Collaboration

Collaboration is currently a buzzword in society. We talk about the need for this skill more and more in the second decade of this century. People are intertwined as never before and dependent on each other. Fewer and fewer jobs are done in isolation. Many schools now focus on collaboration as a skill to be taught/exercised instead of requiring exclusively individual work.

Collaboration, like anything, has great benefits and some drawbacks. The benefits are many: shared experience, larger conversation, deeper learning using multiple perspectives, cooperation and problem-solving skills, etc., etc. The main drawback I've noticed is the need for collaborators to rely on others who may not be as reliable and dependable as they need to be. This definition of "not as reliable" may be real or perceived, but the result is the same. Our students express this frequently which is why we usually allow them to choose their own partners. At least when they do this they can only blame themselves when they choose poorly. In every project we have meltdowns and disintegrations and also some pairs who work together in surprisingly efficient ways.

Our team of teachers is currently experiencing some collaboration pains. The struggles and what they reveal about our personalities, philosophies, strengths and weaknesses have been more surprising than most of us anticipated.

Teachers, I've realized, are naturally independent creatures. That may be one reason teaching is chosen by some as a profession. Most teachers in the traditional environment find themselves as sovereigns (or dictators—benevolent or not) of their particular rooms. They decide what will be taught, for how long, the activities, the desired outcomes, etc. They even decide the class norms for behavior and seating. All of this gives teachers great control and autonomy. Many love this more than they realize. They come to expect it and depend on it. Sure there are outside influences: those pesky administrators who impose their own agendas and who occasionally visit, fellow colleagues who are part of the same PLC (Professional Learning Community), etc. Yes, there are curriculum requirements from these or from the district and state and/or curriculum committee, but to a large degree what actually happens on a daily basis in a particular classroom is largely up to individual teachers.

We've taken away much of that with our current PM program. There is still autonomy in how various pieces of each project are conducted by teachers, but mostly the planning and execution have gone from individual purview to a collaborative effort. This means that teachers no longer plan in isolation, but come together as a group to work through a comprehensive plan to be use by all teachers in all content areas. This is cross-curricular planning across the board.

What has surprised us is the difficulty of this approach. Before, each teacher could spend as much (or as little) time as they saw fit to plan their day, week, unit, quarter, semester. This could be done at any time and could be paused and restarted at will. Now, others and their personal time commitments, viewpoints, opinions, personal preferences and styles have to be considered. Teachers can't plan in a vacuum; they have to share their ideas and make those fit with what others want to do.

The advantages to this are obvious to our team. We all bring ideas in and they are discussed, dissected, torn apart and reassembled into projects which are stronger and better than what we would have planned on our own. We all love this aspect of cross-curricular planning.

The disadvantages are as painful as the advantages are pleasing. Time is one of the big factors. When do we meet? What do we do when we meet so we can get the most accomplished? We've had sessions lapse into brainstorming and/or philosophy sessions that net us little preparation for the upcoming face time with students even though they are great for big-picture planning. Personalities are another stumbling block. We have those who prefer to plan every detail to the minute while others prefer the "wing it" style. There are those who prefer to process verbally and others who are internal thinkers. We have visual learners and listeners. We have those who prefer to hash through details in the group and others who simply want the big concept and expect everyone to work through details on their own. This can lead to trust (or distrust) issues. One person's idea of "prepared" may look quite different from another person's idea of "prepared". One person feels like they've put in much more time and effort than others. Add to all of this varying educational philosophy differences and you end up with a group attempting some Herculean tasks. In many cases, the result has been frustration and an overall feeling that we "aren't prepared" and "never accomplish much".

Much of this is not new to groups who collaborate in other professions. Group norms and expectations help alleviate much of this stress. Adequate meeting time and accountability for work outside the group meeting also help. But, these things are new to many teachers who have never had to think of these things before—at least to this degree.

I think it's great. I think it strengthens the whole effort and us as individuals as well. I think the ultimate result is improved instructional design, delivery and results. The painful process of establishing and following norms is just part of the learning experience. I'm not sure my team embraces these ideas as enthusiastically as do I. I have to be careful as a leader to point out progress, remind us of our intentions, encourage people to share and explore differences and find ways to exploit individual strengths while minimizing weaknesses.

Our team has had some painful (but constructive) sharing sessions which have revealed many of these, and other concerns. We have expressed frustrations and made commitments to work in ways that foster collaboration, but we haven't always followed through as intended. We all have perceptions and assumptions that are both good and bad about each other and ourselves. I think most of the team is willing to find that elusive middle ground of compromise. It's working. It's good. It's beneficial to our program and to us as individuals, but it's not fun at times. I've heard everyone express positive things that each has gained in this set up. I know we've all been surprised about what we've re-learned from each other's content areas. We celebrate when students make the connections we planned for them to make. We are encouraged when they tell us they like this system. I think we all ultimately like what is happening, even though it seems like it would be easier to go back to a more individualized system.

Cross-curricular collaboration is not easier, in fact, in many ways it is much harder than individual autonomy. It takes more time, takes more consideration of others, is slower and much more complex. However, when we find the right working balance, the results can be truly amazing. Synergy is defined as

"the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sumof the individual elements, contributions, etc."

We hope to have more/better synergy as we continue the process of collaboration. Have we been tempted to quit this and return to what is easier? Absolutely. Cross-curricular collaboration is NOT irresistible. It is easily resisted and has been by many teachers in many situations for decades. However, the result of effective cross-curricular collaboration IS irresistible. It's worth the pain. Now, I just have to keep working to continually convince my team of that.