See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/29814600

Effective collaboration: Deep collaboration as an essential element of the

learning process

Article in Journal of Educational Enquiry · December 2003

Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

38 3,254

1 author:

George Head
University of Glasgow
23 PUBLICATIONS 268 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Open the Doors, Erasmus + project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by George Head on 25 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Educational Enquiry, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2003

Effective collaboration: deep

collaboration as an essential element
of the learning process

George Head
University of Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom

Abstract
Collaboration is a frequently used term in current educational debates.
However, the nature of collaboration and the possibilities it offers are
often assumed among practitioners. Where it is dealt with as
problematic, this tends to be at the operational level (Hargreaves
1992; O’Neill 2000). In this paper I argue that the process of
collaboration is more complex than it may initially appear, and use
Boreham’s (2000) research as a vehicle to explore this complexity. In
addition, I use Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development to provide
a possible theoretical explanation of why collaboration can be
effective. I also argue that collaboration works on two levels in a
manner akin to Argyris’ explanation of double-loop learning (Argyris
1992), and offer opportunities for the development of a creative
pedagogy. Lastly, I examine the implications of effective
collaboration for learners and professionals in communities of
support, practice and learning.

Introduction
The language of the current educational debate contains many key words,
such as inclusion, achievement and attainment. The way in which these terms
are used tends to suggest that the underlying concepts they refer to are
somehow understood in the same way by all participants in the field:
academics, teachers, pupils and their parents. Collaboration is another
frequently used term receiving similar treatment, even among the most
respected commentators. For example, Bruner (1996) has argued for the
importance of collaboration as part of learning, and Hargreaves (1992) has
made a similar case in the domain of teaching.

Collaboration as a concept, however, has been contested. For

example, Hargreaves (1994, pp 245–247) has argued for the benefits of
collaboration on a personal level in terms of increases in moral support and
confidence; on a professional level by providing opportunities for improved
47
GEORGE HEAD

effectiveness, self-reflection, professional boundaries and teacher learning;

and finally, on a practical level in terms of increased efficiency, reduced
workload and continuous improvement. Previously, however, he had pointed
out that there can be limits to the assumed effectiveness of collaboration in
what he termed ‘bounded collaboration’, where participants work within a
highly prescriptive context and are allowed little time to question, discuss or
develop the materials they work with (Hargreaves 1992).

Similarly, O’Neill (2000) explores the possible benefits of

collaboration in the daily lives of school departments. At the same time,
however, he discusses the power arrangements within a collegiate department
and argues that collegiality may simply be an organisational tool; a different
way of managing people’s workload by passing responsibility from a head of
department to its members. At the same time, he notes that ‘Teachers value,
and often find more productive, their privacy and solitude …’ (O’Neill 2000,
pp 19–20).

In each case, however, there appears to be a sense of underlying

opportunity which may benefit from being made explicit. When Hargreaves
(1992, p 228) described ‘bounded collaboration’ as

… collaboration which does not reach deep down to the grounds, the
principles or the ethics of practice but which stays with routine advice giving,
trick trading and material sharing of a more immediate, specific and technical
nature …

he was, of course, implying that deeper collaboration may well be

possible. Similarly, O’Neill (2000, p 14) has argued that in limiting
collaboration to the routine, there is a danger that we lose out on the chance
to explore ‘… the uncertain, the difficult to identify, the less easily
understood, the idiosyncratic’.

In each case, and in countless others, the value of collaboration has

been argued, but not investigated as a concept.

Bruner, however, does address the nature of ‘intersubjectivity’

(Bruner 1996, p 182) and the predisposition of humans to interact in ways
that develop shared meaning. He cites the example of a mother teaching her
infant son the names of things in a book and describes how they interact in
order to create meaning. This is first done at a simple level, with the mother
naming what is in the book. However, her questioning of what the object is
for, or what the person in the book is doing, takes the learning on to another
level.

Perhaps most interestingly for the argument of this paper is the

complexity and nature of collaboration required in order to create a meaning
that is shared rather than imposed. In the course of the interaction between
mother and son, there came a point where they had to disagree about the
‘name’ for the woman’s head on the back of a British penny. Whilst the
mother’s wider knowledge of the world led her to identify the woman as

48
 EFFECTIVE COLLABORATION

‘Queen’, the child, whose knowledge of women in the world was more
limited, insisted on the name ‘Grannie’.

This illustration highlights that, whilst humans may well be disposed

to interact in a collaborative fashion, collaboration is nevertheless a complex
and problematic process that requires participants to employ a repertoire of
skills: negotiation, communication and interpersonal. The various parties
involved in any collaborative act will come to the task with different
backgrounds and knowledge, and only when these are made explicit can
potential barriers to effective collaboration, such as misunderstandings and
misconceptions, be addressed.

With this paper, I try to address this issue by arguing that

collaboration works on at least two levels: the functional level equivalent to
Hargreaves’ ‘bounded collaboration’; and a deeper level identified by
O’Neill and Hargreaves, which I refer to here as ‘effective collaboration’.
Further, I argue that whilst functional collaboration is a process that can be
used to support learning, effective collaboration is an integral element of the
learning process itself.

To offer a theoretical explanation of how effective collaboration

works, I will be employing interpretations of Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal
Development. Thereafter, I examine Boreham’s (2000) research into
collective competence to make the case that there may indeed be
competencies which can only be achieved as a group, and to suggest,
therefore, that collaboration at a deep and effective level is not only desirable
but necessary.

Finally, I explore the implications of effective collaboration for

teachers in terms of communities (Wenger 1998). To do this, I select
examples of a community of support, from my own experience as a teacher
of children with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties; of
communities of practice; and of communities of learners, from research and
the literature. Each of these is a development of Wenger’s notion of the
community of practice (Wenger 1998) and how it may be developed (Wenger
et al 2002). For each community, I argue that, to support the learning of all
pupils, effective collaboration is not only a desirable but essential part of
pedagogy.

Functional vs effective collaboration

The difference between functional and effective collaboration can be likened
to that between constructivism and social constructivism in the teaching and
learning process. Whilst constructivism involves an interaction between
individuals with unique roles to play (teacher and learner) to benefit one of
those individuals (the learner), social constructivism can be seen as a much
more mutual process, in which all parties engage in the learning activity to
benefit all participants (Pollard & Triggs 1997). Similarly, functional
collaboration can be seen as individuals behaving in a way that benefits each
participant differently: the teacher is allowed to teach, and the learner can
learn.
49
GEORGE HEAD

However, effective collaboration can be viewed as a group of people

behaving in a way that not only produces individual benefits, but leads to a
degree of success belonging to the group and can only be achieved by group
members working together in this fashion. A suitable term currently used for
this type of collaborative behaviour might be ‘community’ (Wenger 1998). In
particular, use of the terms ‘community of support’, ‘community of practice’
and ‘community of learners’ emphasises the collaborative conceptualisation
of a range of effective groupings; where the choice of terminology reflects a
shift from focusing on the individual to focusing on the social aspects of
learning.

Indeed, in the recent Tavistock report on pedagogical research and

practice (Cullen et al 2002), learning as a social activity was highlighted as a
strategic element in the ‘new pedagogy’. To establish the meaning of
functional and effective collaboration in these contexts, it is appropriate to
examine the concept of collaboration and how it operates at different levels.

As a starting point, the concept can be thought about in the context of

the following three questions:

What does it mean?

What benefits for learning can be gained from collaboration?

How is collaboration operationalised in an educational context?

In answer to the first question, it could be argued that collaboration is

essentially multi-dimensional: its meaning is derived from the range of
activities involved in the act of collaboration and from the subsequent effects
of such activities. At the simplest level, collaboration comprises a range of
closely related acts such as coordinating, consulting, communicating and
cooperating.

The value of each of these aspects can be readily understood.

Coordination is necessary to ensure that any enterprise runs smoothly and
efficiently, and to realise the optimum use of resources, including human
resources. Consultation is essential to assure that all involved understand
what is being done and carry it out in an appropriate manner. Communication
ensures that everyone knows what they are doing and when they have to do
it. Finally, participants need to cooperate to execute any agreed and organised
activity.

The common implication in all of these activities is that more than one
person is involved; an individual cannot collaborate on her/his own. This
underlying fact makes the concept of collaboration intriguing. At a basic
level, it could be acknowledged that these activities are simply essential for
organised societies or communities such as schools to run smoothly. They are
not mutually exclusive, and there is no set order in which each of the
functions must be performed; indeed, they are simultaneous acts.

50
 EFFECTIVE COLLABORATION

Moreover, collaboration can be seen as an intermediary process;

something has taken place beforehand which suggests that people need to
work together collaboratively in order to deal with it, resulting in a new
context or subsequent set of activities. The concept becomes altogether more
fascinating when the multi-faceted nature of collaboration, the diversity of
people who cooperate in the act, and the antecedent-activity-result process
are considered. Participants may also potentially achieve more than might be
expected considering the efficiency of individual aspects of the process.

In other words, the elements mentioned above represent the functional

aspects of collaboration; but, in addition, participants may not fully realise
the effectiveness of the act if they do not give it close enough attention. This
does not in any way dismiss the importance of the functional aspects of
collaboration; however, it supports the argument that working together
presents opportunities that go beyond the procedural.

Boreham’s recent study of critical incidents in hospital emergency

departments is enlightening here. Having noted the interdependency of
individuals in the emergency teams, Boreham (2000) argues that developing
a collective knowledge base can lead to commonsense-making. This may
take thinking on collaboration beyond the functional and towards looking at
what people can achieve collectively – which is more than the sum of the
combined efforts of all involved.

Boreham (2000, p 4) refers to this as ‘collective competence’. The

exact nature of collective competence is dependent upon the culture of the
group, and its manifestation can be seen as the result of participation within
this culture (Boreham 2000). The argument here is that the surface
manifestations are the visible results of a deeper, complex reality involving
the cognitive and affective human activities of thinking, feeling and
perceiving (Boreham 2000, p 4).

Once individuals acknowledge these factors, they can successfully

move away from simply disposing of what has gone before and into the
context-enhancing realms of alteration and creativity to achieve a desired
outcome. When individuals bring these deeper aspects to the fore, they create
opportunities to do more as a group than they could achieve as a collection of
individuals working alongside each other. In other words, effective
collaboration has a propensity to become greater than the sum of its parts.

Consequently, when there is a need for collective activity such as cooperation

and communication, competence depends on building a sense of
interconnectedness which will transcend the fragmenting tendencies of
allegiances to sub-groups. (Boreham 2000, p 4)

Developing a collective understanding through the creation of shared

knowledge is central to group effectiveness. At this level of operation – ie at
the metacognitive rather than functional level – group competencies begin to
emerge, and the group becomes more effective as an entity than it could ever
be as simply a collection of individuals, however highly trained and
motivated.

51
GEORGE HEAD

Boreham et al (2000) demonstrate that failing to share knowledge, for

example in hospital emergency teams, can have serious consequences, and
usually an individual is identified for blame. It would therefore appear that a
team can only function collectively if its members share their knowledge
(Boreham 2000, p 6). If so, to achieve maximum effectiveness in a group
situation, we should establish exactly what shared knowledge the group
possesses.

Boreham (2000, p 6) refers to this part of the process, or essential

element of an effective group culture, as sense-making. Therefore, in sharing
different perspectives, individuals in a group can create a collective
knowledge that leads to a shared or common sense of the task in hand. In an
educational context, a common sense might entail: a shared understanding of
why a task is being undertaken, its value and derivation; the dimensions of
the task; agreed strategies for engaging with the task and overcoming
difficulties; criteria for assessing the success of the task; and a shared
understanding of the relevance of the current task for future learning.

The operation of effective collaboration: Vygotsky

An explanation of how effective collaboration works can be gleaned from a
consideration of Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
(Vygotsky 1978, 1986).

The most common educational explanation of the ZPD relates to

scaffolding. In this model, the ZPD is the distance between what a learner
can achieve on his or her own and what can be learned in collaboration with a
more able or experienced adult or peer. This is very much a cognitive
interpretation of the ZPD (Daniels et al 2000, p 175).

However, there are other interpretations. One is the cultural model, in

which the ZPD is represented as the difference between what might be
termed active knowledge, owned by individuals as a result of their everyday
experiences; and understood knowledge, which is scientific in nature and
gained through instruction (Daniels et al 2000, p 175).

A third interpretation sees the ZPD as the distance between the

everyday actions of individuals and collectively generated activity. This is
termed the collectivist or societal interpretation and ‘… involves the study of
learning beyond the context of pedagogical structuring ...’ (Daniels et al
2000, p 176). An analysis of this model involves taking into account the
social and cultural structures that affect learning, and in doing so moves
beyond the cognitive to include the affective (Daniels et al 2000, p 176).

The model thus begins to match Boreham’s assertions that collective

effectiveness requires a sense of interdependence that affects how individuals
feel about their experiences. Moreover, it coincides with what Bruner (1996,
p 3) has to say about the creation of meaning:

... however much the individual may seem to operate on his or her own in
carrying out the quest for meanings, nobody can do it unaided by the culture’s

52
 EFFECTIVE COLLABORATION

symbolic systems. It is culture that provides the tools for organizing and
understanding our worlds in communicable ways.

This third explanation of the ZPD may account for the different
operations of functional and effective collaboration. Functional collaboration
can be understood as the routine actions of individuals in a context which
inhibits the creation of a ZPD – Hargreaves’ ‘bounded collaboration’,
perhaps. In this context, although people may be gathered together for some
ostensibly common purpose, in reality they behave as individuals and only
carry out the roles expected of them. However, where the individuals
involved look beyond narrow personal or departmental interests and generate
a clear sense of purpose of the group and their role in it, then the group as an
entity begins to generate the understanding and insight that results in the kind
of activities which satisfy the purposes of the group and might never have
otherwise emerged.

An analogy might be made here with Argyris’ concept of double loop

learning (Argyris 1992). If some contexts can be considered anti-learning – in
the sense that they inhibit the creation of a ZPD through the imposition of a
routine via a hierarchical ‘management’ of the group – then members of the
group may be considered to operate only from an aspect of self-interest, and
their learning is limited to a primary stage. However, where the operation of
a group allows collectively generated activity to develop, then a secondary,
deeper stage of learning results.

The value of collaboration, therefore, is twofold. It affords individuals

the opportunity to move beyond the functional aspects of coordination,
cooperation and communication to the collective. Through creating a new,
shared knowledge and understanding, they achieve more than a collection of
individuals working in harmony. Moreover, this fits with what is known
about learning, particularly about the creation of meaning essential to the
success of groups and cultures.

It thus follows that some things can only be achieved through group
activity. Thus, for educators to behave in a professional and efficient way to
ensure the quality of educational experiences for their learners – by ensuring
that their own learning experience is as fruitful, fulsome and enjoyable as
possible – then it becomes not only desirable but imperative that they
collaborate effectively.

How the different levels of collaboration are manifested in practice are

perhaps best analysed through an examination of practice. In particular, it
may be helpful to consider an example from the field of Additional Support
Provision (specifically behaviour support), because the need for change in
this area is often the most urgent – and the need for its educators to undertake
self-examination and analysis to develop pedagogy is perhaps greater.

Communities of support
Working with children who have Social, Emotional and Behavioural
Difficulties (SEBD) frequently requires teachers to collaborate with a range
53
GEORGE HEAD

of interested parties, including children, their parents, other teachers, social

workers and educational psychologists (Porter 2000). Sometimes the context
in which such a group engages is formal; such as the classroom, and in
meetings for referral, planning and review. At other times, contact is
informal, such as a chat with a parent or a taxi driver, or a telephone
conversation with colleagues from schools and social workers. Whichever is
the case, each individual makes a significant contribution to educating the
young person in focus. Whilst much of this exchange begins with sharing
helpful information, over time it can lead to an understanding of what is
being provided and its effectiveness in supporting young people.

In this process, the various participants air problems, and consider

contradictions in practices and perceptions. They discuss and resolve these to
create new understandings and strategies to help young people manage their
lives and learning. From this activity, professionals can gain a new
understanding of their own and each other’s roles and practices, and
subsequently develop a more cohesive and effective approach, which can be
explained by activity theory (Engeström et al 1999). Anning (2001) analyses
how the various professionals in a community of practice develop new and
deeper understandings of their task and the role they play. Essential to this
process is the resolution and the conflicts and contradictions that emerge as
professionals interact which, in turn, offers the opportunity for creativity in
managing the task (Engeström et al 1999).

The difference between the two states – the exchange of information

on one hand and shared understanding on the other – highlights the
differences between procedural or functional collaboration and effective
collaboration. In the first case, people gather together in some context,
contribute to the discourse from their own point of view, help to make
decisions based on the information generated, and then go off to carry out the
actions they have agreed to. Generally, the various parties approach this
context with their own set of priorities and see their contribution as limited to
their own area of expertise or knowledge. The kind of material produced at
such meetings is generally a list of tasks for some or all of the participants to
undertake, to support the learning of the young person. All participants have
carried out the expected functions of reporting, suggesting and agreeing, and
view the decisions they make as enhancing provision for the learner.

In the second case, something much more meaningful takes place.

Individuals no longer simply play their individual parts, but have a sense of
what the group as a whole is trying to achieve, and direct their efforts and
expertise towards reaching this common goal. Consequently, support takes
on the features of a multi- and cross-disciplinary exercise – more relevant to
the pupil’s needs, and ultimately more effective. In other words, the group
has become a community, creating a shared understanding of the nature and
purpose of the group and a common sense of mutual benefit.

At its simplest, the professionals learn from the pupil how they might
go about their business in a way that is effective for that pupil, and gain a
greater understanding of what they are doing and why it is done in a
particular way. The sense of one party ‘doing something to’ the other or of
54
 EFFECTIVE COLLABORATION

having something done to them disappears, and participants feel more of a

sense of group enterprise. In obtaining results as a group that they could not
have possibly achieved as a collection of individuals, participants perceive
that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Impressionistic evidence of colleagues in the field of behaviour

support suggests that their perceptions and experiences of collaboration are
similar. With procedural or functional collaboration, student support is
limited to attending meetings, reporting on a student’s learning progress,
suggesting further programmes of work, and thereafter returning to work
with the student. With effective collaboration, however, interaction is led by
the student and each participant contributes in a way that allows the group to
generate an understanding of and insight into that student’s needs and their
own needs, desires and constraints. As such, participants confront problems
and create solutions. It would thus appear that there are degrees of
effectiveness in collaboration, and if the conditions that allow for increased
effectiveness can be analysed, they can be recreated more quickly, thus
leading to more effective support of student learning.

In the UK, legislation on services for children has given pre-eminence

to inter-agency collaboration as an effective strategy for organising
appropriate provision (eg the 1989 Children Act and the 1995 Children
(Scotland) Act). However, the Scottish Executive (1999) reported three
barriers to collaboration: structural and functional; process; and cultural.
Cultural barriers are the most concerning for professionals working at a local
level, as they incorporate the different viewpoints, aims and objectives of
each of the groups involved. For example, Lloyd et al (2001) cite the
perceived cultural differences between social work and educational
professionals as barriers to collaboration. When these professionals overcome
such barriers, they experience an enhanced sense of effectiveness and
awareness of what empowers and constrains each other’s work.

From their study into collaboration among professionals working with

children who require learning support, Graham & Wright (1999, pp 38–39)
posited three manifestations of collaboration: planning activities, sharing
activities and goal-achieving activities. Some of the activities they listed are
of particular interest, given the importance of moving beyond the functional
operation of collaboration:
• giving a knowledge and understanding of my role to others;
• explaining the contribution I make to meeting the needs of
pupils;
• talking to other professionals regularly ... to share knowledge
and expertise;
• trying to make sure that a common language is used that can be
understood by all professionals and parents;
• acknowledging the importance of the various particular
methods used by different professionals to achieve identified
goals;

55
GEORGE HEAD

• getting to know and understand the goals of other

professionals. In this process, we can see links with and scope
for developing the notions of interdependency, collective
knowledge and communal sense making. (Graham & Wright
1999, p 39)

Their results indicate that teachers are more prepared than other
professionals to employ these strategies and become involved in this level of
collaboration. When learners, teachers, social workers, psychologists and
other interested parties work together in this way, they create the opportunity
to develop from a supportive group – well-intentioned but constrained – to
become a ‘community of support’ that creates the conditions and strategies
necessary to achieve its goals.

More recently, Daniels et al (2000) suggested the concept of teacher

support teams (TSTs) as a model for collaboration among teachers. The
model indicates that TSTs would be small (perhaps one per school),
consisting of perhaps three teachers to whom any member of staff approach
about a problem. One obvious example of a problem would be a difficult
child, but teachers may seek support regarding any relevant matter affecting
them.

The idea of peer support for professionals is not new. Indeed, in

professions such as counselling, peer support is an integral part of their
activities. The educational argument is that peer support leads to shared
knowledge among teachers and increases the ability of schools to deal with
the diverse range of pupils within their catchment areas (Daniels et al 2000,
pp 173–174). Teachers’ perceptions of support teams are positive. They
claim that team discussion externalises the problem so that it can be
considered from a distance, and confirms existing strategies or allows new
ones to be developed. They also claim that the sympathetic ethos of the
discussions is cathartic (Daniels et al 2000, p 182).

Communities of practice
Motivation for collaboration in classrooms begins at the point where
problems appear unsolvable; where teachers have tried everything they know
and can suggest no more. According to Boreham (2000, p 6), commonsense-
making also takes place at this point. Moreover, he argues that the apparent
intractability of a problem, or the unexpected, often produces a natural
opportunity for collaboration, because it frequently results in a spontaneous
conversation among interested parties (Boreham 2000, p 7).

Boreham’s analysis seems to endorse the collectivist interpretation of

Vygotsky’s ZPD. Accepting this thesis affords an opportunity for effective
collaboration with colleagues, and allows the production of solutions that are
more likely to be effective because they result from the interaction of several
people.

56
 EFFECTIVE COLLABORATION

Ainscow and Howes (2001) term this collegial model of collaboration

a ‘community of practice’. This concept challenges conventional ideas of
learning as:

… an individual process, that … has a beginning and an end, that … is best

separated from the rest of our activities, and is the result of teaching. (Wenger
1998, p 3)

The value of a community of practice stems from individuals sharing

their ideas, experiences and practices to build new knowledge within the
community. They achieve this through a process of debate, challenge and
experiment that ‘results in social learning that could not be produced by
reification alone’ (Ainscow & Howes 2001, p 2).

Hargreaves (1992, p 220) developed a four-part typology to describe

the possible range of teacher cultures: individualism, balkanism, contrived
collegiality, and a collaborative culture. He argued that the form of the
culture influences how teachers behave, which impinges on their
development as professionals:

…the way teachers relate to their colleagues has profound implications for
their teaching in the classroom, how they evolve and develop as teachers, and
the sorts of teachers they become. (Hargreaves 1992, p 217)

A strong implication of Hargreaves’ argument is that there is no

neutral position. Prevarication immediately assumes one of the other cultures;
in his terms, collaboration therefore becomes a professional imperative.

A recent research project from one local Scottish authority suggests

that forming a community of practice is seen to make a valuable contribution
to teachers’ professional development. Collaborative ways of supporting
pupils with social emotional and behavioural difficulties were seen to be
most effective. In particular, cooperative teaching was viewed as the most
effective way of supporting colleagues in developing their practice in order to
facilitate the inclusion of young people in mainstream schools (Head et al
2003, p 38).

Communities of learners
Perhaps more important, however, is the place of effective collaboration
within the classroom. As indicated earlier, Argyris (1992) emphasised the
importance of a secondary phase of learning in which opportunities not
available in an initial phase of surface learning are presented. The difference
between these levels of learning can be likened to the levels of collaboration
described here. Indeed, what I have referred to here as effective collaboration
is, according to Argyris (1992, p 33), ‘a necessary condition for learning’.
Similarly, Bruner’s (1996, p 20) premise that learning is dependent upon the
‘ability to understand the minds of others’ suggests that effective
collaboration might be a desired element of the teaching and learning
process. If this is the case, then teachers may need to problematise and
rethink their interactions with students.

57
GEORGE HEAD

As the majority of teachers in schools, colleges and universities were

educated in a behaviourist environment (Pollard & Triggs 1997), this has
probably affected their own teaching. Educators are therefore liable to
continue creating the cultures of individualism and balkanism described
above. In addition, educational institutions may well constrain learning
through prescribing curricula, enforcing necessary timetables, and setting
exam targets and timing. Consequently, much teacher-student interaction is
directed towards control and accountability. Indeed, the very structure of
such institutions not only hampers a secondary phase of collaboration and
hence learning, but prevents it from taking place (Argyris 1992).

However, organisational barriers to learning can be overcome if what

takes place between students and teachers is reconceptualised. Schematically,
such rethinking of pedagogy can be represented as follows.

control ______________________ learning

accountability ______________________ understanding

A first step might be to shift from a basically didactic approach to

teaching, demanded by an ethos of control, toward a pedagogy based on
dialectical interrogation. However, structural alterations are required for this
to happen, and the model of pedagogy needs to develop. If the argument I
present here holds, it is first necessary to actively overtake the functional
level of collaboration – in which all parties are accountable to the group and
others outside it – in order to foster effective collaboration, where all group
members contribute towards a common understanding of their task. In terms
of my argument here, effective collaboration becomes an essential element of
secondary learning and may even be a prerequisite for the necessary
rethinking to allow such learning.

Reconceptualisation of an institution is more likely to be achieved if

those in charge enact and support it (Argyris 1992). However, how this
operates in the everyday learning context is a matter for the institution, the
students and their teachers. Using a management model based on the
assumption that a problem is best solved by those involved in it on a daily
basis, the institution ceases to be a hierarchy of command and control and
becomes a collegial organisation:

… where search is enhanced and deepened, where ideas are tested publicly,
where individuals collaborate to enlarge inquiry, and where trust and risk-
taking are enhanced. (Argyris 1992, p153)

Thus, the roles of managers and teachers shift from positions of

authority to participants and learners in a culture of investigation, experiment
and mutual sense-making. Cranston (2001) has highlighted the need for
closer collaboration among school colleagues in Australia and the UK, and
for school principals to develop the skills necessary to collaborate in a
context of school-based management. In eschewing hierarchical status in
favour of academic autonomy and intellectual advancement, the members

58
 EFFECTIVE COLLABORATION

work together, creating insight and a shared understanding of their function

and purpose to become a community of learners.

Communities of learners have their roots within schools and

classrooms, and what takes place within them can therefore inhibit or
enhance learning. If the interactions between teachers and students operate at
the functional level of coordination, cooperation and communication, then
the class will likely find itself ‘addressing but not necessarily solving
problems’ (Lloyd et al 2001, p 9). Collaboration at this level may well help to
create conditions for learning, but does not guarantee its occurrence. To
increase the likelihood that learning will take place, educators need to foster
conditions for effective collaboration.

Interactions between pupils and teachers, therefore, should be about

generating a shared understanding of why learning in general and the topic
being explored at the time are important. In addition, a common sense of the
nature and purpose of the task in hand, and future tasks, would create insight
into the intrinsic value of the functions of learning, and allow the community
to create a vision of where it is heading intellectually and generate
appropriate strategies for getting there.

Brown et al (1996) have offered an example of how a community of

learners might work. Founded on the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky, the
analogy of the relationship between functional and effective collaboration
and constructivism and social constructivism offered earlier becomes clear.
In this model, a classroom operating as a community of learners is founded
on five main principles: multiple zones of proximal development; a
community of discourse; negotiation of meaning; mutual appropriation of
ideas; and the importance of the common knowledge and individual expertise
that grows out of its creation (Brown et al 1996).

In this model, the teacher and pupils agree on areas and themes for
research within an overall context. In acting as researchers on one of these
themes or sub-themes, students become the community experts on that
theme. They are then in a position to teach the others in the classroom and
thus contribute to the creation of common knowledge and understanding. To
carry out these tasks, learners develop a language that becomes increasingly
subject-specific and academic as they learn and disseminate their learning.

Since the learners will be at different stages in their learning at

different times, a community of learners will necessarily consist of a range of
‘multiple, overlapping zones of proximal development that foster growth’
(Brown et al 1996, p 161). However, whilst the traditional classroom tends to
address difficulty in learning by differentiating the task in a community of
learners, ‘[the] task is simplified by the provision of social support through a
variety of expertise, not via decomposition of the task into basic skills’
(Brown et al 1996, p 160). An essential element of this social support is, of
course, the teacher. The teacher acts as mediator, guiding the learning of the
students through questioning, reflecting and making suggestions, in what
might be described as a dialectical approach to learning.

59
GEORGE HEAD

Children learn by acquiring knowledge in a range of contexts,

including the school, but they learn the value of such knowledge through
experience: in the home; at leisure with friends; and in real-life situations. To
benefit most from their experiences – and for the school to be the context in
which they develop the cognitive and affective tools to cope with life in other
contexts – then effective collaboration among teachers, pupils and other
relevant professionals and lay people may well be essential to the conditions
which nurture this process.

In this paper, I have tried to examine ways in which people elect to

collaborate. By examining personal experience and Boreham’s work, I have
highlighted the problematic nature of collaboration. To address these
problems effectively, I have suggested a series of communities: a community
of support; of practice; and of learners. The collegial imperative of each of
these communities – and of effective collaboration as argued here –
illustrates how theories of learning can further an understanding of the nature
and value of group learning. The more a concept or process is understood, the
more likely it will be put to good use. For this reason alone, the concept of
collaboration is worth exploring more deeply.

References
Anning A (2001) Knowing who I am and what I know: developing new
versions of professional knowledge in integrated service settings.
Paper presented to BERA, University of Leeds, 13–15 September.

Ainscow M & Howes A (2001) LEAs and school improvement: what is it

that makes the difference? Paper presented to BERA, University of
Leeds, 13–15 September.

Argyris C (1992) On organizational learning. Oxford: Blackwell.

Boreham NC (2000) Collective competence in the hospital emergency

department. Paper presented to BERA, University of Cardiff,
September.

Boreham NC, Shea CE & Mackway-Jones K (2000) Clinical risk and

collective competence in the hospital emergency department in the
UK. Social Science and Medicine, vol 51, pp 83–91.

Brown AL, Metz KE & Campione JC (1996) Social interaction and

individual understanding in a community of learners: the influence of
Piaget and Vygotsky. In A Tryphon & J Voneche (eds) Piaget-
Vygotsky: the social genesis of thought. Hove: Psychology Press.

Bruner J (1996) The culture of education. Boston: Harvard University Press.

60
 EFFECTIVE COLLABORATION

Cranston NC (2001) Collaborative decision-making and school-based

management: challenges, rhetoric and reality. Journal of Educational
Enquiry, vol 2, no 2, pp 1–24.
(http://www.education.unisa.edu.au/JEE/) Accessed July 2002.

Cullen J, Hadjivasiliou K, Hamilton E, Kelleher J, Sommerlad E & Stern E

(2002) Review of current pedagogic research and practice in the
fields of post-compulsory education and lifelong learning. Final report
revised. Submitted to the Economic and Social Research Council by
the Tavistock Institute.
(http://www-tlrp.educ.cam.ac.uk/pubs.htm) Accessed July 2002.

Daniels H, Creese A & Norwich B (2000) Supporting collaborative problem-

solving in schools. In Daniels H (ed) Special education reformed.
London: Falmer Press.

Engeström Y, Miettinen R & Punamäki R (1999) Perspectives on activity

theory. New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Graham J & Wright JA (1999) What does ‘inter-professional’ collaboration

mean to professionals working with pupils with physical difficulties?
British Journal of Special Education, vol 26, no 1, pp 37–41.

Hargreaves A (1992) Cultures of teaching: a focus for change. In A

Hargreaves and MG Fullan (eds) Understanding teacher development.
London: Cassell.

Hargreaves A (1994) Changing teachers, changing times: teachers’ work and

culture in the postmodern age. London: Cassell.

Head G, Kane J & Cogan N (2003) Behaviour support in secondary schools.

What works for schools? Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, vol
8, no 1, pp 33–42.

Lloyd G, Stead J & Kendrick A (2001) Hanging on in there. A study of inter-

agency work to prevent school exclusion in three local authorities.
York: National Children’s Bureau and Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

O’Neill J (2000) So that I can more or less get them to do things they really
don’t want to. Capturing the ‘situated complexities’ of the secondary
school head of department. Journal of Educational Enquiry, vol 1, no
1, pp 13–34.
(http://www.education.unisa.edu.au/JEE/) Accessed April 2003.

Pollard A & Triggs P (1997) Reflective teaching in secondary education.

London: Cassell.

Porter L (2000) Behaviour in schools: theory and practice for teachers.

Buckingham: OUP.

61
 GEORGE HEAD

Scottish Executive (1999) Making it happen. Report of the Strategy Action

Team.
(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/inclusion/docs/maih-oo.htm) Accessed
July 2002.

Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger E, McDermott R & Snyder WM (2002) Cultivating communities of

practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

62

View publication stats