession (Lortie, 1975).

He noted that the dominant model of schools developed over many decades in which

teacher separation rather than teacher interdependence prevailed (p. 14). He further

elaborated on professional norms that emphasized personal choice, privacy and equality

that reinforced teacher isolation. To the extent that colleagues share ideas it is done on a

23

highly selective basis guided by individual preferences and immediate situational

contexts, not a common understanding of effective practices. Together schools

structural organization and teachers professional norms have limited the development of

a shared technical culture. In so doing, the isolation in which teachers work reinforces a

culture of presentism, individualism, and conservatism (Lortie, 1975, p. 208). Thus, in

Lorties view, teacher isolation can be traced to both the formal organization of schools

and the uncertainties of the profession.

Almost a decade later, Goodlad (1984) drew similar conclusions about the

dominant working arrangements of the teaching profession. Goodlads study,

documented in A Place Called School, drew upon data collected from a national sample,

including 1,350 elementary and secondary teachers at thirty-eight schools across a broad

range of demographic characteristics. Goodlad examined teachers perceptions of the

impact of isolation on their professional practice. In general, teachers reported that they

rarely joined with peers on collaborative endeavors (Goodlad, 1984, p. 187). Moreover,

the data suggests that active, on-going exchanges of ideas and practices across schools,

between groups of teachers, or between individuals, even in the same schools were rare

(Goodlad, 1984, p. 187).

McTaggart (1989) also examined how the conditions of work within schools

contributed to teacher privatism. His study focused on a district initiative to foster action

research among a select group of teachers to bring about instructional changes in

classrooms. He noted that even though district leaders espoused the importance of

teacher knowledge as a source of educational change, bureaucratic ways of working and

thinking limited the effectiveness of the initiative. Modes of communication, evaluation

24

processes and administrative procedures reinforced hierarchy, conformity to external

mandates at the expense of innovation. In this context, McTaggart concluded: It was

not the walls of privatism which needed cracking in this school district, but the social

milieu and conditions of work which so effectively undermined the confidence and

devalued the knowledge, wisdom and credibility of its best leaders (p. 360).

Flinders (1988) focused on privatism in terms of the ways teachers negotiate the

demands of teaching in the day-to-day work lives. Based on his fieldwork in two high

schools, Flinders argued that isolation was an adaptive strategy that teachers actively

incorporated to handle to myriad of competing demands placed on them by their teaching

duties. Rather than see teachers reluctance to engage with colleagues as a psychological

deficit or a consequence of the structure of schools, he emphasized the benefits teachers

derived by parsing out their interpersonal commitments (Flinders, 1988).

Collegiality and Teacher Professionalism

In the 1980s, an emerging body of literature began to challenge the impact of

teacher individualism and isolated classroom practices on school performance. During

this period, researchers began to examine the conditions that facilitated teachers learning

from each other within schools. Little (1982) studied the workplace characteristics most

closely related to learning on the job. Based on data collected through semi-structured

interviews and site observations at six schools, with 105 teachers and fourteen

administrators, Little (1982) concluded that: staff development appears to have the

greatest prospect for influence where there is a prevailing norm of collegiality (p. 339).

Schools where teachers regularly and routinely engaged in focused and concrete talk

about instruction, structured observations, as well as shared planning or preparation,

25

demonstrated greater success in both teaching and student learning. Littles work

strongly suggested that organizational context in which teachers worked strongly

influenced their participation in professional interactions with their colleagues (Little,

1982).

Susan Rosenholtzs work (1989/1991) focused on examining the conditions

within teachers workplaces that contributed to school effectiveness. Her study drew

upon a sample of 78 elementary schools in eight school districts in Tennessee. Through

surveys and interviews, Rosenholtz noted patterns of interactions among teachers that

facilitated faculty cohesiveness, collaboration and professional learning. Rosenholtz

found that schools in which teachers talked about mutual assistance and advice related to

instructional practice on a regular basis tended by more learning-enriched. Teachers in

these schools saw their professional growth as an on-going process that enhanced their

work. They saw their colleagues as sources of their professional renewal (p. 103). On

the other hand, schools dominated by norms of isolation and self-reliance tended to use

material resources that were immediately accessible to them and that required minimal

effort (Rosenholtz, 1989/1991, p. 103). More isolated schools tended rely upon a more

limited range of information such as their own experiences and knowledge to address

instructional concerns (Rosenholtz, 1989/1991).

Research on teachers workplace conditions as sources of their professional

learning shifted attention to promoting teacher professionalism as a key component of

educational reform. In the mid-1990s, educational researchers and policy advocates

began to argue for putting teachers at the center of reform (Darling-Hammond & et al.,

1994; Louis, Kruse, & Raywid, 1996). Several foundational studies looked at

26

collaborative working arrangements as a way of fostering teacher professionalism and

systemic educational change. These studies highlighted the ways that professional

communities helped teachers handle the uncertainties, dilemmas, and challenges of

teaching (Cuban, 1992) and served as sources of innovation and improvement of

instructional practices (M. W. McLaughlin, 1993; M. W. McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993).

The early body of work emphasized teachers active role in cultivating collaborative

work as a vital element in successful educational change aimed at building capacity of

schools.

School as Community Models

Around the same time, school reform advocates also began to re-

conceptualizations schools as communities as a way to crack the wall of privatism and

foster more collaborative working arrangements focused on improving teaching and

learning (Fullan, 1982, p. 292). Situating our current focus on creating community

within schools as part of a larger educational reform requires a closer look at the

historical context in which this model developed. Sociologist Ferdinand Tnnies

analyzed the shift in social relationships from pre-modern community based ties to more

formal ties characteristic of the emergence of the market economy (Tnnies, 1887/2002).

He drew a distinction between gemeinschaft, social relations based on strong

communitarian values and gesellschaft, more formal individualistic, commercial

interactions. Strong community bonds based on common kinship, place or mind

characterize gemeinschaft relations. Of these three forms, community of the mind

implies only co-operation and co-ordinated action toward a common goal and

represents the truly human and supreme form of community (Tnnies, 1887/2002, p.

27

42). In this type of community, people relate to one another through their own wills in

an organic manner (p. 42). In his theoretical framework, mutual obligations, common

commitments and a strong sense of belonging form the basis of community.

In contrast, gesellschaft relations are associated with the public world in which

associations are unified by contractual ties, formalized roles and hierarchies. Tnnies

noted that gesellschaft represented an artificial construction of an aggregate of human

beings which superficially resembles community based social relationships (Tnnies,

1887/2002, pp. 64-65). Unlike gemeinschaft relations in which people remain

essentially united in spite of all separating factors, in gesellschaft relations they are

essentially separated in spite of all unifying factors (p. 65). Thus, interactions are

individualistic, transitory and superficial.

The distinction between gesellschaft and gemeinschaft helps to shed light on the

kinds of reforms that began to be pursued in the early 1990s. Around this time,

educational practitioners and researchers began to issue calls for a more communitarian

approach to changing schools. The focus on fostering professional communities

challenged the dominant model of rational and efficient school organization that had been

place for more than a century. Teachers professional learning began to take a central

place as educational scholars identified members of school organization as active

participants in the change process. The key to improving schools could be found in

creating conditions that fostered inquiry, learning and instructional improvement (Barth,

1990; Sergiovanni, 1994). These ideas represented a fundamental challenge to notions of

hierarchical organization of schools, the purpose of leadership and the mission of the

educational enterprise.

28

Sergiovanni (1994) argued that the fundamental theory of school needed to be

changed from organizations to communities. Speaking to the American Educational

Research Association, he stated that: the time has come for us to take a hard look at the

basic theories and root metaphors that shape the way we understand schools and that

shape the way we understand leadership and management within them (Sergiovanni,

1994, p. 215). Sergiovanni noted that this shift would require not simply another

innovation to be implemented, but rather a profound rethinking about what is true about

how schools should be organized and run, about what motivates teachers and students,

and about what leadership is, and how it should be practiced (p. 217). Schools as

communities would be guided by common goals, shared values and shared conceptions

of being and doing (p. 219). Thus, instead of relying on bureaucratic forms of authority

based on monitoring compliance with rules, as envisioned by the advocates of

administrative efficiency, educational leaders would be actively cultivating the supportive

relationships that help professionals learn together.

Models of Learning Communities

The various strands of research and policy advocacy that emphasized fostering

conditions within schools to promote teacher professionalism and to challenge the

dominant model of school organization converged into a body of work that sought to

identify characteristics of learning communities. Drawing upon his work in the corporate

world, Senge (1996/2006) posited a model of learning organizations as:

organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results

they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured,

29

where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning

how to learn together (p. 3).

Senges emphasis on developing the capacity for new ways of thinking and continually

improvement resonated with educational research that began to support the idea of

building professional communities among teachers.

Guided by this vision of school reform, educational researchers explored the

structures and processes that supported the development of professional communities

focused on instructional improvement. Louis, Kruse and Marks (1995) identified

structural, social and human resources that helped to foster the development of a school

wide professional community. Their framework included shared mission, vision and

values; an attentiveness to student learning; collective inquiry; collaborative teams;

continuous improvement focused on results. Structural conditions such as time to meet,

physical proximity as well as interdependence of teaching roles and process factors such

as communication channels that facilitated the access of expertise were the essential

elements of professional ties (S. Kruse, Louis, & Bryk, 1994; S. D. Kruse, et al., 1995).

Educational researchers have built upon the initial work on school wide

professional communities. In doing so, they have drawn upon educational research and

corporate literature to distill a set of inter-related factors that formed the basis of an

emerging conceptualization of professional learning communities. Based on longitudinal

as well as comparative case studies, researchers examined the essential characteristics

needed for the creation of professional learning communities (Hord, 1997; Morrisey,

2000; Pankake & Moller, 2003). Table 1 shows the key elements that characterize

professional learning communities.

30

Table 1

Dimensions of professional learning communities

Shared and supportive leadership

Willingness to share authority. Participation with staff in sharing ideas, learning and inquiry. Supports and encourages continuous learning.

Shared values and vision Staff actively engaged in developing shared vision. Undeviating focus on student learning Shared sense of purpose focused on goals.

Collective learning and application

Apply new ideas Collective inquiry Expand capacity to collectively create desired results.

Shared personal practice Deprivatization of practice Teachers openly share successes and challenges.

Supportive conditions relationships structures

Relationships based on trust, respect and genuine ethic of caring. Structures include school size, physical proximity, communication systems, time and space that facilitates teachers engaging in examination of instructional practices.

DuFour and Eaker (1998) in their book, Professional Learning Communities

placed PLCs within the trajectory of school reform efforts. Their work drew upon the

dimensions identified in the existing research literature and added a more explicit action

orientation and experimentation driven by an unrelenting focus on results (Dufour &

Eaker, 1998). In Dufour and Eakers new model of PLCs, practitioners turn

aspirations into action and visions into reality (DuFour and Eaker, 1998, p. 27). To

cultivate the reflective practice, focused on student learning and experimentation among

teachers, the authors argue that educators should consider the National Board for

Professional Teaching Standards seriously (i.e., emphasize learning rather than

teaching, design engaging curriculum, focus on student performance, collaborate with

31

colleagues, accept responsibility for student success, be lifelong learners, and function as

transformational leaders) (DuFour and Eaker, 1998).

Critiques of the Schools as Communities Approaches

Skeptics have raised questions about the efficacy of initial efforts to implement

community-based approaches to school reform. Criticisms fall into two broad categories.

The first set of arguments challenges the unproblematic image of the school as

community presented in the literature. The second set of arguments casts a critical light

on more recent efforts to implement the professional learning community model as

presented in popular educational leadership literature. Both categories of critiques are

explored below.

Huberman (1993) countered images of the schoolhouse as a bonded community

of adults and children with his artisan model of teaching (p. 11). Teaching, according

to his argument, is based on a highly individualistic and context-sensitive (p. 22) base

of professional knowledge honed through personal experiences in the classroom engaging

with students. Therefore, efforts to foster collective working arrangements impeded

individual creativity and discretion (Huberman, 1993).

Other educational researchers have criticized Sergiovannis metaphor of school

as community based on its overemphasis on commonalities. These writers argue that

communities, especially professional communities among teachers, are far from uniform

and cohesive. Differences in values and ideologies emerge when teachers begin to work

together that are not adequately accounted for in images that focus almost exclusively on

common bonds (Achinstein, 2002b; Calderwood, 2000; Furman, 1998; Westheimer,

1999).

32

Hargreaves (1993) has highlighted the fundamental flaw of emphasizing

commonalities at the expense of divergent points of view. He cautioned against placing

too great an emphasis on shared values and ideas at the expense of the power to make

independent judgments and to exercise personal discretion, initiative and creativity

(Hargreaves, 1993, p. 69). Hargreaves pointed out that requiring collaboration could

potentially stifle opportunities for independence and initiative that may undermine

teachers competence and effectiveness. Mandated collegiality may inadvertently push

dissent underground and outside the realm of public discussion (Hargreaves, 1993).

Hargreaves has also noted that efforts to implement PLCs through top down mandates

run the risk of leading to contrived collegiality in which teachers go through the

motions without engaging in deeper examinations of practice (Hargreaves, 1991).

More recently, Giles and Hargreaves (2006) have questioned the paradox of

learning organizations and communities in education at the precise moment when

greater pressure for standardized reforms have been exerted upon schools (Giles &

Hargreaves, 2006)(p. 153). Hargreaves (2007) argued that as educational leaders have

taken the ideas behind PLCs and implemented them: the result is that their original

meaning is becoming diminished and their richness is being lost (p. 183). In the onward

march to meet performance targets and avoid sanctions stipulated by state and federal

accountability systems, Hargreaves argues that PLCs run the risk of becoming becoming

instruments of technocratic surveillance and oppression (p. 184).

33

Authentic Teacher Collaboration

Definition

An exploration of the conditions that foster authentic collaboration requires

clarification of this term. Specificity in the application of this term is particularly

important given the slippery nature of the use of the language describing collective work

among teachers and the broad range of activities that been used to characterize

collaborative practices. For the purpose of the present investigation, Littles research

suggests key elements in a working definition of authentic collaboration shared sense of

responsibility for teaching, group ties based on professional obligations, and collective

support for developing professional practices. There is an underlying interdependence

that characterizes this work based on the notion that the success of all is inextricably

linked (Little, 1990b).

Talbert and McLaughlins research further elaborates upon this notion of joint

work by highlighting other critical components of authentic collaboration. In their

analysis of teachers professional communities, they emphasize the importance of

opportunities to learn, collegial support for learning and experimentation as well as

collective problem solving. In addition to technical knowledge, their work also suggests

an ethic of service that is grounded in mutual respect and caring for students,

expectations for achievement (Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994, 2002).

The present study draws upon the existing body of work to propose a working

definition of authentic collaboration. This type of exchange is characterized by: active

engagement in professional learning (P. Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001;

Wegner, 1998), a shared commitment to and clear focus on improving student outcomes

34

that are guided by an ethic of service (Little, 1990c; M.W. McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001),

grounded in mutual respect and caring for others (S. D. Kruse, et al., 1995; Lieberman &

Miller, 2008). It also involves a process of self-reflection and openness to challenging

existing beliefs and assumptions (Bolam, et al., 2005; Stoll, et al., 2006). In addition,

professional communities engaged in genuine collaborative dialogue address conflict and

divergent points-of-view openly and directly (Achinstein, 2002a; de Lima, 2001;

Hargreaves, 2001). These kinds of interactions are qualitatively different than those

based exclusively on social or personal ties. As Grossman, et. al. and others have

pointed out a collaborative professional community is not simply any group of teachers

assembled (Pamela Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2000).

Organizational Learning

The move toward creating collaborative working arrangements among teachers

has been guided by a desire to promote teacher learning as a way of making schools more

responsive to a diversity of student needs. Garvin (1991) notes that without learning,

organizations simply repeat old practices, resulting in cosmetic changes and

improvements that are either fortuitous or short-lived (p. 78). While there appears to

be broad agreement on the potential benefits of collaboration for organizational learning,

its purpose is oftentimes not made explicit (Dufour & Eaker, 1998; Hord, 2009;

Leithwood, Leonard, & Sharratt, 1998; Louis, 2006b; Louis, Kruse, & Raywid, 1996;

Scribner, et al., 1999). The lack of clarity as to aims has led to slipperiness in terms of

how to foster learning within organizations that makes a difference.

Before proceeding with an examination how collective work can or cannot

facilitate organizational learning, it is necessary to define the assumptions underlying the

35

call for greater collaboration among teachers. The literature on professional communities

is grounded in the assumption that learning is a collective process (Fullan, 2001).

Through dialogue and critical reflection on their teacher practices, educators develop new

knowledge base within the team that they can apply to their professional work (Mitchell

& Sackney, 2001). Organizational learning, therefore, is not simply a accumulation of

individual knowledge acquisition; but rather, through mutual engagement the members of

the community construct new meanings and create new professional practices (Louis,

1994; Wenger, 2000).

Types of Organizational Learning

Achinstein (2002) and others have identified two broad categories of

organizational learning 1) focuses on making adjustments by detecting problems and

devising solutions directed at incremental change and 2) focuses on critical reflection and

inquiry as foundation for fundamental change (Achinstein, 2002a; C. Argyris & Schon,

1978; March, 1991; Mezirow, 2003; Servage, 2008). Argyris (1993) characterized these

two types of learning within organizations as single-loop learning or refining specific

techniques within an existing structure and double-loop learning which involves a social

process of engaging in critical dialogue and sharing of understandings that leads to an

examination of the underlying assumptions that supports the existing situation (Chris

Argyris, 1993). Scribner, et.al. (1999) suggest that double loop learning is critical to

sustain professional communities (Scribner, et al., 1999).

Despite its potential for fundamental change of professional practices, deep

learning has proven elusive. According to Argyris, it is, perhaps, sometimes the very

success in single-loop learning that stands as an obstacle to deeper levels of learning.

36

He concludes when these kinds of strategies do not work, professionals tend to respond

defensively by casting blame on others, not themselves (C. Argyris, 1991). Argyriss

insights suggest that if we are to avoid falling into the quagmire of defensiveness, and

thus closing off possibilities to new learning, educators need to find ways of fostering

conditions that support engagement in a critical evaluation of existing ideas and practices

in light of new information.

Much of the literature on professional learning communities resonates with the

notion of instrumental learning (Dufour, 2004; Dufour & Eaker, 1998; Hipp, Huffman,

Pankake, & Olivier, 2008; Hord, 1997). Dufour, et. al. have written extensively on the

role of these kinds of communities in fostering professional development among teachers

and in improving student learning (Dufour & Eaker, 1998). These authors tend to present

teacher collaboration as a self-fulfilling process that leads to continual improvement.

This work seems to follow a logic that defines successful reform efforts in terms of

teachers working collaboratively, identifying instructional goals, and changing classroom

practices. According to this line of thinking, in the process they develop a sense of

collective self-efficacy as they see the impact of their actions on student learning which

feeds the cycle toward greater improvement (Dufour, 2004; Schmoker, 2006; Strahan,

2003). This work seems to suggest that by simply putting the structures of team meeting

logs, specific and focused instructional goals, common assessments and key questions

into place, meaningful collaboration follows.

The underlying logic of the popular literature on PLCs, in its emphasis on

process and procedural aspects of collaboration, places this model in a contradictory

relationship with double loop learning. Servage (2008) argues that: The problem

37

with professional learning communities is that they largely focus on instrumental

learning, yet anticipatethe transformative impact of communicative learning (p. 69).

The instrumental model of learning posits that with the arrangement of the right pieces

aimed at a specific objective, instructional changes will result.

The current study explored teacher collaboration within the context of

organizational learning that involve active engagement in challenging underlying

assumptions upon which instructional practices are based. Thus, particular attention was

focused on the conditions and intergroup dynamics that support deeper levels of learning.

Organizational Learning and Conflict

Educational researchers emphasis on the necessity for shared values and like-

mindedness as an essential component to teachers professional communities may

overlook the importance of divergent points of view in the change process (Cole, 1991;

Hargreaves, 1991). McLaughlin and Talberts study of collective work of high school

math teachers cautioned against collaboration for the sake of collegiality. Their work

suggests that establishing collegial relationships is not sufficient (M.W. McLaughlin &

Talbert, 2001). In some instances, these kinds of working relationships can serve to

reinforce ineffective instructional strategies (Lima, 2001; M.W. McLaughlin & Talbert,

2001). Based on her research on schools within so-called collaborative cultures, Little

pointed out that the connection between collegial work cultures and changes in

instruction cannot be assumed to be direct or solid. She argued that such work groups

can be both a vehicle for change and for maintaining the status quo (Little, 1990b).

Along similar lines, other researchers have highlighted the emergence of conflict

as teachers begin to enter into collaborative working arrangements (Abbate-Vaughn,

38

2004; Achinstein, 2002b; de Lima, 2001; Hargreaves, 2001). Lima (2001) argued for a

rethinking of the intersection between professional and interpersonal relationships within

a school community. Lima pointed out that friendships among teachers might actually

serve to reinforce the status quo, because they may be reluctant to challenge each other.

In his work, he noted that friendships may actually work against efforts at school change

(de Lima, 2001). Drawing upon Limas research, Hargreaves also noted a tendency

among teachers to value appreciation, personal support and acceptance when working

collectively; however, they also tend to avoid conflicts with those they regarded as close

friends and those they regarded as more distant professional colleagues (Hargreaves,

2001). This avoidance of disagreements and conflict may interfere with the kind of

critical scrutiny and exploration of existing practices required for school improvement

efforts (Hargreaves, 2001).

The role of conflict in organizational learning captures the central paradox of the

need for commonality, yet divergence to continually grow. Uncovering these dynamics

requires an examination of the points of divergence between teachers operating from very

different points-of-view or theories-in-use. Based on case studies of two urban, public

middle schools, Achinstein found that conflict, rather than being a source of pathology

and dysfunction, can be an important source of new learning (Achinstein, 2002a). Her

findings suggest that: communities that can productively engage in conflicthave

greater potential for continual growth and renewal (Achinstein, 2002b, p. 448). She

further argues that: the ability to engage in critical reflection and openly explore dissent

is vital to fostering a renewing and learning community (Achinstein, 2002a, p. 123).

39

Based on her own research, Achinstein called for further resear