Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

FACILITATORS TO COLLABORATION BETWEEN TEACHERS:
EFFECTS OF GENDER, TEACHING EXPERIENCE AND SUBJECT AREA

Authors: José Castro Silva & José Morgado
Contact: jcsilva@ispa.pt

The present article reports results from a study that aimed to identify the factors that facilitate collaboration among teachers. This study involved 444 teachers representing primary and secondary schools from several districts of Portugal. Female teachers are the most representative, contributing for approximately 75% of the total inquired participants. Participants' average age is approximately 40 years. 57% of teachers have teaching experience between 7 and 25 years. Finally, the subject area named "humanities" (e.g. Portuguese, French, English, and History) is the most representative (41.4%).

The study of variables that promote collaboration among teachers was centred in the following factors: personal and professional factors, team social climate, team organizational culture, communication skills, stress coping skills, and flexibility.

Personal and professional factors that facilitate collaboration between teachers involve personal motivation, receptivity or openness toward divergent opinions, organizational competence, flexibility, relationships between team members, sense of responsibility, reflexive capacity, competence to innovate, sense of humility, and volunteering.

The social atmosphere of teams is a factor that promotes the collaboration among teachers and encompasses sharing goals, mutual respect among team members, capacity to listen others’ suggestions and opinions, quality of the relationship among team members, quality of the communication processes, confidence on each other, and the existence of a leadership that guarantees the cohesion of the group.

The organizational factors that facilitate collaboration among teachers include the organization and administration of the teachers' schedules, existence of resources, definition and distribution of tasks, administrative support, and existence of evaluation procedures.

Teachers consulted in this study provide a high importance to communication. The communicational skills that roll a more moderate importance are the capacity of sharing information inside the team and the use of strategies that help colleagues to elucidate their opinions.

Most of inquired teachers admit that the ownership of good stress coping skills is favourable to the development of collaboration experiences.

The flexibility is the factor that promotes collaboration among teachers that registered the lower average values.

The implications of the results are discussed, as well are proposed future directions in this research domain.

INTRODUCTION

Collaboration between teachers is one of the elements that are contributing to the success of the reform movement which is under way in virtually every education system at the moment. This movement evokes the necessity to increase the quality and effectiveness of education processes, in order to reduce the high rates of academic failure, dropping out and exclusion from which a large swathe of the school population is suffering.

FACTORS THAT FACILITATE INTER-TEACHER COLLABORATION

The main purpose of collaboration in the scholastic context is to solve the problems that affect the ways in which schools work. It is in order to overcome the various difficulties that arise, one after the other, during the course of the education process (behaviour that breaches codes of conduct, students who display learning difficulties, etc.), that teachers and other professionals meet; and whatever co-operative practise they may adopt, the underlying driving force will always be the desire to resolve the extremely varied problems that teachers regularly come up against.

There is a much higher probability that a problem will be solved if people co-operate than if one of them tries to solve it alone, both because the co-operative interaction entails sharing knowledge and specialist know-how and because the articulation of different suggestions is more likely to lead to a better solution (Snell & Janney, 2000).

For collaboration to work in a scholastic or any other context, a number of prerequisites must be fulfilled in such a way as to get the members of a team to work together on problem-solving tasks. Teams can develop either a more direct type of collaboration – as in the case of co-operative teaching teams (Bauwens, Hourcade & Friend, 1989; Cook & Friend, 1991) made up of teachers who teach a subject together – or, on the contrary, an indirect type, one example of which are collaborative teams (Snell & Janney, 2000) composed of teachers, parents, the student(s), other members of staff and so on, who try to solve any problems together.

Whatever the configuration a particular case of collaboration may assume, there is a set of preconditions that it is essential to consider if the format is to function effectively and successfully (Friend & Cook, 2000; Rainforth, York, & Macdonald, 1992; Thousand & Villa, 1992). This set of factors that facilitate collaboration between teachers has been grouped into two dimensions: 1) the personal dimension, which includes factors associated with the teachers’ values, their communication skills, the existence of parity between them, a willingness to share, the voluntary nature of their collaboration, flexibility, openness to change and innovation and mutual respect and trust; 2) a professional dimension, which involves factors that are closely related to the teachers’ professional repertoires, such as the clarification of roles, the definition of objectives and joint planning, the leadership and evaluation of the co-operative work, support for the process of change and the organisational support provided by the school.

The Personal Dimension

framework of values.

Sharing a common framework of values is of capital importance to the quality of teamwork. The absence of a system of shared beliefs and values can have a negative influence on the conditions on which the success of co-operative work rests.

Walther-Thomas, Korinek, McLaughlin and Williams (2000) argue that the way in which a message, piece of information or suggestion is interpreted can depend on a series of conditioning factors, such as the academic training, culture and experiences of the teachers who attempt co-operative experiments ( Walther-Thomas, Korinek, McLaughlin, & Williams, 2000 ). Subjects who come from different cultures may react very differently to such situations. Walther-Thomas et al. (2000) give the example of Africans, who can interpret the term inclusion in a different way to people from other cultures, depending on past experiences related to the affirmation of their citizens’ rights in the 1960’s. Huberman (1990) is of the same opinion and says that most teachers only manage to work as a team if they possess compatible beliefs and approaches.

communication and quality of interaction.

Communication is the key to the success of good professional relationships (Dettmer, Dyck & Thurston, 1999). Collaboration must be based on a commitment that requires participants to be predisposed to listen and to clarify both own and other peoples’ ideas – a commitment that acts as a preventive strategy in the face of factors that inhibit interaction (Hanko, 1999).

Where communication’s role in the development of partnerships between teachers is concerned, when Fullan (1985) identified the factors that contribute to effectiveness, he put forward four variables that are linked to the internal dynamics of school organisational processes, one of which was the interaction and communication between educational agents. Basing themselves on a review of studies on the effectiveness of co-operative work, Thousand and Villa (1992) also conclude that sharing responsibilities and the existence of communication channels within a team are essential to the latter’s success.

The ability to listen is particularly important when co-operative relations are established in schools. It helps to clarify and understand the messages between the members of the body that maintains a co-operative relationship. The latter can only be developed by practise, inasmuch as this is what will enable the team members to develop their own style of communication, and via a willingness that makes it possible to understand the other members (Friend & Cook, 2000). It is thus important to employ strategies that will enable communication to be effective. When someone finds it difficult to understand a message, it is necessary to adopt a strategy – changing the way in which the message is being sent, for example (Friend & Cook, 2000).

Gable and Manning (1999) also suggest that ensuring that each person who intervenes in the process thinks about and organises his/her message, observing non-verbal language and using clear language are some of the strategies that can be selected. Even if the participants are not initially able to understand and be understood, they can learn to develop certain skills, such as paraphrasing and summarising contents, repeating the message, giving feedback and so on (Walther-Thomas et al., 2000), via which to overcome the barriers to communication.

parity.

Collaboration implies the existence of an atmosphere that promotes mutual support and respect (Hanko, 1999). Difference in status can interfere with the communication between the members of a team, for example. Parity signifies that all the members of a working group possess equal status and that they all have important contributions to make. This happens, for example, when regular education teachers, educational support teachers and the rest of the support services work together at the curricular development level and recognise that the conjugation of their individual know-how benefits both all the students (Rainforth & England, 1997) and, naturally, their own work.

sharing.

One of the most important factors in collaboration – a key element in fact –is sharing. By sharing experiences and knowledge with one another, the professionals involved in a collaborative process become aware of the importance of sharing a set of beliefs, attitudes and values concerning school, the objectives of teaching and learning (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995; Rainforth & England, 1997).

In turn, teachers who opt for the co-operative path must be ready to share the responsibilities for the decisions that need to be taken and the objectives behind them. Sharing responsibilities means that all the members of a team actively take part in meetings, contribute information and opinions and take responsibility for decisions (Rainforth & England, 1997). Similarly, they must be aware of the need to share resources, materials, time and especially the skills and ideas of the teachers involved (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995).

volunteering.

The social nature of collaboration implies willingness to volunteer and a personal commitment on the part of those who are going to participate in the work of the team. Some authors are of the opinion that collaboration should essentially be based on a voluntary regime and that it must not be imposed (Friend & Cook, 2000; Pugach & Johnson, 1995). Creating a co-operative culture involves building up working relationships that should be spontaneous and must not be the result of administrative constraints or coercive means which force teachers to participate in co-operative experiences (A. Hargreaves, 1998).

The various studies on the relationships that exist within the overall co-operative teaching picture point out the importance of the voluntary nature of collaboration (Luckner, 1999). The recommendations they make suggest that participation in such projects must be voluntary and not imposed – in other words, that teachers should be given the right to choose.

The requirement that collaboration should be voluntary also results from the need to avoid that which A. Hargreaves (1998) calls artificial collegiality, which is essentially characterised by the existence of professional relationships of the following kind: they are administratively regulated and imposed and do not grow out of an initiative on the teachers’ part; they are compulsory, which means that collegiality is an obligation; and they are oriented towards the implementation of measures that have been suggested by the school’s management or the central education services.

flexibility.

This factor in the promotion of collaboration between teachers is widely referred to in the literature. S. Stainback and W. Stainback (1990) suggest that in the light of the difficulties that can arise during the initial phases of the development of inclusive schools, particularly in terms of disagreements about the choices that ought to be made and the measures that should be taken, flexibility is a strategy that is crucial to the resolution of differences of opinion.

The Council for Exceptional Children (1994) also emphasises the importance of flexibility. One of the twelve proposals made by this association alerts us to the change of roles that can come about when scholastic integration experiments commence, and calls on participants to be aware of the need to maintain a degree of flexibility in the roles and responsibilities they take on.

openness to change.

The roles and demands that are inherent in collaboration imply that there must be an express willingness on the part of the participants to make substantive changes in the ways in which they work and interact with one another (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995).

Teachers quite often display significant levels of reluctance towards changes in the way in which they perform their professional duties. The fact is that for some teachers, processes of change can cause frustration and be synonymous with instability. Some of the schools that opt for the co-operative model initially find it hard to recognise the advantages associated with this way of working as a team. Willingness to accept these fundamental changes is the first step in the process via which schools really prepare themselves to respond to their students’ needs (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995).

respect, confidence, trust and attaching value.

Normally, the success of a co-operative experience underpins the development of a kind of commitment to future collaboration. It is only after a period of time in which trust, confidence and respect are established that professionals feel safe enough to completely explore co-operative relationships. Moreover, once such relationships have been established, they must be strengthened until trust between colleagues becomes one of the most important benefits of collaboration itself.

Notwithstanding the differences that exist to start with, differing skills and viewpoints permit a complementarity of resources that leads to more satisfactory results. Acceptance of colleagues and confidence in their skills inescapably leads to the recognition of and attachment of value to the other people’s contributions, even if their opinions and ideas are different.

The assumption is that the differing skills and abilities that teachers possess will take on a new meaning when the various synergies come into play. The success of a team would thus appear to depend on the ratification of and attachment of value to all the different points of view that arise (Hanko, 1999).

The Professional Dimension

clarifying roles.

Adopting a co-operative model or working as a team requires a change in professional roles and responsibilities ( Rainforth, York, & Macdonald, 1992 ).

This presupposition means that it is necessary to clarify the role that is allocated to each team member in a way that avoids overlapping or ambiguities in each person’s functions. In this respect Villa and Thousand (1993) particularly note that the simple fact that teachers call themselves a “team” neither means nor guarantees that they interact within a co-operative matrix. In order for a team to function effectively in the co-operative sense of the term, it must possess and use interpersonal relationship skills, including mutual trust, inter-group communication and the joint resolution of problems and conflicts. Hanko (1999) also emphasises this principle and calls attention to the usefulness of having participants in collaborative experiences play a role that is both facilitating and complementary to those of their colleagues, thereby reducing the negative effects that the replacement of their previous functions and roles can entail.

setting objectives and planning together.

The effectiveness of teamwork depends on both the clarity of the objectives the team has established and their appropriation by its members. The objectives that have been defined together are the team’s primary purpose and it is crucial that all its members have a clear understanding of the goals that have been set (Friend & Cook, 200).

Research conducted in an organisational context (West, 1990) shows that teams which possess clearly defined objectives are in a better position to take part in the development of new working methods and display more favourable attitudes towards innovation and change. West (1990) argues that the need for this process of establishing objectives is determined by various factors, amongst which it is possible to underline the clarity of the objectives or the degree to which the members of the team understand them, the responsibility which the team members take upon themselves and also the extent to which the objectives are accepted within the team.

Another significant element is that the teachers who begin a co-operative process should plan what they are going to do in a careful and timely manner, before they start to actually work together. Most teachers commence co-operative teaching at the beginning of a school year, which means that many of them feel the need to plan the first week of classes during the holidays (Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996). Planning together offers the advantage that teachers will establish working routines with their colleagues and become more familiar with each other’s skills, interests and styles of working (Walther-Thomas et al., 2000).

leadership and evaluating work.

Leadership abilities refer to the strategies that help a group to function effectively and progress towards its objectives. If we take this perspective as a starting point, it should be clear that any member of the team who has not been designated as its leader can also play an active part in facilitating the team’s progress (Friend & Cook, 2000).

The team’s work should also be the object of continuous evaluation. When a team comes together to work co-operatively, the evaluation of that work is important because it makes it possible to think about the projects that have been pursued and thus to improve or adjust them (S. Clark and D. Clark, 1997).

security and support for the process of change.

West (1990) is of the opinion that real involvement in a co-operative project depends on the existence of conditions that guarantee the security of the project’s members. This requirement must be sufficiently clear to those who intend to work as a team and must particularly take account of the variables that can undermine trust and consequently the desire to participate (Hanko, 1999). This means that a person’s willingness to participate (or lack thereof) is influenced by his/her perception of a set of indicators that tell teachers when support is lacking and/or by the appearance of variables that are perceived as threatening.

The importance of this factor is essentially related to the variables which come into play at the moments that are considered to be critical to the process involved in the change of practises. In co-operative contexts support for innovation is crucial, precisely to the extent that it offers a teacher or other member of the team the security he/she needs to introduce the desired change; and if the change is indeed going to take place, besides this feeling of security, two more imperative elements are the construction of positive expectations in terms of future performance and the re-establishment of the confidence of the most doubtful members of the team (Hanko, 1999).

organisational support.

Snell and Janney (2000) highlight the importance of the existence of administrative structures designed to support the development of co-operative practises in schools, inasmuch as the absence of a collaboration policy in a school can inhibit teachers’ willingness to really be a part of a co-operative experience.

As Rainforth and England (1997) say, organisational support is essential to the holding of team meetings, attendance at which is in turn important to the development of co-operative teaching, because the latter should be planned as it develops. It is thus necessary for the teachers and the other members of the team to be entitled to a space and a time that are dedicated to the functioning of the team itself.

The literature suggests a set of characteristics that determine the success or failure of experiences in which collaboration is an underlying element. We would particularly note teachers’ values, their communication skills, the existence of parity between them, the willingness to share, whether or not the collaboration is voluntary, flexibility, openness to change and innovation, respect and trust between the teachers, clear roles, defining objectives and planning together, the leadership and evaluation of the co-operative work, support for the process of change and the organisational support provided by the school. Working on the basis of a survey of these factors that promote collaboration between teachers, the objective of this study was to answer the following general question:

• What are the factors that promote collaboration between teachers?

The integration of socio-demographic variables into the study also led us to address a number of specific questions that help to answer this general one:

• Do the factors that favour collaboration between teachers differ depending on gender?
• Do the factors that favour collaboration between teachers differ depending on the number of years spent teaching?
• Do the factors that favour collaboration between teachers differ depending on a teacher’s subject area?

METHOD

Participants

This study involved 444 teachers who currently teach at schools located in various places in mainland Portugal. The sample group was not probabilistic and the sampling technique used was that of convenience (Carmo & Ferreira, 1998). The respondents were all teachers who offered to take part in the study.

Table 1 describes the participants’ distribution in relation to the variables we studied. If we look at column 1 (the gender variable), we find that the group composed of female teachers is the most representative, in that it includes around 75% of the respondents.

A glance at the age variable shows that the 35-42 year-old group is the largest and that the overall average age of the participants is around 40 (we defined four age groups for statistical purposes – see Table 1).

The third variable we studied, for which we have used the abbreviation TE (teaching experience) was based on the intervals that characterise the professional life cycle proposed by Huberman (2000), and is also organised into four stages. The third of these – between 7 and 25 years spent teaching – is the most representative, containing as it does more than half (57%) of the subjects.

The fourth and last variable we looked at is the subject taught, in which the ‘humanities’ (41.4%) was the most common.

Table 1

Socio-demographic details of the participants

F = female | M = male | TE = Teaching experience | n/a = not available / not known

Data-Gathering Procedures

The survey was put to a group of approximately 650 teachers. The questionnaires were given to the teachers personally and were accompanied by a letter that briefly described the structure of the survey and the objectives of the research and ended with a paragraph thanking the teachers for taking part. Once the survey and letter had been handed out, we set a date for collecting the forms, which it was agreed that the teachers would return, completed in eight days time. 444 of the 650 questionnaires were returned – a response rate of 68.3%.

The Instrument

preparation.

We constructed the instrument on the basis of an analysis of the literature and a study of a variety of documents. The result of this research enabled us to identify variables that could be included in the survey. Despite the shortage of studies that address this area, a review of the literature on collaboration between teachers helped us to isolate three central factors that have a positive or negative effect on collaboration: sharing (values, feelings, knowledge/know-how and skills); communication (the possession of skills and strategies); and flexibility (willingness to participate, personal and professional incompatibility). Listing these variables made it possible to draw up the pilot version of the instrument that we will now describe.

In an initial phase we carried out a pilot study on eight teachers working at different academic levels. Our aim was to check the clarity and coherence of the instrument’s vocabulary and the structure of the language it used, while simultaneously testing teachers’ receptivity and assessing the way in which both the questions and the answers were understood. We thus sought to avoid errors in terms of vocabulary and the way in which the questions were formulated, as well as any misunderstandings and ambiguities. During this pilot phase the questions were put just as they had been formulated and the subjects were asked to develop their answers fully or to comment on them and to make observations on the meaning they attributed to each question. By analysing the completed questionnaires and the retroactive information provided by the teachers, we realised that the extent of the questions made the questionnaire tiresome and we therefore eliminated some closed items.

Once this phase of cleaning up and modifying the questionnaire was finished, we conducted a small-scale experiment under conditions that were as far as possible similar to those that would apply to the definitive version. This phase constituted a pilot study, which was put to 63 subjects and was intended to enable us to evaluate the refusal rate, find out how people would react to the survey and discover whether the order in which the questions were posed would hinder the answers in any way.

The last stage of the construction process was to analyse the instrument’s trustworthiness. The result of an analysis of the reliability of the block of closed items was a = .81.

description.

The first page of the instrument contained a brief summary of the grounds for and objectives of the research project, the fact that the study was being conducted within the framework of a research centre belonging to a higher education institution, the reason why the questionnaire was being sent out and a short description of the general nature of the instrument, including the type of information that we were asking for, a formal declaration of the confidentiality and anonymity of the answers, and lastly, a request to help by filling out the questionnaire. The top of each page also included instructions to guide respondents in filling in their answers. The rest of the instrument was divided into two parts, which we will now describe.

The first part is composed of five open questions, which are designed to address the following topics: 1) A definition of collaboration; 2) A description of co-operative experiences; 3) The more and less positive aspects of collaboration; 4) Factors that help collaboration succeed; 5) Factors that hinder collaboration’s effectiveness.

The second part is made up of two sections organised in blocks of items, each of which evaluates a homogeneous theme. The first section, which looks at the conditions that favour collaboration and the challenges it faces, takes the form of a Likert-type scale. In all, it is composed of 35 items, which can be graded from 1 to 5, where 1 represents total disagreement and 5 represents total agreement. The reliability study on this first section indicated a Cronbach a value of .78. The second section, which is intended to explore teachers’ opinions on the impacts that collaboration can have at personal and organisational level, includes a scale of the Thurstone type composed of 12 dichotomous items.

A principal components factorial analysis (PCFA) of the scale (see Table 2) produced five factors. Only items with a saturation value of more than .40 were taken into account in the interpretation of the factors. Lastly we calculated the Cronbach alpha for each of the factors. The first is composed of eight items and was interpreted as ‘Communication Skills’ (ComSkil); the second – seven items – was termed ‘Flexibility’ (Flex); and the third and last factor that emerged from the PCFA was called ‘Stress Management’ (StressMan). The internal consistency coefficients for the three factors were .83, .79 and .73, respectively.

In summary, we identified the following latent variables:

• Communication Skills (ComSkil);
• Flexibility (Flex);
• Stress Management (StressMan).

Table 2

Matrix of Principal Components following Varimax Rotation

Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser’s Normalizatio n

Data Analysis

qualitative data.

We subjected the opinions we collected from the first part of the survey to a content analysis. This analytical technique permits the methodical treatment of information and testimonies that possess a certain degree of depth and complexity (Quivy & Van Campenhoudt, 1995). The category of content analysis that we used was the topic, which consists of highlighting the participants’ judgements by examining certain elements in what they say. We then performed a categorial analysis (Bardin, 1993), which enabled us to calculate and compare the frequency of certain characteristics, which had been previously grouped into significant categories. This procedure was based on the hypothesis that the more often a certain characteristic is referred to, the more important it is to the subject (Bardin, 1993). The categories were constructed on the basis of two major families: one addresses the ‘subjects’ perspectives’ (Bogdan & Biklen, 1994) and includes codes that were oriented towards forms of shared thoughts concerning the factors that favour or obstruct collaboration between teachers; the second groups together the ‘subjects’ thoughts about people and objects’ and involves codes which reveal the teachers’ perceptions of situations that make it possible to explain collaboration.

quantitative data.

The data that were gathered from the survey were subjected to a variety of statistical analyses, beginning with the procedures required to look at the preconditions in terms of the normality and the homogeneity of the variance.

Secondly, in order to analyse common parameters in the correlations between the different items in the questionnaire, we carried out a principal components factorial analysis. We then performed a series of variance analyses (univariate and multivariate ANOVA's) in order to obtain answers to the questions that we had posed on the existence of differences between teachers. In this we used the factors we had extracted from the PCFA as dependent variables and the gender, LOS (length of teaching service) and subject area as independent variables. We also carried out post hoc analyses for each of these variables, using Bonferroni and Tukey’s tests for multiple comparisons.

In those analyses in which the preconditions in terms of the normality and the homogeneity of the variance were not fulfilled, we resorted to non-parametric tests – namely the Kruskall-Wallis and MannWhitney tests. We considered figures of p<.05 to be significant

The results set out in this article refer to the qualitative treatment of the open question in the first part of the instrument, in which the teachers were asked to name the factors that facilitate inter-teacher collaboration, and the data obtained from the first section of the second part of the instrument, in which a Likert-type scale was used to look at the factors that promote collaboration.

RESULTS

The qualitative data that we obtained, as we said earlier, by means of an open question which explored the teachers’ perceptions about the factors that facilitate collaboration, were grouped together in three categories (‘personal and professional factors’, ‘group atmosphere’ and ‘organisational factors’), while the statistical treatment of the data extracted from the closed items gave rise to three factors (‘communication skills’ (ComSkill), ‘stress management’ (StressMan) and ‘flexibility’ (Flex).

Qualitative Data

After first describing the ‘personal and professional factors’ category, we will look in turn at ‘group atmosphere’ and ‘school organisational factors’, beginning in each case with a general outline of the results and then considering them in the light of the socio-demographic variables we studied.

Table 3

Percentage values for “personal and professional”, “group atmosphere” and “school organizational” factors”

personal and professional factors.

An analysis of the importance that teachers attached to the sub-categories of the ‘personal and professional factors’ category reveals the “…the will to collaborate with someone and share information, knowledge and experiences.” (‘motivation’, 27%), “Being receptive to other ways of working…” (‘receptivity’, 21.8%) and “Managing time and resources.” (‘organisational ability’, 12.5%) emerge as the most important personal and professional factors that favour collaboration between teachers.

A comparison of the groups into which we placed the teachers according to professional experience showed that the more inexperienced ones (1-3 years teaching) attach greater importance to motivation, whereas their more experienced counterparts (groups 2 and 3: 4-24 years teaching) attach more value to responsibility and sense of humour.

The most obvious differences revealed by crossing the ‘subject area’ variable and the subcategories related to the ‘personal and professional factors’ category concern the ‘sciences’ group, where the response frequency for the ‘responsibility’ subcategory was lower than expected, and the ‘arts’ group, where ‘professional affinity’ was considered more important than we had previously thought.

group atmosphere.

Those of the items that the teachers mentioned which fall into the ‘group atmosphere’ category ranked as the three most importanta are: ‘Uniform objectives.’ (‘sharing goals, 26.2%), ‘Respect for the participants’ ideas.’ (‘mutual respect’, 19.5%) and “Know how to listen to others.” (‘listening ability’, 17.8%)

A crossed analysis of the ‘number of years spent teaching’ variable and the subcategories that characterise group atmosphere enabled us to see that the less experienced teachers (1-3) valued listening ability more often than we had expected, whereas they attached less importance than expected to the subcategories ‘mutual respect’ and ‘leadership’. Their more experienced colleagues, on the other hand, stood out somewhat for the higher than expected value they placed on the ‘leadership’ subcategory.

school organisational factors.

The ‘organisational factors’ category refers to those aspects which, in the teachers’ opinion, are heavily dependent on a school’s organisational culture. The teachers referred “The existence of moments on the timetable that coincide with one another…” (‘timetable organisation’, 46.7%), “Physical spaces with suitable working conditions.” (‘resources’, 29.2%), “An effective distribution of tasks.” (task distribution’, 11.7%), “Possess sufficient support to make the project happen…” (‘school’s governing bodies support’, 8%) and “Exchange opinions and information throughout the work.” (‘evaluation’, 5.1%).

There was a strong convergence of opinions around the school-organisation-related factors that favour collaboration between teachers. The exception is the ‘resources’ factor, which was more important to female teachers.

A look at the school organisational factors that promote collaboration in the light of the different ‘subject areas’, produced a very homogeneous overall set of results. The only factor that was the object of different opinions is the ‘school administrative support’ organisational factor, which we found that ‘humanities’ teachers valued more than expected, whereas the ‘sciences’ group teachers did not attach sufficient value to it.

Also, data we obtained from crossing the ‘number of years spent teaching’ and the subcategories linked to the ‘organisational factors’ category showed that the relatively less experienced teachers (4-6 years teaching) are the ones who returned the most varied results. Compared to the remaining groups, they attach greater importance to task distribution and less importance to time schedules. Another element that particularly stands out concerns the third group (7-24 years), which we had expected to consider task distribution to be more important.

Quantitative Data

communication skills.

The overall average for the items that go to make up the ‘communication skills’ factor is a high one (M=3.58). The only items with a lower average are ‘ComSkil11’ and ‘ComSkil14’, which assess the capacity to share information within the working group and the use of strategies to help colleagues expound their opinions, respectively.

The highest average for the ‘communication skills’ factor was recorded by female teachers. A comparison between the averages for the two groups revealed that the results are both different and statistically significant (U=12.114, p=.0001). In fact female teachers consider sharing and the possession of communication skills to be more important than their male peers.

It was the teachers who had been exercising their profession for between 25 and 35 years who returned the lowest average (3.53) for the ‘communication skills’ factor. The highest average (3.64) was recorded for the teachers with 4 to 6 years’ experience. The conclusion we draw from this analysis is that less experienced teachers attach more importance to ‘communication skills and sharing’ than do their more experienced colleagues. However, a comparison of the averages for the different groups on the ‘number of years spent teaching’ scale did not reveal any statistically significant differences.

In general terms the teachers from all the subject areas valued communication (average = 3.07), albeit the ‘humanities’ group returned the highest result for the ‘communication skills’ factor and the ‘arts’ group the lowest one.

stress management.

The majority of the respondents agreed that possessing good stress management skills (M = 3.02) is positive for collaboration. The items with lower average values are ‘StressMan12’ and ‘StressMan19’, which seek to determine how important it is to spend time analysing problematic situations when working as a team, and whether it is important to mobilise strategies to deal with the anxiety and stress generated by the co-operative work.

The highest average for the ‘stress management’ factor was returned by male teachers. In general terms the answers suggest that both sexes attach a great deal of importance to stress management, but the men nonetheless display a tendency to value it even more highly.

In overall terms all the groups considered stress management to be important. However, in relative terms the highest average in this respect was returned by the teachers with between 4 and 6 years’ experience, while those who had spent more years teaching were the ones who attached the least importance to this factor.

Generally speaking the teachers from all the subject areas attach a significant degree of importance to ‘stress management’. However, the ‘sciences’ group valued it most and the ‘humanities’ group valued it least.

flexibility.

The ‘flexibility’ factor encompasses eight items, the overall average for which is 2.6. It is the factor with the lowest overall average and it is worth noting that the teachers did not consider: that it is important to have a dedicated space in which to engage in pedagogical activities (‘flex1’); that working as a team presupposes the development of an understanding attitude towards colleagues who arrive late for meetings (‘flex17’); and that the demands of teamwork require tolerance towards colleagues who do not comply with plans that have been made (‘flex20’).

The highest value for ‘flexibility’ was returned by female teachers. Notwithstanding the absence of any statistically significant differences, the data suggest that women teachers consider flexibility to be more important than do their male counterparts.

We found that the least experienced teachers (1-3 years teaching) returned the highest average (M=2.7) for this factor, while the lowest average was recorded for their colleagues with the most experience (25-35 years). A simple variance analysis revealed significant differences between the variables (F=3,942, p=0.009), which the Tukey test then clarified. In summary, comparisons of the (1-3 years) and (25-35 years) intervals and of the (7-24 years) and (25-35 years) intervals shows that the importance attached to flexibility tends to decrease as the number of years spent teaching increases.

In overall terms teachers from all the subject areas attributed a moderate degree of value to ‘flexibility’, although the ‘humanities’ area valued it most and the ‘arts’ group valued it least.

DISCUSSION

What are the factors that favour collaboration between teachers?

An analysis of the results enables us to argue that in overall terms, the success of inter-teacher collaboration experiences depends on personal and professional factors, the social climate within working groups, the organisational culture within teams, communication skills, the ability to manage stress and the flexibility displayed by the members of each team. Let us now take a more in-depth look at these factors.

personal and professional factors.

The personal and professional factors that facilitate collaboration involve motivation, receptivity or openness to different opinions, organisational ability, flexibility, personal affinity between the members of a team, sense of responsibility, ability to think about work, ability to innovate, sense of humour and the voluntary nature of participation.

Receptivity towards the contributions made by the rest of the team members is a crucial factor and decisively influences interactions between teachers. Bauwens and Hourcade (1995) argue that the roles and demands that are inherent in collaboration imply that there must be an express will on the part of the participants to make substantive changes in the ways in which they work and interact.

Despite the small contribution that the voluntary nature of participation makes to the promotion of collaboration, A. Hargreaves (1998) suggests that a co-operative culture obligatorily involves the construction of spontaneous working relationships and should not be determined by administrative constraints that force teachers to engage in co-operative experiences.

Friend and Cook (2000) and Pugach and Johnson (1995) are of the same opinion and say that collaboration should essentially be based on a voluntary regime and should not be imposed. Collaboration must also be voluntary because of the need to avoid artificial collegiality (A. Hargreaves, 1998). This type of collegiality is essentially characterised by the existence of professional relationships that are administratively imposed and regulated rather than arising out of an initiative on the part of the teachers themselves, thereby turning it into an obligation.

The importance of the voluntary nature of collaboration can be seen from the study by Luckner (1999), who recommends that teachers should be given the right to choose whether they take part in co-operative experiences.

A comparison between the groups we defined in terms of the teachers’ professional experience shows that those who had taught for between 4 and 6 years attach greater importance to organisational ability than do the other groups, while those who had been teaching for between 4 and 24 years value responsibility and sense of humour more than both their less and their more experienced colleagues. The concern that the less experienced teachers display in relation to elements that tell them about their own organisational capacity can be explained by a theme that is dominant during this phase of the teaching career – “groping for the truth” – in which, as a result of constant attempts and experimentation, teachers are led to introduce a high degree of organisation into their working habits (Huberman, 2000).

group atmosphere.

The social climate in working groups is a factor that can promote collaboration between teachers and should be made to address the need for common objectives, mutual respect between team members, the ability to listen to other people’s suggestions and opinions, the quality of the relationships between the members of the group, the quality of the communication processes that take place within it, the trust in the members of the team and the existence of a leadership that ensures the group’s cohesion.

Common objectives, mutual respect and trust between team members are determinant factors in the existence of a group atmosphere that is favourable to collaboration. Bauwens and Hourcade (1995) and Rainforth and England (1997) suggest that teachers should be made aware of the importance of sharing a set of beliefs, attitudes and values about school, the goals of teaching and learning, and that sharing is a key element in establishing co-operative experiences.

Where mutual respect is concerned, although there are differences between people in the initial phase of co-operative experiences, different skills and perspectives mean that resources can complement one another. Acceptance of and confidence in colleagues’ abilities leads to the recognition and valuing of their contributions, and the varied capabilities possessed by the different teachers take on a new meaning when their associated synergies come to the fore (Hanko, 1999). Kruger’s study (1990) also emphasises the importance of social support to the development of professional relationships.

The influence that elements which are highly dependent on communication (listening ability and inter-group communication) has on this factor matches the results of Welch and Tulbert’s study (2000), which demonstrates that communicational skills – characterised by the capacity to listen, the ability to express ideas and the use of body language – are a central aspect of collaboration.

The reference to leadership abilities underlines the importance of using strategies that help a group to function effectively and to progress towards its objectives – a process in which the team leader is asked to play an active role that facilitates the progress of the team (Friend & Cook, 2000).

organisational factors.

The organisational factors that work for the success of inter-teacher collaboration concern elements that describe a school’s organisational culture, the organisation and management of the teachers’ schedules, the existence of supporting resources, the definition and distribution of tasks, the support provided by the school’s managing and governing bodies and the existence of evaluation periods that provide the teachers with information about both progress and any difficulties that have been experienced.

When it comes to the importance that the existence of support structures possesses when it comes to introducing collaboration in schools, Snell and Janney (2000) emphasise that in order to minimise any possible resistance, it is important to tell people about the collaboration support structures and the conditions under which they function.

Rainforth and England (1997) also highlight the important function of organisational support, saying that it is indispensable for teachers to have a space and time that is reserved for the functioning of their team.

In a study that assessed a co-operative teaching experience, Trent (1998) also says that the support of the school’s governing bodies is fundamental, above all as regards their accompaniment of the initial phases.

The existence of moments reserved for evaluation purposes reinforces the need for teamwork to be the object of continuous assessment. The importance of evaluation results from the fact that it is indispensable to think about the experience that is under way and thus to be able to improve or adjust it (Clark & Clark, 1997).

The importance of evaluation processes, the support provided by governing bodies and the existence of resources are all organisational factors that are also referred to in the study by Welch and Tulbert (2000), but of the three, these authors particularly note evaluation because it is a core element of collaboration.

communication skills.

The teachers we consulted in this study attach considerable importance to communication – something that is confirmed by the high averages observed for this factor. The high weighting allocated to the processes that are inherent in communication is corroborated by Dettmer, Dyck and Thurston (1999), who suggest that communication is the key to successful professional relationships. In Hanko’s (1999) opinion, the predisposition to listen and the clarification of ideas are strategies that are fundamental to preventing the appearance of factors that inhibit interaction, and the capacity to listen is a determinant factor when co-operative relationships are established in schools (Friend & Cook, 2000).

The communication skills to which the respondents attached a more moderate importance are the ability to share information within the working group and the use of strategies via which to help colleagues express their opinions.

We can see that the female teachers considered ‘communication skills’ to be more important than did their male peers, and that the same was true of the less experienced teachers compared to their more experienced colleagues. One hypothesis that might explain the lower value that the more experienced teachers allocated to communication is the existence of an emotional distancing (Huberman, 2000) between older and younger teachers – an element that could make dialogue more difficult and thus lead to less flexibility and openness to communication.

stress management.

The majority of the respondents admitted that possessing good stress management skills is a favourable factor in co-operative experiences. In overall terms the answers suggest that both sexes attach a high level of importance to managing stress, but that this is even truer of male teachers than it is of female ones.

During the course of research dedicated to the study of the stress and satisfaction among education-support teachers, Eichinger (2000) discovered that female teachers found it more difficult to manage stress well than did male teachers.

If we take the number of years spent teaching into consideration, we see that it is the teachers with 4-6 years experience who consider stress management to be most important. This may be due to a major exposure to stress situations. On the contrary, it is the professionals with the most experience (25-35 years teaching) who attach the least importance to this factor. The serenity and confidence enjoyed by more experienced teachers (Huberman, 2000) could explain why they are the group which values this collaboration-promoting factor least.

flexibility.

Flexibility is the collaboration-promoting factor for which we recorded the lowest averages. We did observe that female teachers consider it to be more important than do their male counterparts and that the importance that teachers in general attach to it falls as the number of years spent teaching increase, thereby denoting a certain rigidity and wear that characterise the later stages of the teaching career.

The differences we found between the teachers with more and those with less experience can be interpreted in the light of the hypotheses put forward by Kemper, Othick, Warren, Gubarchuk and Gerhing (1996), who are of the opinion that increases in age are accompanied by psychological phenomena such as egocentricity and the problems linked to a loss of focus, which in turn lead to certain difficulties related to a linguistic inflexibility.

Generally speaking, the responses given by the teachers from all the different subject areas reveal that they considered flexibility to be only moderately important. However, the ‘humanities’ area stands out somewhat as the one whose teachers attach the greatest value to this factor, whereas – surprisingly – it is the ‘arts’ group that places the least importance on it. The apparent incongruence of this result is derived from an awareness that the teachers in the ‘arts’ area interact with one another more, which means that flexibility would logically be a privileged instrument in the relations between these professionals.

We will conclude this discussion of our results with a look at the relationship between the ‘gender’ and ‘number of years spent teaching’ variables and the factors that favour inter-teacher collaboration, from which we are able to draw a number of conclusions. Firstly, as the number of years in the profession increase, there is a tendency for male teachers to attach less value to communication-related issues. Secondly, female teachers place more importance on stress-management abilities when they are at the beginning of their careers, whereas, on the contrary, male teachers consider the capacity to manage stress well to be fundamental at the end of their teaching lives. Thirdly, we found that in the case of both sexes, the longer they spend teaching, the less flexible teachers become.

When it comes to the relationship between the ‘number of years spent teaching’ and the ‘subject area’ variables and the factors that favour collaboration between teachers, the results reveal the following pattern. First of all, and with the exception of the 1-3 year interval, there is a tendency for teachers in the ‘humanities’ and ‘arts’ groups to attach less importance to communication processes as they gain in experience. Among ‘sciences’ teachers, it is also those with more experience who attach less value to communications skills and sharing. Secondly, it is the ‘humanities’ and ‘arts’ teachers who have been teaching for between 4 and 6 years who place the greatest importance on stress management. Lastly, with the exception of the 4-6 year interval and whatever the subject area, there is a tendency to consider flexibility less valuable as the number of years spent teaching increases.

Implications of the Study

This research sought to study the factors that promote collaboration between teachers. We pondered the effects of the ‘gender’, ‘number of years spent teaching’ and ‘subject area’ variables, and the results we obtained enable us to suggest a number of implications. From the training point of view, it seems to us that initial teacher-training programmes need to consistently address the issue of collaboration in such a way as to contribute to both the optimisation of collaboration processes themselves and the minimisation of the personal difficulties felt by teachers that were revealed by this study. Alongside the implications for teachers’ work and teacher training, we would also make some suggestions as to future investigative work in this field. Where the factors that promote inter-teacher collaboration are concerned, there are still questions which deserve further research that would make it possible to clarify the incongruence of some of our data.

Firstly, as regards the ‘group-atmosphere’-related factors which facilitate collaboration between teachers, we found that ‘sciences’ teachers do not attach sufficient value to listening ability as a factor that promotes collaboration. Given this factor’s importance and especially its influence on the relational climate, can we estimate that placing less importance on this communicational factor means that this group of professional is less willing to co-operate? Future research could clarify the relationship between the willingness of ‘sciences’ teachers to co-operate and the value they attach to communication skills.

Secondly, in relation to the organisational factors, we found that ‘humanities’ teachers overvalue support from the school’s governing bodies, whereas ‘sciences’ teachers do not attach enough value to this factor. What are the variables that lead to these discrepancies? Can it be that the differences are justified by a greater involvement on the part of ‘humanities’ teachers in school management work?

Thirdly, our study of the factors linked to communication skills revealed that ‘sciences’ teachers with the most professional experience are the ones who attach the least value to communication skills. Does this posture reveal a greater degree of isolation within the profession on their part? How far this attitude affects teacher’s receptivity to co-operate?

We also found that ‘arts’ teachers are the ones who place the least importance on communication. This result was hard to believe, given the strong interdisciplinary component that characterises the work of the teachers in this subject area. What are the variables that contribute to this lack of perceived value? Can it be that this professional group’s involvement in co-operative experiences is mediated by other factors and that they therefore do without communication skills?

Fourthly, male teachers consider stress management abilities to be more important than do their female peers. Does the lower importance that the latter attach to this factor indicate that they also find it harder to manage stress? Do they find managing stress harder than their male colleagues?

We also found that it is the least experienced teachers who attach the greatest importance to stress management. Is this the result of a perception on their part that they do not possess strategies for coping with stress? Does the fact that they value this factor reflect an aspiration to possess more professional-stress-management skills?

The ‘sciences’ are the subject area that valued stress management least. Does this mean that science teachers find it harder to manage stress? Or, on the contrary, that the lack of importance they place on this factor is derived from a feeling of ease when it comes to dealing with stressful situations? Or that science teachers are less exposed to situations that induce stress? ‘Humanities’ teachers are those who attach the least importance to managing stress. Are ‘humanities’ teachers more competent stress managers?

These are questions that could be addressed in more depth in studies that relate the ‘gender’, ‘teaching experience’, ‘subject area’ and ‘stress-management skills’ variables highlighted in this study that favour collaboration between teachers.

References

Ainscow, M. (2000). The Next Step to Special Education: Supporting the Development of Inclusive Practices. British Journal of Special Education , 27 (2), pp. 76-80.

Bardin, L. (1993). L’analyse de contenu . Paris: P.U.F..

Bauwens, J. Hourcade, J. J. & Friend, M. (1989) Mainstreaming and cooperative learning strategies, Remedial and Special Education , 10 (2), pp. 17-22.

Bauwens, J. & Hourcade, J. J. (1995). Cooperative Teaching: Rebuilding the schoolhouse for all students . Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. (1994). Investigação Qualitativa em Educação: Uma Introdução à Teoria e aos Métodos . Porto: Porto Editora.

Carmo, H. & Ferreira, M. M. (1998). Metodologia da Investigação: Guia para Auto-aprendizagem . Lisboa: Universidade Aberta.

Clark, S. & Clark, D. (1997). Exploring the possibilities of interdisciplinary teaming. Childhood Education, 73 , pp. 267-271.

Cook, L. & Friend, M. (1991) Principles for the practice of collaboration in the schools, Preventing School Failure, 35, pp. 6-9.

Council for Exceptional Children (1994). 12 Principles for Successful Inclusive Schools. CEC Today Newsletter , May.

CSIE (1996). Developing an Inclusive Policy for your school: A CSIE Guide. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.

Dettmer, P. Dyck, N. & Thurston, L. P. (1999). Consultation, Collaboration, and Teamwork for Students with Special Needs (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Eichinger, J. (2000). Job Stress and Satisfaction among Special Education Teachers: effects of gender and social role orientation. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 47 (4), pp. 397-412.

Friend, M. & Bursuck, W. D. (1999). Including Students with Special Needs – A Practical Guide for Classroom Teachers (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Friend, M. & Cook, L. (2000). Interactions – Collaboration Skills for School Professionals (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.

Fullan, M. (1985). Changing processes and strategies at the local level. Elementary School Journal, 85 (13), pp. 391-421.

Gable, R. A. & Manning, M. L. (1999). Interdisciplinary teaming: solution to instructing heterogeneous groups of students. The Clearing House, 72 (3), pp. 182-185.

Hanko, G. (1999). Increasing Competence through Collaborative Problem-Solving: Using Insight into Social and Emotional Factors in Children’s Learning. London: David Fulton.

Hargreaves, A. (1998). Os Professores em Tempo de Mudança: O Trabalho e a Cultura dos Professores na idade Pós-Moderna. Lisboa: McGraw-Hill.

Huberman, M. (1990). The social context of instruction in schools. Comunicação apresentada ao Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Asociation (Boston, MA).

Huberman, M. (2000). O ciclo de vida profissional dos professores. In A. Nóvoa (Org.), Vidas de Professores (2ª ed., pp. 31-61). Porto: Porto Editora.

Kemper, S. Othick, M. Warren, J. Gubarchuk, J. & Gerhing, H. (1996). Facilitating older adults’ performance on a referential communication task through speech accommodations. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 3, pp. 37-55.

Kruger, L. J. (1990). Social Support and self-efficacy in problem solving among teacher assistance teams and school staff. Journal of Educational Research, 90 (3), pp. 164-168.

Luckner, J. (1999). An examination of two coteaching classrooms. American Annals of the Deaf, 144 (1), pp. 24-34.

Meijer, C. J. W. (2001). Inclusive Education and Effective Classroom Practices. Middelfart: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.

OCDE (1992). As Escolas e a Qualidade. Lisboa: ASA.

OCDE (1994). Effectiveness of Schooling and of Educational Resource Management: Synthesis of Country Studies. Paris: OCDE.

Pugach, M., & Johnson, L. (1995). Collaborative practitioners: Collaborative schools. Denver: Love.

Quivy, R., & Van Campenhoudt, L. (1995). Manuel de Recherche en Sciences Sociales . Paris : Dunod.

Rainforth, B., & England, J. (1997). Collaborations for Inclusion. Education and Treatment of Children, 20 (1), 85-104.

Rainforth, B., York, J., & Macdonald, C. (1992). Collaborative teams for students with severe disabilities: Integrating therapy and educational services. Baltimore, MA: Paul H. Brookes Co.

Snell, M. E., & Janney, R. (2000). Collaborative teaming . Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing C o.

Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1990). Support Networks for Inclusive Schooling: Interdependent Intgrated Education . Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Thousand, J., & Villa, R. (1992). Collaborative teams: a powerful tool in school restructuring. In R. Villa, J. Thousand, W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective education: An administrative guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 73-108). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes C o.

UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Paris: UNESCO.

Trent, S. C. (1998). False starts and other dilemmas of a secondary general education collaborative teacher: a case study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31 (5), 503-513.

Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (1993). Redefining the role of the special educator and other support personnel. In J. W. Putman (Ed.), Cooperative Learning and Strategies for Inclusion: Celebrating diversity in the classroom (pp. 57-91). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Co.

Walther-Thomas, C., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 255-265.

Walther-Thomas, C., Korinek, L., McLaughlin, V. L., & Williams, B. T. (2000). Collaboration for Inclusive Education – Developing Successful Programs. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Welch, M., & Tulbert, B. (2000). Practitioners’ Perspectives of Collaboration: A Social Validation and Factor Analysis . Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11 (3&4), 357-378.

West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 309-333). Chichester: Wiley.

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact