10.2: Collaboration
OPERATION: COLLABORATION
The following is a collaborative project collaborated upon by collaborators
Brett Baltz and Molly Whitecotton.
Throughout the course of the semester, Brett & Molly have been conspiring,
cooperating and collaborating to accomplish several tasks.
The following reflection is a product of this collaboration.
This top-secret project is CoT-classified.
In the simplest of terms, collaboration means working together. To reinforce this concept and demonstrate how we, as a collaborative team, meet the requirements for this expectation, Brett and Molly have literally joined forces to complete this assignment. Collaboration, in terms of teaching, can mean working together with others for the benefit of students. The ambiguous term, “others” can and should include reaching out to students, parents, colleagues, assistants, specialists, administrators, law enforcement authorities, government agencies, and community organizations in order to develop and improve instruction.
In the Big Monday Seminar group for Community of Teachers collaboration was not only our semester topic for Spring 2005 but it is also something that is put into practice by its members on a weekly basis. For example, when two or more people are responsible for planning the class, collaboration is vital. Moreover, one of the core values of the C.O.T. program is learning from and working with others to improve one’s practice. The evidence and reflection that follows has been included to show how we collaborate with others to the benefit of ourselves, the students in Big Monday and ultimately the students in our classrooms.
Successful collaboration requires patience, practice and a basic understanding of and commitment to certain underlying elements. These elements have both personal and collective implications and characteristically outline collaboration as a well-defined process. First, the process of collaboration must begin with willing participants. If the parties entering into such a relationship are not voluntarily joining the collective effort, then the remaining necessary characteristics which include equality in decision-making and sharing resources will never be realized either. Evaluating true intentions and personal objectives are good analyses that may help determine the extent to which an individual is voluntarily participating.
Voluntary participation leads directly into the next defining characteristic of parity. Parity refers to the equality of the value of the individuals in the group. Recognizing the voice of each member equally creates a stimulating environment that invites all ideas and weights all opinions equally. With true parity, leadership emerges only as an individual strength or expertise, not as a function of recognition or importance. Leaders emerge because of their ability to organize group dynamics not to impose their ideas upon the group.
Before the real work can begin, there must be agreement upon the goals and objectives of the collaborative process. Mutual goals align the ideas and attitudes of the participants so that meaningful and efficient work can be accomplished between meetings and activities. Knowing that fellow collaborators are boosting you up by enhancing different components of the same vision builds trust and camaraderie among the participants and ensures that destructive behavior or obstacles are not introduced into the process.
Once the focal point has been established, the distribution of labor occurs. Collaborators share participation in the process by dividing the work in a convenient manner. This division is understood not to necessarily mean equal or proportional work. Participants use factors such as available time, contributed resources, interest, expertise, talent and frames-of-reference to sensibly fragment the tasks to best suit the individual. This approach guards against burn-out, unfair loads and unwanted responsibilities. Responsibility is recognized as more dutiful when it is appropriate in level and is not overwhelming.
The resources required in a collaborative effort may vary greatly. True collaboration expects an equitable and open sharing of all resources. A list of both tangible and intangible resources may include money, equipment, facilities, knowledge, talent, time, interpersonal connections, etc. In fact, given the presence of the rest of the defining characteristics, it would not be completely inappropriate that a member of the collaborative process be participating solely to take advantage of the resources he possesses.
Finally, we recognize that, from the onset, the entire group shares the accountability for the successes and failures of the objectives. This occurs through collective feedback and holistic reflection. This component of the collaborative effort is easy to lose interest in as a wrap-up, but with all of the other characteristics still in place, this reflective part is perhaps the most important one. It is an opportunity to honestly evaluate both the process and the product. Was there truly parity? Were all of the resources made accessible? Were the goals defined clearly enough to execute and still be shared? As the final stage in the process, accountability is often an excellent springboard for the next effort.
Now that we have defined the characteristics and implications of collaboration in terms of teaching, it is important to focus on how we specifically succeeded in working together, presenting multiple perspectives and applying what we achieved to our current and future teaching. In terms of evidence, we have included e-mails that articulate our organizational abilities and that demonstrate the give and take of our collaborative effort. We have included copies of the articles we assigned that directly relate to the topic of collaboration (Students as Co-Teachers and Student Insights), the student responses to collaboration questions in both written and video format, process observations from the seminar meetings, and finally seminar evaluations we received from our peers and facilitator.
In planning to facilitate the Collaborating with Students seminars, we naturally took a collaborative approach. We agreed that the three of us (Brett, David and Molly) were willing to work together to present a well-rounded presentation of materials and activities. We agreed that it was important to plan ahead in order to make our ideas and materials accessible to the group well in advance of the class meeting. We also understood that one of the members required more of a directive due to personal conflicts, but it soon became evident that he would not be a voluntary participant at all.
From the rough outline of the two seminar agenda, we were able to distribute his responsibilities among ourselves as they were suited to our strengths and the components we were already individually creating. We selected reading assignments based upon material we both found suitable for the class discussion. But there were readings that spoke to us personally as well, and we agreed to use them as inspiration for the activities we were individually leading.
The great thing about all of the readings is the recognition of the student voice. Despite their academic performance in our class, our students are competent, social, insightful, and motivated people nearing adulthood. Like teachers and other adults, they long to contribute. When they are encouraged to direct their own learning or the learning of others, dynamic connections are made. Big Monday responded positively to the assigned readings. Based upon the feelings that emerged from the activities and discussions, the empowerment of students will emerge in all of our classrooms. Since CoT is designed largely as a student-directed program, it came as no surprise that the group embraced these seminar meetings with lively discussion and creative ideas.
In reflecting upon the collaborative experience and the positive feedback we received from our peers, our divide-and-conquer approach was a success. We were able to draw upon our individual experience and strengths to assemble two cohesive, informative and enriching seminar meetings that engaged the class in a meaningful way. Although we began the process with a mutual respect for one another’s abilities, that grew into a trust. We became confident in one another’s ability to prepare, perform, and at times redirect planning or discussion. Combined with our value of the interpersonal style, this trust led us to the collaborative approach to this expectation. When a successful collaborative team is assembled, it is easy to extend the process into new areas.
In terms of collaborating with students, the written responses and video demonstrate how we value information and input from our students. In general terms, the majority of students understood that collaboration means working together. Some even provided specific examples such as projects, Student Council and help sessions. More specifically, the data we collected as a group revealed that most of the students seemed to feel that teachers genuinely care about their students. One member mentioned that most of his urban students answered to the contrary. The importance of connectivity with students was emphasized. It does not have to be a willingness to stay after school, but connecting in class, in the hall, at lunch, and extra-curricular activities demonstrates to students that you care about more than just what happens in the classroom. Furthermore, it is clear that sharing the feedback with each other was an effective way to listen to and learn from others in order to benefit our students.
In addition to the meaningful discussion of student responses, the included Seminar Evaluation forms indicate that our collaborative effort in leading the seminar for two weeks was engaging and successful. The evaluations state that we, as co-presenters, provided insight to Student Collaboration, utilized time wisely, allowed adequate discussion time, and presented information that can be used in the classroom. Some members commented that we “did a great job” in terms of keeping the discussion going and others revealed that they thought the readings were good. It was also stated that we did well in getting at the material and discussing the readings. It is evident from our satisfactory evaluations that not only do we work well together with each other to achieve a common goal, but that we collaborated with all members to learn more about Student collaboration.
True collaboration embodies all of the characteristics defined and mentioned herein. Equally important might be the understanding of collaboration as a process. It is not an action. It is not something you do once, but a collective commitment to engaging in a series of actions. So important is this to understanding the nature of collaboration that it may be more appropriately termed “collaborating.” This better describes the ongoing nature of collaboration as a process, a style, and an ensemble. As a collaborative team and proud members of the Indiana University Community of Teachers, we believe the evidence presented and the reflection provided demonstrates how we collaboratively meet the requirements for this expectation.
