ATTITUDES OF TEACHERS TOWARD PEDAGOGICAL COLLABORATION

A Dissertation Proposal

Presented to

The Faculty of the Education Department

Carson-Newman University

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the

Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

By

Samantha McConeghey

March 2020

ii

Dissertation Approval

Student Name: Samantha McConeghey

Dissertation Title: Attitudes of Teachers Toward Pedagogical Collaboration

This dissertation has been approved and accepted by the faculty of the Education department, Carson-Newman University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Education.

Dissertation Committee:

Dissertation Chair: Dr. Brenda Dean

Methodologist Member: Dr. P. Mark Taylor

Content Member: Dr. Michael Sobiech

Approved by the Dissertation Committee Date: 03/12/20

iii

Abstract

The purpose of this ethnographic research study was to examine teachers’ attitudes toward

collaboration and how those attitudes affect their implementation of discussed teaching

techniques into their pedagogy. Seven mathematics teachers from a suburban Tennessee school

district participated in this study based upon their collaboration among the Geometry and

Algebra I teachers. A triangulated approach was applied to collect data from four different

sources. Data were gathered from an observation of a collaborative meeting, one-on-one semi-

structured interviews, a classroom observation, and a collection of relevant artifacts. Data were

then analyzed using open, axial, and selective coding. Data analysis revealed that teachers held

positive perceptions of collaboration that is relative to their work and described positive

collaborative activities. Trust of colleagues and the teacher’s attitudes toward collaboration were

both found to affect implementation of shared teaching techniques and lessons. Based on the

implications of the study, the efficacy of collaboration may be strengthened through professional

development of educators to learn how to best implement professional learning communities

(PLC), exercises that enhance trust among the members of the PLC, and the support and

guidance of collaborative meetings. Recommendations for future research included schools

investigating collaboration in schools in rural or urban areas, and educators from other content

areas.

iv

Copyright © 2020 Samantha McConeghey

All Rights Reserved.

I hereby grant permission to the Education Department, Carson-Newman University, to

reproduce this research in part or in full for professional purposes, with the understanding that in

no case will it be for financial profit to any person or institution.

Samantha McConeghey

March 12th, 20

Dedication

This study is dedicated to my parents, Mark McConeghey and Julia Burke, who have

been my consistent role models of strength, hard-work, and perseverance. My love for academia

began with your belief in my abilities to succeed, your consistent encouragement of my dreams,

and your not-so-quiet cheering me on at cross country and track meets that showed me I was

capable of anything I set my mind to. To my stepmom, Allison McConeghey, thank you for your

constant positive outlook, encouragement, and support.

To my grandparents, Larry and Dee-Ann Wilson, you have taught me to love harder and

dream bigger. You inspire me to love others without hesitation and give selflessly. Without your

support throughout this process, none of this would have been possible.

Finally, I dedicate this to my students, both past and present. You are the ones who

inspire me to learn and grow alongside you, and I acquire more from you than you will ever

know. Thank you for helping me love my job and motivating me to become the best teacher I

can to better serve each of you. You all amaze me every day with your persistence, kindness, and

eagerness to learn. I am so proud to say that you all will truly change the world.

vi

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to the many, many people who helped me throughout this process and

consistently calmed my nerves. To my committee chair, Dr. Brenda Dean, your honest feedback,

consistent support, and constant prayers were something I would have been lost without. The

result of this project is a testament to your leadership and guidance. Thank you to Dr. P. Mark

Taylor and Dr. Michael Sobiech for support and feedback throughout the process.

To Dr. Melissa Rolston and Dr. Jean Kleine-Kracht, thank you for your time spent

editing, giving encouragement, peer debriefing, and keeping me sane. I would not have held it all

together without you.

To my study participants, I thank you for your time, honesty, and leadership. I am

grateful for the time you invest daily into your students’ lives, and the insight you gave to this

project is immeasurable.

Thank you to my work family, especially my English I team: Cami Avery, Laura

Spretnjak, and Athena Phillips. Without your reminders of why I started, finishing would have

been much harder. Thank you for always supporting me and reminding me to take breaks for ice

cream and sleep. To my family, thank you for your support and encouragement to mold me into

who I am today.

Finally, thank you to Mrs. Sarah Wessling, the one who sparked my love for English and

teaching. Sitting in your classroom at 15, and again at 17, you inspired me with your kindness

and grace. You made literature come alive, your care for us was evident, and your energy was

contagious. Thank you for inspiring me to learn alongside my students, dive into their world, and

get my hands messy. You taught me that teaching is so much more than instruction: it’s

imparting knowledge, building relationships, and showing up when you’re needed the most.

vii

Table of Contents

Dissertation Approval .......................................................................................................... ii

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii

Copyright Statement ........................................................................................................... iv

Dedication ............................................................................................................................ v

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ vi

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... vii

List of Tables and Figures .................................................................................................. xi

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 4

Purpose and Significance of Study ...................................................................................... 6

Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................ 6

Research Questions .............................................................................................................. 7

Rationale ............................................................................................................................. 8

Researcher Positionality Statement ..................................................................................... 9

Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions ..................................................................... 9

Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 9

Delimitations ................................................................................................................. 9

Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 10

Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................... 10

Organization of the Study .................................................................................................. 10

Summary ............................................................................................................................ 11

2. Review of Literature .................................................................................................... 12

viii

Overview ........................................................................................................................... 14

Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 15

Historical of Collaboration and PLC ................................................................................. 15

Sociocultural Theory and Collaboration ............................................................................ 20

Collaboration ..................................................................................................................... 22

Formal .......................................................................................................................... 24

Informal ....................................................................................................................... 24

Collegiality .................................................................................................................. 25

Congeniality ................................................................................................................. 27

Necessary Elements for Successful PLC ........................................................................... 29

Leadership ................................................................................................................... 31

Shared Goals ................................................................................................................ 35

Cultural Norms ............................................................................................................ 36

Trust ............................................................................................................................. 36

Data .............................................................................................................................. 39

Collaboration and Student Achievement ........................................................................... 40

Benefits of Collaboration for Educators ............................................................................ 44

Gaps in Literature .............................................................................................................. 48

Summary ............................................................................................................................ 50

3. Methodology ................................................................................................................. 52

Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 53

Description of the Specific Research Approach ................................................................ 53

Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 54

ix

Coding process ............................................................................................................ 55

Data analysis process ................................................................................................... 56

Description of the Study Participants and Setting ............................................................. 57

Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................................... 57

Ethical Considerations ....................................................................................................... 59

Data Analysis Procedures .................................................................................................. 59

Summary ............................................................................................................................ 60

4. Presentation of Findings ............................................................................................. 62

Descriptive Characteristics of Participants ........................................................................ 64

Selection of Participants .................................................................................................... 64

Participant Demographics .................................................................................................. 65

Data Presentation ............................................................................................................... 66

Coding Visual .................................................................................................................... 66

Downfalls of Collaboration ............................................................................................... 70

Collaboration Benefits ....................................................................................................... 72

Improvements Upon Collaboration ................................................................................... 74

Collaborating by Grade Level ........................................................................................... 75

Building Relationships ...................................................................................................... 76

Trust of Colleagues ............................................................................................................ 78

Sharing Materials and Ideas .............................................................................................. 79

Comfort in Teaching Styles ............................................................................................... 80

Study Findings ................................................................................................................... 80

Summary ............................................................................................................................ 81

x

5. Conclusions, Implications, Recommendations .......................................................... 83

Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 83

Relevance of Theoretical Framework ................................................................................ 84

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 85

Study findings aligned to literature review .................................................................. 85

Exclusive study findings .............................................................................................. 88

Implementing collaborative ideas ................................................................................ 89

Implications ....................................................................................................................... 91

Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 91

Summary ............................................................................................................................ 92

References ......................................................................................................................... 94

Appendices ..................................................................................................................... 105

Appendix A: Informed Consent Form ............................................................................. 106

Appendix B: Teacher Interview Guide ............................................................................ 109

xi

List of Tables and Figures

Table 4.1 Observation and Artifact Labels ........................................................................ 64

Figure 4.1 Research Question 1 Coding ............................................................................ 67

Figure 4.2 Research Question 2 Coding ............................................................................ 69

1

CHAPTER One: Introduction and Background

Collaboration provides a necessary element of communication between educators to

improve student learning. When observing collaboration within a high school, it is evident that

positive collaboration is difficult to create. The idea of interacting with other educators is often

met with frustration at the time involved, as well as hesitation to share due to the competitive

nature often attached to teaching due to student test scores linkage to teachers’ job retention.

However, experience with effective collaboration is met with enthusiasm at student-centered

learning. When clear expectations, goals, and values are established during the meeting,

collaboration is more often met with positive views. However, educators’ attitudes towards

collaboration and its impact regarding the effectiveness of collaboration needs to be scrutinized

further. It is crucial to determine teachers’ attitudes towards interacting with one another in order

to discover the best way to improve student learning.

Education in the United States has reached a turning point. Other countries around the

world continuously outperform the United States in several areas. All countries that are currently

outperforming the United States have one characteristic in common: They consistently and

effectively implement collaboration into everyday teaching (Darling-Hammond, 2010).

Educators across the globe do not live in isolation compared to their American counterparts. The

work of DuFour (2015) argued, “that a school can only be as good as the educators within it” (p.

24). This demonstrates the need for educators to interact with one another. Without good

teachers, strong learning does not occur. The creation of good teachers occurs when educators

collaborate with one another.

2

Therefore, the implementation of collaboration, typically through PLCs, is growing in

popularity across the United States. Effective PLCs must include a culture of trust, cultural

norms, the use of data, strong leadership, and shared goals. Without the aforementioned ideas,

collaboration is conducted in vain, and research often shows that student achievement is not

affected without relevant and focused teacher collaboration (Lick, Clauset, and Murphy, 2013).

Several areas of research demonstrate the positive affiliation between teacher collaboration and

student achievement.

For example, through teacher collaboration, Granby Memorial High School, in Granby

Connecticut, created a support and learning center for struggling students (DuFour, DuFour, and

Eaker, 2008). Teachers from each content area and student tutors were available every class

period each day to provide students with academic assistance. Any student could attend, but

some students were assigned to the center for extra time to study until grades improved. Granby

Memorial High also included Saturday classes, mentoring, reading classes, a homework club,

and a freshmen team to improve student learning. The results indicated success. When

scrutinizing data over five years, students at Granby High improved achievement scores on every

area of the state test and improved their composite SAT score by 38 points. The percentage of

students taking Advanced Placement exams increased 165%, and the number of students scoring

a 3 or higher improved from 51% to 81%.

Much of the literature includes an analysis of collaboration with investigations into

whether or not collaboration is effective, what necessary attributes create success, and what

benefits teachers receive from collaboration. Trust is one element continually discussed within

the literature that creates a successful PLC; without trust, teacher collaboration most likely fails.

Hallam, Smith, Hite, Hite, and Wilcox (2015) found that educators built trust through sharing

3

personal information, fulfilling responsibilities, and meeting their responsibilities. When

educators collaborated with trusted colleagues, they were more likely to ask for help because

they trusted their colleagues’ advice.

Additionally, data prove an important point in collaboration. Implementing data,

according to Talbert (2009), means focusing on students’ success in addition to, “developing and

using a variety of student assessments and data to identify individual learning gaps, (c) designing

interventions to address identified gaps in student learning, and (d) using student achievement

data to devaluate and refine the intervention” (p.565). Implementing data throughout a PLC

provides opportunities for educators to evaluate their instruction in order to identify needs of the

students and determine the best practices to address those needs in order to increase student

learning.

Additionally, strong leadership must occur to create a positive collaborative group of

educators. Leadership in PLCs is multi-tiered; an administrator must first have created a positive

culture within the school that values collaboration and the opinions of other educators (Postholm,

2016). Collaboration creates the opportunity for educators to fill leadership roles through

distributed leadership. Owens (2014) noted that allowing educators the opportunity to lead

empowered these educators and gave them more control over their learning. Strong leadership on

multiple levels is essential to successful collaboration. Furthermore, creating shared goals and

cultural norms is also critical to ensuring teachers benefit from interacting with one another.

Creating goals provides purpose to a meeting (DuFour, et. al., 2008) while common cultural

norms establish specific plans of action for how to approach conflict, how to interact respectfully

with one another, and how to respectfully challenge a colleague’s ideas (Datnow, 2011). To

4

ensure collaboration fully benefits students and teachers, the qualities of trust, goals, data,

leadership, and cultural norms play a critical role in successful interactions.

The plethora of literature on collaboration continues to underscore the fact that teacher

interaction, when implemented properly, improves student achievement and creates a positive

school culture. However, research gaps exist regarding teachers’ attitudes towards partnerships

through collaboration. A positive attitude regarding collaboration may lead to the

implementation of different teaching in the classroom than a negative attitude toward

collaboration. Determining teachers’ thoughts and views toward collaboration can lead to a more

effective implementation of the collaborative process.

Statement of the Problem

The United States continues to fall behind other countries in academics. In addition, the

United States continues to support teacher isolation, with fewer collaborative opportunities than

other countries. While teacher interaction is growing in popularity, there is still much to be done

in terms of adding effective teacher collaboration that directly leads to student growth. Without

collaboration, teachers become isolated and lose opportunities to learn from one another (Grey,

2011). Much of the research supports the idea of strong collaboration, citing its link to student

achievement. This study adds to the existing research by focusing more on teachers’ attitudes

regarding collaboration. The possibility exists that educators may view collaboration negatively,

which could be due to poor implementation or other factors.

In addition, the idea of congenial versus collegial relationships plays a large role in this

research. The difference between congenial and collegial relationships greatly affects whether

collaboration is effective. Collegial relationships involve working with colleagues and using

constructive criticism and support to fix errors and encourage and support strengths in teaching.

5

Ning, Lee, and Lee (2015) asserted that collegiality proved a significant predictor of

collaboration where personal practice and teaching methods were shared. Congeniality is based

on creating a warm and comforting environment that does not necessarily challenge thoughts and

beliefs of other educators. Collegiality and congeniality play an important role in collaboration.

While congenial relationships create a positive work environment, it does not lead to collegiality,

where educators are comfortable challenging one another’s beliefs and discussing their teaching

in order to truly grow and learn from one another.

Consequences of continuing to implement ineffective collaboration, or no collaboration

at all, will only continue to further the academic gap between the United States and other

countries. Furthermore, the lack of studies on teachers’ attitudes toward collaboration leaves a

gap in the literature as the full involvement of educators in PLCs is essential to successful

collaboration. Without knowing teachers’ attitudes regarding collaboration are and why they

hold these views, it is difficult to move forward in the continuation of PLCs while still ensuring

they are useful to student learning. This study purposed to discover what types of teacher

attitudes about collaboration exist and how that may affect their teaching and implementation of

pedagogical strategies discussed during PLC meetings. A vital need exists to determine the effect

of teachers’ attitudes toward collaboration in addition to why certain colleagues may not

collaborate. Despite collaborative efforts in schools across the country, ineffective interactions

that amount to wasted time are occurring. The problem has negatively impacted students because

they miss out on the higher achievement shown to occur when educators collaborate. A study

that investigates teachers’ attitudes regarding collaboration through qualitative data collection

could remedy the situation.

6

Purpose and Significance of the Study

The findings and conclusions from this study benefit several educational leaders. Most

importantly, this study benefits students. Collaboration is continually shown to improve student

learning. Discovering a deeper understanding of what factors play a role in ensuring

collaboration is effective and relevant leads to better student learning. In addition, this study also

benefits teachers. Learning how one’s attitudes toward collaboration affects one’s teaching,

provides insight into the importance of one’s attitude toward interaction with other educators, as

well as the effectiveness of collaboration when implemented correctly.

Also, understanding congenial and collegial relationships, and which may lead to positive

or negative teacher attitudes toward collaboration provides teachers further insight into what

pedagogical collaborative techniques they may or may not implement into their classroom.

Finally, this study benefits administrators by providing additional information about teachers’

attitudes regarding collaboration, why those attitudes may exist, and how those attitudes may

affect their classroom teaching. Providing administrators with this information allows them the

opportunity to determine how to create a collaborative culture among the teachers and how to

create collegial relationships for educators to truly collaborate and create ideas that best meet the

students’ needs.

Theoretical Foundation

In a world that is increasingly connected, collaboration and communication skills are

essential to success. This is also true for educators. Social interactions between educators range

from congenial friendships to collegial and professional interactions. The culture of the school in

which one works also determines the effectiveness and outcome of collaboration among

educators. Sociocultural theory comprises the theoretical framework for this study. Vygotsky

7

(1930) believed that one creates meaning and learns through social interactions with others.

Through collaboration with colleagues, such as during PLCs or common planning time,

educators receive the opportunity to interact with others to discuss pedagogy, best practices, data,

and other concerns of curriculum, lessons, or assessments. Therefore, Sociocultural Theory

provides a clear connection to teacher collaboration because teachers can interact with one

another, learn how to best meet the needs of students and implement additional teaching

techniques into their toolbox.

Collaboration among educators creates the potential for increased critical thinking

(Antoniadou, 2011), and learning from one another (Svendsen, 2017). In addition, Vygotsky’s

idea of Zone of Proximal Development, the zone in which one can learn something with the help

of another (Vygotsky, 1930), fits into the collaborative nature of education where teachers can

learn best teaching practices with the help of other faculty members. Teachers who collaborate to

increase pedagogical knowledge interact with one another within the culture of a school and

build their knowledge about themselves and their students.

Research Questions

This qualitative study attempts to close the existing gap in the literature pertaining to

teachers’ attitudes toward collaboration. Sociocultural theory clearly determines the research

questions involved pertaining to social interaction between educators and how those views on

that collaboration affects their teaching, forming a clear connection between the questions asked

throughout this study and the collaboration between educators to gain knowledge (Gauvain and

Parke, 2010). The research questions provide a guide for interviews, observations, and artifacts

in order to create a clear answer to the following two inquiries:

What are teachers’ attitudes about collaboration?

8

How do educators’ attitudes about pedagogical collaboration affect the implementation of

collaborative techniques in their classroom?

Rationale

While several developed countries continue to surpass the United States in numerous

areas of achievement, America must find different strategies to implement to close the gap.

Collaboration, specifically through Professional Learning Communities, is a method that has

existed for several decades, but the popularity of PLCs continues to grow exponentially.

Teachers cannot work in isolation and expect to produce positive results. Student achievement

affects teacher job satisfaction, as well as teacher self-efficacy (Roffey, 2012). PLCs, if

implemented correctly, are often linked to student achievement. While several areas of research

discuss PLCs, what they should look like, and the benefits of PLCs, minimal research exists on

teachers’ attitudes toward PLCs. Attitudes of educators affect how they implement certain ideas

into their curriculum, but few studies exist to determine if educators’ attitudes regarding

collaboration affects what pedagogical techniques from collaborative time they implement into

their classroom.

Researcher Positionality Statement

Spending a vast amount of time in the classroom in addition to several different types of

collaboration through PLCs, common planning, inservice, and other professional development

opportunities creates an interest in the topic of teacher collaboration. In addition, frequently

hearing complaints or support toward collaboration shows a need for a study on teachers’

attitudes regarding interacting with one another and how that may affect what occurs inside the

classroom. Through several years of teaching experience, educators clearly form both congenial

and collegial relationships, frequently affecting their view on collaboration and determining

9

whom they will collaborate with. The potential for bias exists due to teaching at the same school

in which the research is conducted. However, the bias is controlled for by studying the content

area of math as opposed to English, a subject of familiarity. Additionally, a peer debriefer to

check data analysis was used to ensure minimal partiality (Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, and Walker,

2014).

Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions

In all studies, restraints occur that lead to limitations, delimitations, and assumptions

(Ary, et. al., 2014). For this research, the choice in setting, participants, and content area were all

chosen while considering limitations that may occur due to said choices.

Limitations. The main limitation to this study is that it occurred at only one school. In

addition, the school is in a primarily affluent district that is not necessarily representative of all

schools in the United States. Conclusions drawn from wealthy schools may not apply to schools

of all socioeconomic status due to the resources in a wealthy district to allow for more

pedagogical collaboration and collaborative techniques, which may affect teachers’ attitudes

toward collaboration with other educators. Additionally, due to time constraints on data

collection, the use of only one district was chosen. Limitations were considered throughout the

research and when analyzing data to determine how it may affect educators’ attitudes toward

collaboration. The timeframe of the study is also a limitation. Due to lack of time to conduct the

study, the research occurred over a span of three months.

Delimitations. The study focused on math educators rather than English educators to

ensure there is less bias within the research. Due to time constraints, the study was conducted in

one school only. Observations, interviews, and artifacts were chosen to collect data to ensure

10

triangulation occurred (Ary, et. al., 2014) and that follow-up to interviews could be observed

during a second set of observations.

Assumptions. It was assumed that during interviews, teachers were honest and truthful

in their data. The collection and types of data is triangulated to ensure this occurred (Ary, et. al.,

2014). It was also assumed that educators have experience with collaboration at some level due

to the collaborative efforts at the school in which the research occurred.

Definition of Terms

Collegiality. For the purpose of this study, collegiality is a positive interaction between

educators which includes teachers talking with teachers about students, teachers working

together to develop curriculum, teachers observing one another teach, and teachers teaching one

another (Hoerr, 2015).

Congeniality. “Congeniality is about getting along well, being friendly, warm, and

supportive” (Evans, 2012, para. 5). Therefore, congeniality involves the friend groups created

and an environment that is inclusive and inviting.

Collaboration. A systematic process in which teachers work together to analyze and

improve their classroom practice (DuFour, Eaker, DuFour, & Karhanek, 2004).

Professional Learning Communities. Professional Learning Communities involve

teachers collaborating together to ensure that students learn through effective communication

and a recognition of working together to analyze data to create instruction and assessments that

best aid in pedagogical strategies to meet goals for student achievement (DuFour, 2004).

Organization of the Study

This study is organized into five chapters. The first chapter includes an introduction of

the topic, a rationale for the research, and a definition of terminology used throughout the

11

research. Chapter One also includes the research questions, in addition to the limitations,

delimitations, and assumptions of the study. Chapter Two contains a review of the literature. The

literature review is an evaluation and analysis of the existing literature relating to the topics of

teacher collaboration and best practices for collaboration. Chapter Three incorporates the

methodology, which provides the procedures utilized to conduct the study involving the research

design, data collection and analysis, and the process for coding. Chapter Four involves the

presentation of the data and a discussion of the findings from the study. Finally, Chapter Five

provides the conclusions from the research data and the implications for future research.

Summary

Collaboration is essential to improve teachers’ instruction within the classroom, as well

as advance student achievement with best practices and data analysis to meet students’ needs.

While collaboration is implemented in a vast array of schools within the United States, it is not

always done correctly; however, the literature clearly indicates that collaboration is beneficial for

students and teachers when executed correctly. Trust, data, shared goals, common cultural

norms, and strong leadership all result in successful collaboration. This study focuses on teacher

collaboration and teachers’ attitudes regarding that collaboration. In addition, the study sought to

determine if different attitudes educators hold influence how they implement pedagogical

techniques into the classroom, and how congenial and collegial relationships may affect one’s

desire to collaborate with another co-worker. The study provides educators and administrators

with insight into how different attitudes regarding how collaboration may affect one’s teaching

and relationships with colleagues.

12

CHAPTER Two: Review of Literature

Nearly every educator in today’s world of teaching must collaborate with his/her

colleagues. Continuous learning is expected from educators, much in the same way it is for other

professionals. Isolation and silence are dangerous for teachers as it leads to an avoidance of open

dialogue, an avoidance of collaborative action, secrecy, teacher anxiety, and fear of criticism

(Grey, 2011). Implementing collaboration ensures educators do not remain isolated, and

collaboration is one way in which teachers learn more about their vocation. Collaboration is

necessary to discuss teaching strategies, data, student learning, and other educational topics. Hall

and Simeral (2015) stated, “We must embrace the notion that our growth is partly the

responsibility of our colleagues, just as their growth lies partly on our shoulders” (p. 111).

Teaching in society today involves taking on responsibility for not only one’s own development,

but also the growth of others. Caring only about the students sitting in one’s classroom cannot

occur in the collaborative world of education. Similarly, schools expect the development of

higher-order thinking skills from students; teachers must also be held to the same standard

(Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009).

While many educators are congenial with one another and have friendly relationships,

collegiality involves an environment where co-workers will analyze one another’s teaching, give

suggestions, and help to improve the pedagogical practices of each other. True collaboration

occurs when collegial relationships are established. Collaboration may occur in both formal and

informal settings. Formal collaboration is usually mandated from top-down leadership while

informal collaboration provides more teacher freedom in who each educator decides to

collaborate with and when. Regardless of the setting, the research showed that effective

collaboration occurs when educators made changes in their teaching as a result of collaboration

13

(DuFour, 2004). As explained by Wiggins and McTighe (2005), implementing a curriculum is

one way in which teachers must consistently collaborate in order to determine if the said

curriculum serves its purpose or needs changes to improve student learning.

Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) are the most common way in which

educators interact and discuss ideas with one another. According to DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker

(2008), “schools cannot achieve the fundamental purpose of learning for all if educators work in

isolation” (p. 18). The change in education continues to insist that educators work with one

another to create the best learning environment and the best learning strategies for student

achievement. DuFour, et. al. (2008) argued that isolation is dangerous for educators because it

does not lead to improvement in their craft. PLCs shift the focus from teachers teaching to a

focus on student learning (DuFour, 2004). The days of lectures no longer exist as education

shifts to a student-centered classroom.

Although PLCs are on the rise in the United States, Talbert (2009) claimed that high-

stakes testing tied to teacher accountability and merit pay, all ideas popular in US schools, works

against the development of PLCs that value mutual teacher accountability; emphasis on

individual accountability leads educators to merely comply with collaboration rather than the

focus on success of all students and improving teaching of all teachers. Therefore, teaching is at

a crossroads of how to implement collaboration effectively despite the high-stakes pressures

placed on educators today. Focusing student learning requires interaction between educators and

does not allow teachers to live in isolation and still successfully meet students’ needs. Teacher

collaboration productively occurs with the existence of shared goals, trust, data, strong

leadership, and cultural norms. Without the aforementioned ideas, research showed collaboration

will frequently fail and have no effect on student or teacher learning.

14

A plethora of literature exists discussing collaboration among educators, as well as how

to successfully implement PLCs. The framework of sociocultural theory explains the necessity of

social interaction between educators to continue growing in knowledge of pedagogy and

students’ needs. In addition, the cultural context in which educators collaborate (i.e.: the culture

of the school), determines how teachers interact with one another and the success of said

collaboration. With education shifting to a focus on the success of all students and the focus of

teaching students how to interact with one another and think critically, educators must possess a

desire to collaborate effectively in order to reach all students and provide the opportunity for

everyone to succeed. Nearly all of the literature found argued that collaboration is unavoidable

for educators who must learn how to interact and learn from one another for the benefit of

student learning.

Overview

The purpose of this study was to determine teachers’ attitudes toward collaboration and

how said attitude effects their implementation of pedagogical techniques discussed during

collaborative meetings. The literature reviewed is framed around Sociocultural Theory.

Sociocultural Theory argues that learning occurs within one’s culture and through social

interactions with one another (Vygotsky, 1930). It is clear to see the connection between

Sociocultural Theory and collaboration as educators learn from one another when they interact

during PLCs. The review of literature also discusses the history of teacher PLCs and

collaboration; in addition, a conversation of necessary elements that create a productive PLC is

also included. The benefits of PLCs for students and educators are also considered along with

possible hindrances that may occur in a useful PLC. Finally, the literature review addresses the

gaps in the literature that prove the usefulness of the study.

15

Methodology of Literature Review

A methodical search of articles was conducted in several online databases: Journal

Storage (JSTOR), ProQuest, Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Academic

OneFile, and EBSCO Research Databases Complete List. The following key terms were used

when searching: Teachers’ attitudes toward collaboration, collegiality vs. congeniality, teacher

attitudes NS collaboration OE PLC, collaboration in education AND sociocultural theory, history

of sociocultural theory, history of PLC, informal vs. formal collaboration, and importance of data

in PLCs.

History of Collaboration and PLC

When education began in America, schools were run almost as factories where students

were required to conform and learn how to eventually work in the industrialized world that was

America. The focus was merely on the process of education, rather than student results.

Eventually, the United States realized schools were failing in the second half of the 20th

Century. America was in the midst of the Cold War and blamed events, such as Russia’s launch

of Sputnik in 1957, on the failure of public schools to implement rigorous curriculum. In the

1980’s, Japan rose to become an economic power, and critics, once again, blamed America’s

schools for the American crisis. The term, the “excellence movement” occurred where schools

pushed for students to do more homework, take more credits, etc (DuFour, et. al., 2008).

However, the excellence movement failed and eventually led to the “restructuring

movement” where school improvement would focus on national goals. It was then that George

W. Bush implemented No Child Left Behind (NCLB). NCLB put high pressure on schools to

perform and came under much criticism. NCLB set goals of increasing the graduation rate to

16

90% and ranking first in the world in math and science. NCLB was considered a failure due to a

lack of funding, and the harsh punishments given to schools when they did not reach the

standards set for them. Today, America is still considered under an educational crisis, leaving

many unsure where to turn (DuFour, et. al., 2008). Darling-Hammond (2010) argued that

graduation rates in the US have declined, and countries such as Finland, Korea, and China, for

example; have all raced ahead of the United States due to their investments in teaching.

In the late 1980’s, collaborative approaches for student learning began to occur, and the

implementation of educator collaboration rose in popularity as well. Furthermore, Title I of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act mandated low-performing schools to use 10% of their

allocations for schoolwide professional development; Title II funding has distributed more than

$3 billion to professional development. More than 40 states implemented standards demanding

effective professional development (Darling-Hammond, et. al., 2009). The message is clear:

Professional development and teacher collaboration must transpire and even a requirement in

some schools, to bolstering student achievement.

Richard DuFour, along with Bob Eaker, and, later, Rebecca DuFour, were the leading

founders of implementing collaboration into the day-to-day life of an educator through PLCs.

DuFour discovered a gap in student learning during his teaching and administrative experiences;

he realized teachers did not ever interact with one another, and not only that, educators were only

concerned with their students rather than the needs of all students (Richardson, 2011). DuFour

desired to change education as it is known through the implementation of PLCs and

collaboration. DuFour, et. al., (2008) defined a PLC as a place in which educators commit to

working with one another through inquiry and action research in order to produce better learning

for students. PLCs exist under the assumption that educators must partake in continuous learning

17

in order for students to participate in unceasing learning; PLCs go beyond professional

development and equip educators with skills to improve teaching as well as a community that

values the experiences of other educators in order to obtain new teaching practices to enhance

student learning (Svendsen, 2017). In addition, similar to teaching students, learning for

educators must be relevant and meaningful to allow educators to relate to the content (Bates and

Morgan, 2018). PLCs allow educators to collaborate about topics to improve their teaching and

with direct relevance to their career.

Across the world, collaboration and PLCs are the norms and often required in many

countries; however, in the United States, it is the exception to the rule. Not all schools want or

have to implement PLCs as a part of professional development, and this hinders student growth

in the US. Furthermore, a disparity exists amongst schools as urban school districts often fall

behind in collaboration as compared to suburban and rural school districts (Darling-Hammond,

et. al., 2009). In 2009, President Barack Obama attempted to integrate approaches to education

that would meet early child hood education needs, invest in teaching as a profession, provide

mentoring for beginning teachers, and provide time for professional development and

collaboration (Darling-Hammond, 2010). The effort from President Obama is noted as a step in

the right direction; there is still much work to be done in order to collaborate at the level of other

schools across the globe. The research showed that collaboration must occur in schools today

due to the importance placed upon it by leading researchers, such as DuFour. Additionally, the

research also noted that PLCs have risen in popularity, and although not always implemented

effectively, collaboration occurs in some form in nearly every school.

18

History of Sociocultural Theory

The founder of Sociocultural Theory, Lev Vygotsky, created his philosophy based on his

ideas that it is impossible to separate one’s development and learning from social and cultural

context (Santrock, 2011; Sigelman and Rider, 2012). Vygotsky’s ideas came in contrast with

scientist Jean Piaget, whose theories were developed at the same time as Vygotsky’s, who

believed development and learning occurs individually and in stages. Vygotsky strongly believed

that people were not born with an intrinsic system of development, as Piaget thought; rather,

Vygotsky (1930) theorized that the social interactions one has within his/her culture strongly

influence one’s learning. Vygotsky did not think it possible to develop in stages intrinsic to one’s

development because his research found that children in different cultures developed and learned

in a variety of different ways. While Vygotsky and Piaget created their theories at similar times,

it wasn’t until the 1960’s when Vygotsky’s theories were taken seriously by American

psychologists, partially due to lack of English translations (Sigleman and Rider, 2012). In the

1960’s, learning theorists created the term, ‘cognitive psychology’ and addressed memory,

reasoning, and problem solving; many of the social cognitive theorists drew from Vygotsky’s

idea of social interaction (Ormrod, 2006). Vygotsky is now a common name for educators due to

the popularity and use of his ideas. For example, John Dewey, a leading educational

philosopher, strongly believed that the construction of knowledge exists through social situations

within one’s environment (Gutek, 2011), showing a clear alignment to the learning through

social interactions aspect of Vygotsky’s theories.

In contrast to Piaget, Vygotsky believed society learns from social interaction with

someone who more skilled, leading to cognitive development; in addition, Vygotsky understood

that inventions of society, such as language, math systems, etc., are a way one learns within the

19

cultural setting (Santrock, 2011; Snowman, McCowan, and Biehler, 2012). In addition, language,

as well as its meaning, is constructed within the social and cultural context (Knight, 2006;

Sigelman and Rider, 2012). Vygotsky believed that language and its development were so

closely linked to one’s culture that he stated, “Real concepts are impossible without words, and

thinking in concepts does not exist beyond verbal thinking. That is why the central moment in

concept formation, and its generative cause, is a specific use of words as functional ‘tools’”

(Vygotsky, 1986, p. 107). Vygotsky paved the way for the idea that language is culturally

developed and must be used to interact with one another in order to grasp new thoughts and ideas

within a society.

Gauvain and Parke (2010) believed knowledge is collaborative and created based upon

the situation one finds themselves in. These authors implemented the idea of collaboration into

their definition of Sociocultural Theory, showing the clear connection. To prove sociocultural

theories, a study was conducted by Vygotsky and his colleague, Alexander Luria, which

involved testing children ages 9-12 years old growing up in different cultural and social settings.

The children were given specific words and asked to name the first idea that came to mind when

they heard those words. The children in a remote rural village, with fewer social experiences,

gave extremely similar responses; alternatively, the children in a large city gave more individual

answers. Vygotsky and Luria theorized this difference occurred due to the broader exposure the

city children had to various cultural aspects, while the rural children could not develop certain

types of knowledge due to lack of exposure to alternative knowledge; therefore, Vygotsky and

Luria asserted that knowledge is dependent on social experiences (Sigleman and Rider, 2012).

Vygotsky’s theories also stated that a process called mediation, when a more

knowledgeable individual helps another individual to transform their knowledge into a symbolic

20

representation, so it conveys the same idea as it does to others within one’s culture, occurs when

an individual has fully grasped a concept (Snowman, et. al. 2012). Mediation is important to

learning as it takes knowledge from a social and cultural idea to an idea held by an individual. In

addition, Vygotsky researched mental processes of learning information. Vygotsky found that

complex thoughts begin as social activities; as one develops, he/she begins to internalize the

social processes to be used independently (Ormrod, 2006). Vygotsky also coined the term, ‘zone

of proximal development (ZPD). ZPD changes over time depending on one’s learning. ZPD

includes the range of tasks one cannot perform independently but can perform with the help of

another (Snowman, et. al. 2012). ZPD plays a large role in the classroom as educators determine

which tasks and ideas students need help grasping in order to aid in student growth. Sociocultural

theorists today view collaboration with one’s peers as a way to achieve and grow one’s

knowledge, whereas Vygotsky’s main focus was on the interaction between children and adults.

While Vygotsky focused mainly on how children learn, Sociocultural Theory today includes the

learning of adults.

Sociocultural Theory and Collaboration

Collaboration and Sociocultural Theory naturally fit together: The social context of

education in the modern era requires teachers to learn from one another through social

interactions in the context of PLCs where instructors collaborate to discuss best teaching

methods.

Learning is more than acquisition of the ability to think; it is the acquisition of many

specialized abilities for thinking about a variety of things. Learning does not alter our

overall ability to focus attention but rather develops various abilities to focus attention on

a variety of things. (Vygotsky, 1930, p. 75)

21

In collaboration, educators learn from one another, and as Vygotsky described, learning is not

just about thinking; learning also encompasses how one thinks and the possibility to think about

a variety of concepts and ideas. Metacognition is a valuable task for educators, and collaborating

with other teachers allows for the discussion of thought processes and further development of

one’s learning. When teachers implement metacognition, they determine areas of their teaching

that did not work or need modified. Moreover, individuals in a PLC express shared experiences

and use these shared occurrences to plan for changes in teaching and implement said changes

(Fallon and Barnett, 2009). Collaborating leads to social experiences where educators can learn

and determine new pedagogical strategies based upon the culture of their school or town in

which they work.

As Svendsen (2017) discussed, learning is a natural process occurring socially within

one’s culture that changes both the surrounding environment and individuality of participants.

Opportunities for professional development often lead to teachers who will participate in

effective collaborations with colleagues, fostering strong interpersonal connections and

supportive communication (Childress, 2019; Dehdary, 2017). In addition, studies between the

social interaction of student-teachers within the context of education found that when groups

exchange ideas about their teaching, critical thinking increased (Antoniadou, 2011).

Implementing Vygotsky’s idea of ZPD implemented into educator’s practice in a study by Shi

(2017) allowed veteran teachers to share opinions, teaching, and resources with novice teachers,

and helped new teachers to reach the potential level of development desired through social

interaction. Opening Sociocultural Theory to include adult learning provides teachers the

opportunity to determine the best ideas for students’ learning through collaboration with one

another, thereby fine-tuning their pedagogy.

22

While ZPD is often discussed in reference to the learning of children, it is also applicable

to the learning of educators when collaborating. In order to allow one to quickly move through

one’s ZPD, it is recommended to model, create dialogue, practice, and confirm one another

(Snowman, McCown, and Biehler, 2012). Educators are often encouraged to use modeling

within their teaching; therefore, it is practical to include modeling when teaching and learning

from one another. Levine and Marcus (2007) noted that if the goal of collaboration is to allow

educators to learn new approaches and apply those approaches to their teaching, “Vygotsky’s

explanation of how external operations are internalized suggests the importance of creating

spaces for teachers to talk and engage in practices together rather than seeking to control

individuals and deprive them of opportunities to question or alter practices” (Levine and Marcus,

2007, p. 124). Teachers can learn from one another through the idea of ZPD and collaboration.

ZPD is connected to adult learning of educators based upon learning through the discussions and

aid from colleagues that occurs during collaboration. The aforementioned ideas and studies all

apply to collaboration between educators in respect to its connection to Sociocultural Theory.

The collaboration between educators provides learning opportunities in a career where

continuous knowledge is necessary.

Collaboration

Collaboration exists in many different forms, with formal and informal as the most

prevalent. Educators collaborating with one another removes teachers from isolation and has

created a shift in education:

The rise of the professional learning community has altered teaching in significant ways.

We’re transitioning from an era in which what was taught, how learning was assed, what

instructional materials were used, and how grades were assigned were all determined by

23

the individual teacher to whom a student was randomly assigned. Now we’re asking

teachers to work in collaborative teams to achieve common goals for which they are

mutually accountable. (DuFour, 2015, p. 24)

Collaboration changes the way educators teach and shifts the focus on working together

to meet the needs of all students, not just the students within one’s classroom. In addition,

teachers make decisions together and apply them to all students rather than separate instruction

in each individual classroom. Collaboration involves professional dialogue, gives a purpose to

interaction with colleagues, and allows opportunities for teachers to participate in analytical

discussions about teaching to improve their teaching practice (Grey, 2011). Interaction may

occur within departments, grade-level teams, or whole faculty meetings (Levine and Marcus,

2007). Educators often noted their preference of those with whom they desire to collaborate; for

example, several studies showed that teachers preferred to collaborate with those who had

similar beliefs, those who held similar academic expectations of students, and those who were

perceived as possessing strong content knowledge (Stevenson, 2005; Stevenson, 2008). Because

educators are particular about whom they choose to interact with based upon friendships or

preconceived notions of teacher knowledge, it may prove difficult for educators to open up and

form collegial relationships with one another. However, collaboration, when done correctly,

works to break down teacher isolation and allow teachers to work together and develop

assessments and strategies to help students learn. Educators also develop leadership through

shared power in collaborative meetings and implement assessments to determine which students

are not learning and which interventions need implemented to lead to the success of each student

(Wells, 2008). It is important to note that collaboration alone is not enough. Educators may

collaborate or interact with one another consistently throughout the day, but those conversations

24

may merely be congenial in nature. Successful collaboration occurs when educators form

collegial relationships and become comfortable allowing colleagues into their formally private

teaching practices.

Formal. Formal collaboration occurs in a previously planned meeting of educators, and

most likely requires for teachers to attend. The majority of studies found in the literature about

collaboration discuss formal interactions. Thacker (2017) studied both formal and informal

collaboration among history teachers; the study found that educators believed formal

collaboration was more valuable than informal collaboration only when it was applicable to their

classroom, students, and individual learning goal. The literature discussing informal versus

formal collaboration, however, is oftentimes contradicting, and the type of collaboration teachers

prefer may be due to personal opinion or how collaboration is conducted within each educators’

school. In addition, formal collaboration can frequently be misconstrued as a way to control a

busy teachers’ time and may receive a negative view if poorly implemented collaboration exists.

Informal. Informal collaboration occurs in a non-structured or non-planned environment.

Often, teachers believe informal collaboration is more beneficial than formal collaboration as

specific teaching issues and solutions to those issues are discussed and solved in a discussion

relevant to the agenda of the day (Akiba and Liang, 2016; Thacker, 2017; Stevenson, 2005).

Informal interaction between teachers is usually voluntary and does not follow a mandated

schedule (Thacker, 2017). Additionally, the literature presented the idea that informal

collaboration is still created based upon an environment of trust and strong relationships

(Kennedy, 2011). Thus, while informal collaboration may seem more laid back to some,

educators will not collaborate with one another, even informally, if they do not feel comfortable

with their colleagues and do not have an environment of trust. Stevenson (2005) found that

25

educators preferred informal collaboration because it allowed flexibility in what was discussed,

educators often found it more relevant to their needs than formal interactions, and educators

stated informal collaboration was easier due to time constraints. The research also showed that of

the 12 teachers interviewed for the study, all agreed that hearing the success from other teachers

about different projects or certain technology they implemented made them more willing to

implement new ideas into their classroom.

In a later study, Stevenson (2008) found that educators were more likely to collaborate

with friends and those who held the same ideas and beliefs as them. This research contradicts

with much of the literature discussed as numerous studies determined that friendships frequently

obstructed collaboration due to a fear of upsetting friends. It is possible that educators will

interact with those whom they are better acquainted; however, they may not be partaking in

genuine and useful collaboration. The research on informal collaboration, however, lacks in

discussing the attitude teachers possess toward interacting with one another and whether or not

the desire to collaborate leads to an increase of formal collaboration for some as opposed to those

who have negative views regarding sharing classroom struggles and ideas with another.

Collegiality. When teachers are collegial with one another, they trust each other as

colleagues and are willing to collaborate with and work with one another. Collegiality involves

teachers talking with other teachers about students, teachers working together to develop

curriculum, teachers observing one another teach, and teachers teaching one another (Hoerr, 2015).

While some literature argued collegiality was not true collaboration, for the purpose of this

research, collegiality and collegial relationships are considered necessary to reach true

collaboration. Collegiality includes discussions about pedagogy, reflections on teaching,

observations of teaching, and learning from other educators (Taylor, 2001). Ning, Lee, and Lee

26

(2015) discovered that collegiality was significant in predicting successful collaboration; educators

that created collegial relationships were more likely to interact positively during collaboration and

effectively work as a team. In addition, collegiality replaces spontaneous discussions or friendly

conversations with genuine collaboration where teachers challenge one another, as Datnow (2011)

realized in teacher interviews. Collegiality within a PLC, where teachers sincerely challenge one

another, was found by Owen (2016) to lead to positive learning for students and a higher sense of

well-being for educators.

When educators form collegial relationships as opposed to congenial relationships, they

“recognize, appreciate, and respect different work habits, theoretical orientations, and

instructional approaches. Collaboration ultimately allows a group to arrive at solutions through

professional, evidence-based conversations” (Bates and Morgan, 2018, p. 624). The formation of

strong, collegial relationships leads to an appreciation of differences among colleagues and is

more likely to result in a productive PLC that presents practical and useful solutions. Collegiality

often requires educators to open themselves up to vulnerability in sharing struggles in their

teaching; the literature clearly shows that prosperous collaboration does not occur without

collegiality. When colleagues are collegial with one another, positive communication becomes

easier, and teachers become more comfortable sharing ideas with one another (Roffey, 2012).

Collegiality, as noted, is often a struggle because teaching is deeply personal for many educators.

It is seen as a craft, almost an art form, and providing advice and discussions on one’s teaching is

often seen as deeply critical and personal (Evans, 2012). Although collegiality is often a struggle

due to the oftentimes private nature of teaching, beneficial collaboration for students and

teachers cannot occur without it. Several strategies exist to create collegiality.

27

Evans (2012) suggested that to work toward collegial relationships, educators can partake

in pair visiting. Pair visiting occurs when teachers team up and visit one another for a class

period and then spend time debriefing the visit. The purpose of pair visiting is not to critique one

another’s teaching but to learn from each other. Colleagues then begin to know one another

better, build trust, and become more open to collaborating and forming collegial relationships.

Creating a habit of confronting conflicts with colleagues and attempting to work through any

issues to ensure educators are comfortable collaborating with one another is also essential.

Thomas R. Hoerr (2015), an administrator, implemented several ideas to build collegiality

amongst educators in his school. Opportunities were provided where educators could share with

other teachers’ stories about students making gains in the classroom and what was done to assist

that student. Collaborative meetings must allow educators a chance to discuss with one another

rather than just hear a speaker; teachers do not expect students to sit quietly in their desks while

teachers lecture at them, so that same expectation should not exist for teachers. Both Hoerr

(2015) and Evans (2012) provided practical ideas to create collegiality, but lack of research other

than anecdotal evidence does not necessarily provide a clear picture of whether or not the

discussed strategies work.

Congeniality. Congeniality occurs when educators are friendly with one another but

possibly unwilling to truly collaborate. Congeniality merely encompasses friendliness, warmth,

and support (Evans, 2012), rather than a desire to truly collaborate. This unwillingness may

occur due to a lack of trust, a lack of confidence in another educator’s teaching, or a number of

other reasons. Cranston (2009) uncovered that often congeniality was a detriment to teachers

because congenial relationships hindered teachers who would protect one another from criticism

of one’s teaching practices rather than remaining open to professional criticism to improve

28

instruction. Friendship is not a negative idea within a school environment; however, protecting

friends from criticism holds teachers back from improvement, and ultimately does not aid in

student learning. While congeniality may create a positive working environment, it is not the

same as collegiality (Taylor, 2001).

Oftentimes, collaboration focuses merely on congeniality, or creating friendships or

companionships amongst faculty, or discussing operational procedures, rather than strategies to

improve student achievement (DuFour, 2004). Fallon and Barnett (2009) discovered in their

study that congeniality led to, what they called a ‘pseudo-learning community.’ The learning

community studied contained teachers who questioned the authenticity of the group and stated

that the production of knowledge did not occur. A transformation did not take place because

relationships did not go beyond congeniality. Dufour, et. al. (2008) asserted that claiming

congeniality is the same as collegiality is not a fair comparison. Discussing similarities and

differences with one another does not mean teachers are collaborating, and good friendship does

not necessarily lead to deep discussions about teaching and how to meet students’ needs. It is

important to understand that collaboration occurs through the formation of collegial relationships

and is not based merely upon congeniality.

According to Owens (2014), a group that is only congenial with one another frequently

impedes professional learning. Evans (2012) stated that congeniality alone creates a culture of

niceness and privacy rather than a culture of growth; although, congeniality is necessary to

provide a safe and happy workplace. Educators are often congenial with one another and form

friendships but are unwilling to engage in collaboration that truly leads to improved student

learning. Congeniality can oftentimes look like collaboration; however, it is merely a superficial

relationship where members meet but do not take the time to delve into actually changing

29

teaching practices based on collaborative discussions (Bates and Morgan, 2018). Evans (2012)

argued that teachers are congenial and do not take the next step into collegiality because the

majority of educators are made up of people who avoid conflict and view their work as a deeply

personal matter. However, congeniality is not all bad. Hoerr (2015) asserted that collegiality is

difficult to build without congeniality, so it is important to create a base of congeniality before

collegiality. Nevertheless, teacher relationships with one another cannot stop at congeniality or

collaboration is essentially a waste and does not improve student learning. Collegial and

congenial relationships, and which relationship educators form, provides insight into the attitudes

of educators toward collaboration. Although research does not yet exist that specifically delves

into teachers’ attitudes toward forming congenial and collegial relationships, the ideas mentioned

above provide a base for the reasons why educators choose to form a congenial relationship

rather than a collegial relationship that effectively helps one’s teaching and student success.

Necessary Elements for Successful PLC and Collaboration.

Several studies showed that collaboration is effective in both student and teacher

learning; however, if certain elements are missing, teachers continue to work in isolation and do

not collaborate on pedagogical topics that hold the potential to improve one’s learning (Maloney

and Konza, 2011). According to Bates and Morgan (2018), true collaboration leads to a change

in teaching, Educators must hold themselves, and each other, accountable for changing their

teaching to improve student learning (Easton, 2015). One survey sent to educators in six different

states exhibited that positive collaborative cultures within the schools changed when the schedule

allowed for collaborative time during the school day, and the principals expected teachers to

work together (Erkens, et. al., 2008). When a PLC implemented active learning, Darling-

Hammond, Hyler, Gardner, and Espinoza (2017) argued that educators are more likely to learn.

30

Active learning involves interactive activities, artifacts, and other strategies that lead to learning

for educators. When educator collaboration implements active learning, more useful knowledge

is gained. Teachers will more likely positively view collaboration when, “they are comfortable

with the people with whom they are working, have opportunities to share and communicate, and

feel a sense of team cohesiveness” (Childress, 2019, p. 3). Providing opportunities for educators

to become comfortable with one another is essential in creating a positive PLC environment.

Collaboration is also a process of continual learning rather than a one-time change

(Svendsen, 2017; Lick, Clauset, and Murphy, 2013). As Wells (2008) demonstrated, change in

education occurs on a slow journey, including change via collaboration. However, change can

occur when PLCs stay focused on their goals and provide positive attributes to the group. The

goal of a PLC is to focus the school on student learning, school improvement, and change in

programs to benefit both the school culture and student achievement (Lick, et. al., 2013). As all

actions in education should, PLCs exist for the benefit and learning of students. Talbert (2010)

argued that PLCS frequently face several challenges because teachers are placed into PLCs

merely because it is required, and there is no focus on assessment of student performance and

collaboration to improve that performance. A PLC with a focus and a desire to improve teaching

is more likely to be effective. Therefore, the research showed the necessity of the following

attributes in order to meet students’ needs: leadership, shared goals, cultural norms, trust, and

data.

Leadership. Before schools implement PLC meetings, principals must possess strong

leadership with solid norms and ethics already executed in the day-to-day life of the school (Harris

and Jones, 2010; Lovett and Cameron, 2010). Lack of strong leadership creates difficulty in faculty

buy-in toward collaboration. Postholm (2016) discovered that principal leadership must have

31

created a trusting environment in the school for PLCs to create success and trust within the group

in order for teachers to effectively take on leadership responsibilities. Principals regarded PLCs

as a “continuous commitment to support the activities of staff as they grow as a community, as

learners, and as professionals” (Carnston, 2009, p. 9). An understanding by administrators that

their role incorporates supporting teachers to learn and lead creates a strong learning community.

Evans (2012) declared that collegiality cannot occur if a principal is indifferent, and without

collegiality, a faculty is merely congenial which does not result in effective PLCs. Administrators

are clearly critical to ensuring teacher improvement through PLCs.

Through 10 years of studying PLCs, Talbert (2009) discovered two ways principals can lead.

Both possess different attributes that lead to teachers’ desires of whether they wish to participate

in collaboration. Bureaucratic leadership patterns involve mandatory teacher collaboration where

administrators set a time and place for meetings. In addition, PLCs are provided a direction by

school leaders, and teachers are given roles and responsibilities within PLCs; although, these

leadership roles often come with little support and little direction as to how to enact the

leadership role. In a bureaucratic pattern, PLCs are accountable to top-level leaders. Bureaucratic

approaches may lead to compliance, resistance, or anxiety. Resistance may lead to teachers

merely refusing to attend PLC meetings or possibly attending but not partaking. Anxiety may

also occur because teachers could possibly feel pressure to attend PLCs and feel they will get in

trouble if they do not lead or perform in the way they are expected. If educators decide to

comply, it is usually done begrudgingly and without a clear understanding of the purpose of

PLCs. Neither of the aforementioned actions are desirable in a PLC as the goal exists for

educators to want to collaborate and approve student achievement.

32

Conversely, Talbert (2009) discussed professional approaches to PLCs and changing the

culture of a school. Leaders build a shared vision with educators in order to support change,

develop ways to address achievement gaps and create resources with the help from teachers, and

establish accountability for both leaders and teachers. With the implementation of a professional

approach, educators take on a mindset of enthusiasm, cooperation, or wait-and-see. Each action

is desirable as even the wait-and-see teachers can be won over when they witness the positive

effects of PLCs on their teaching and student achievement. While not always an easy change,

professional approaches are met with less resistance and more eagerness to attempt

collaboration.

In addition to determining the type of leadership to implement, school leaders also regulate

the time allocated for teacher collaboration, and Buttram and Farley-Ripple (2016) showed that

principals exercise leadership when they allocated time for teachers to collaborate. Lack of time

within a school day is often a complaint for educators and their resistance to PLCs, so

administrators can provide that time for educators to ensure the success of collaboration. The

most successful principal leadership set up a positive PLC culture that required teachers to set

goals for student performance, report progress in PLC meetings, celebrate success when meeting

goals, and brainstorm what to improve upon when students and teachers did not meet the goals.

Administrators must prioritize teachers’ professional growth by allowing opportunities for

collaboration and growth in teaching (Mullen and Huttinger, 2008). Administration is

responsible for ensuring educators grow in their profession, and providing PLC opportunities

proves an effective way to do so. All in all, strong top-level leadership sets the tone for school-

wide PLCs.

33

While a strong administrator is important, it is also necessary for principals to pass on some

of the leadership to other educators and encourage teachers to take on leadership positions (Chen

and Mitchell, 2015; Curry, Mania-Singer, Harris, and Richardson, 2018). Without strong

leadership at the top level, it is difficult to ask other educators to lead, but it is necessary for a

principal to remove himself/herself as the main leader and instead become a guide; this happens

through distributed leadership (Hord, 2009); similarly, Roseler and Dentzau (2013) reported a

recommendation for bottom-up leadership when teachers collaborate.

In addition, distributing leadership still allows for necessary guidance from principals. The

literature clearly demonstrates that distributed leadership often occurs in collaboration, meaning

educators receive opportunities to take on leadership roles themselves (DuFour, et. al., 2008;

Owen, 2016). When given opportunities to lead within a PLC, educators felt empowered and

valued (Owens, 2014). Easton (2015) argued that all members of a PLC play some type of

leadership role and possess leadership assets. Therefore, all educators receive an opportunity for

some type of leadership when working in a successful PLC. It is important for principals to note

that stepping back and allowing educators to lead means they should allow educators to control

their learning in PLC meetings and decide the most important ideas on which to focus during the

meeting.

Another example of successful distributed leadership, identified by Musanti and Pence

(2010), investigated the effects of co-facilitators of a collaborative group taking on a leadership

role and working with a new teacher by allowing the novice educator to observe the experienced

teacher’s classroom and discuss pedagogical and instructional techniques. The study often found

hesitancy from co-facilitators when sharing their teaching with others; however, the position of

leadership taken by the co-facilitator allowed for a building of trust and collaboration between

34

educators, leading to genuine discussions of classroom observations which led to growth from

both novice and experienced teachers. According to Erkens, et. al. (2008), several roles exist for

educators involved in PLC meetings, such as collaborator, action researcher, reflective

practitioner, and learner advocate. Each of the above roles provides leadership opportunities for

educators to take on while also collaborating with their colleagues. Within a PLC meeting, a

facilitator is also an important leadership role to ensure collaboration stays on task and guarantee

that the meeting of the daily goal occurs.

To benefit further from collaboration, administrators and teacher-leaders must meet regularly

to collectively share occurrences during PLCs and ideas to chance the school or classroom

environment (Lick, et. al., 2013). In addition, educators can lead by modeling teaching to other

colleagues, which Hoekstra and Korthagen (2011) discovered leads to positive learning for

teachers to apply modeled teaching techniques into the teaching in their own classroom. One

leadership role teachers can take on is the role of a mentor teacher for educators new to the

profession. According to Wei, et. al., (2010), 80% of teachers reported having a mentor teacher

their first year of teaching. A mentor teacher walks alongside a new teacher and works with

him/her giving he/she pedagogical and classroom management advice. In some instances, mentor

teachers observe new teachers giving feedback to help improve instruction. Experienced and

novel teachers, through mentorship, collaborate with one another and ensure novice educators do

not feel isolated within their first years of teaching.

Conversely, poor leadership can negatively impact collaboration. PLCs that function without

strong leadership reported that principals did not support them and did not help them to develop

as educators (Voekel and Chrispeels, 2017). Szczesiul and Huizenga (2014) compiled evidence

from four teacher teams who all stated that lack of guidance from administration led to

35

frustration from educators who had little to no direction during PLC meetings; in addition,

teachers often reported that their administrators over-relied on rules and mandates that did not

help to create positive attitudes about collaboration. Not only can poor leadership hinder

collaboration, but teachers placed into leadership positions often reported feeling isolated from

their colleagues and overwhelmed with responsibilities from their leadership role combined with

teaching (Struyve, Meredith, and Gielen, 2014). Teacher leaders felt isolated because colleagues

frequently would not come to them for help or talk to them about their frustrations; the teacher

leaders were now seen as unapproachable. Educators noted the desire for administrators who

provided a call to action to set teachers on the right course to guide PLCs. Without leadership,

educators often reported confusion of what they were asked to do as no one was there to

communicate a vision (Wells, 2008).

Because school leaders determine the amount of time teachers receive for collaboration, it is

crucial they set aside time for PLCs. In an analysis of surveys sent to teachers, two-thirds of the

educators reported times to collaborate, but the average time to interact was approximately 2.7

hours per week, and only 16% agreed the school created a climate of collaborative effort (Wei,

et. al., 2010). If administrators do not provide time for teacher collaboration during regular work

hours, collaboration is often viewed in a negative context and teachers are less likely to

collaborate on their own. Strong leadership from both administrators and teachers in leading

positions can affect the attitudes and willingness one has to collaborate with one’s colleagues.

Shared Goals. Sims and Penny (2015) discovered that shared goals and values in regard to

collaboration and student success are more likely to lead to a successful PLC as opposed to a lack

of common ideals. Implementing a clear mission and values led to a well-run PLC (Dehadry, 2017;

DuFour, et. al., 2008). In addition, when goals align to the mission, vision, and goals of the school

36

or district, they are more beneficial to the PLC (Easton, 2015; Darling-Hammond, et. al., 2017).

DuFour, et. al. (2008) and Erkens, et. al., (2008) discussed the importance of SMART goals: Goals

that are specific, measurable, attainable, results-oriented, and time bound. Creating SMART goals

creates a path to achieve the goals and to know when the goal has been reached. An 11-year study

of collaboration in Finnish schools found that a common purpose within PLCs led to fewer

conflicts when collaborating (Feys and Devos, 2014).

Teachers who created shared goals and visions together responded to survey questions with

90% positive responses in respect to the shared vision created within collaboration (Owen,

2016). DuFour, et. al., (2008) argued that shared values and goals is a step in the right direction,

but it is also necessary to clarify the required commitments to reach each goal and achieve the

vision. Goals and visions should be developed with teachers to determine what actions the

faculty is prepared to take to reach each goal. Setting PLC long-term goals is important, but it is

also crucial to set a purpose and goal for each PLC meeting to add direction and focus (Erkens,

et. al., 2008). When goals are not established, educators often reported lack clarity on

expectations and how to implement problem-solving during disagreements (Szczesiul and

Huizenga, 2014; Levine and Marcus, 2007). Establishing goals that all members of a PLC agree

upon provides a more productive and beneficial PLC.

Cultural Norms. According to Hirsh (2016), Creating norms that all educators within a

PLC agree to adhere to creates a bond. When everyone in attendance agrees to certain

rules and standards of work, a community of teacher-learners begins. Because a tradition

of autonomy encompasses teaching, creating cultural norms can frequently prove

challenging as it is in direct conflict of the private manner of teaching that is the norm in

U.S. schools (Talbert, 2009). However, Datnow (2011) determined it is necessary to set

37

expectations for meeting behavior, what to bring to meetings, and acceptable discussion

about students. The schools that established the cultural norms beforehand focused better

in meetings and educators appreciated the value of time. Grey (2011) discovered that the

creation of specific rules agreed on by all members of a PLC led to greater trust, and

implementing rules on how to handle agreements and how to take turns while talking also

led to a more productive PLC. Wells (2008) equated the culture of a PLC to context: It

determines how educators respond to one another and organize the meetings in a

respectful and realistic way for all. Cultural norms ensure the creation of a respectful

culture while also allowing a safe space for teachers to share ideas and learn from one

another.

Trust. Without trust, people will often not share thoughts or ideas with one another, and

the same idea occurs in teaching. Trust is crucial to a PLC because teachers share

vulnerabilities with their struggles and provide aid to one another to improve teaching

(Bates and Morgan, 2018). Teachers involved in collaboration through PLCs and other

professional development opportunities created a trusting environment with one another

where they shared thoughts and ideas and trusted their colleagues from lower grade levels

to adequately prepare their future students (Ford and Youngs, 2018; Cranston, 2009;

Musanti and Pence, 2010).

Building trust is oftentimes difficult, as a study by Hallam, Smith, Hite, Hite, and Wilcox

(2015) showed; although, it is not impossible. Consistent positive interactions, fulfilling personal

responsibilities, and sharing personal information all led to a positive PLC team where educators

trusted one another and could share data, creating vulnerability to learn and improve classroom

practices. In like manner, members must discuss behaviors that compromise trust, such as

38

sarcasm or the inability to admit mistakes or when one does not know an answer (Easton, 2015).

Asking questions is another factor that led to trust, as found in a study of three schools and their

implementation of collaboration over two years (Postholm, 2016). The creation of cultural norms

and trust go hand-in-hand because teachers notice their colleagues carry out the norms set up by

their teacher-team, leading to a philosophy of trust that their co-workers will do what they said

they would do.

Yet another study proved the benefits of trust within a PLC and stated that all decisions

made in the system were based on honesty, trustworthiness, and commitment (Feys and Devos,

2014). When trust is implemented, principals in Chen and Mitchell’s (2015) study noted that in

regard to coping with disagreement, teachers, “were professional enough to differentiate

academic disputes from personal ones. The principals did not have to remind teachers about the

attitude of respect, and they could capitalize on differences of opinion to develop greater

professional capacity for the teachers” (p. 47). Trust among educators allowed for the occurrence

of professional discussions and further opportunities for educators to learn from one another and

grow in their teaching. Additionally, trust allowed teachers to realize disagreements were not

personal and were merely a way to improve one another’s teaching. Levine and Marcus (2007)

argued the importance of trust, but the authors debated that trust may take years to build, and it

requires patience from all involved to work toward building said trust. Trust is crucial to a

successful PLC because educators who reported feeling as if they did not belong within a PLC

were less likely to trust their colleagues and did not desire to collaborate with them (Dehadry,

2017; Owen, 2016). Without trust, teachers will not share about their private and personal

teaching, leading to failed collaboration that does not benefit students.

39

Data. Collecting student data to improve student learning is a constant in the life of a teacher,

so it is not surprising that data collection must exist for strong PLC. Teachers report that the most

useful collaboration occurs when student data leads to a change in one’s teaching (Avalos-Bevan

and Bascope, 2017; Erkens, et. al., 2008). Several data are collected such as test items,

benchmark assessments, or joint pedagogical planning (Datnow, 2011; Hord, 2009). The

research showed that data is used differently depending on how high functioning the PLC team

is. For example, members in a well-conducted PLC reported that data was analyzed and then

used to regroup students based on instructional needs or to close a learning gap amongst students

(Voelkel and Chrispeels, 2017). DuFour (2015) reasoned that implementing data into PLCs can

be used to ask four questions. First, which students showed proficient on the assessment? Which

students need extend learning due to high proficiency on the assessment? What can teachers

learn from other colleagues who had students with excellent results? Is there an area where all

students achieved lower results than expected, and what can the teacher team do to more

effectively teach this skill? The four questions posed by DuFour provide a clear guide for not

merely looking at data, but also analyzing the data to improve student learning.

Rather than just sharing student results, the analysis of data is crucial to a successful PLC.

One important use for data within a PLC is to ensure outcomes are met; in order to track this, it

is critical that the curriculum and assessments align to the desired outcomes. Creating common

assessments across grade levels ensures effective data use (Erkens, et. al., 2008). The benefit of

common formative assessments, as discovered by Richardson (2011), in his study and interview

of DuFour are to examine the assessments and, to provide remedial aid for specific skills

students are struggling with. In addition, “the transparency of results helps individual team

members identify their strengths and weaknesses and learn from one another. Finally, the team

40

can identify its own learning needs when they see students consistently struggle to achieve

regardless of the teacher” (p. 30). Farley-Ripple and Buttram (2013) studied an elementary

school with over 80% minority students and over 80% of students meeting the requirement for

free and reduced lunch. In three years, the school implemented data into schoolwide meetings

where grade-level teams shared and analyzed data, created goals together, and created

curriculum that aligned across grade-levels. Student achievement was raised to 85% of students

reaching the state standard in math and reading.

One way to monitor data is through the use of common formative assessments, which lead to

a production of data that gives teachers insight into student learning and how to further the

learning of struggling students or identify changes needed in teaching. In addition, when the

same students receive the same assessments, it becomes clear a problem exists when students are

struggling to do well regardless of their teacher. Common formative assessments provide an

opportunity for grade-level or content-level teachers to re-evaluate their teaching to meet the

goals set in the PLCs and achieve student growth. Common assessment also allows teachers to

remain in agreement as to what good work looks like and how educators should grade said work.

(Darling-Hammond, et.al., 2017).

Collaboration and Student Achievement

Collaboration occurs mainly for the benefit of students. In 2011, a study conducted by

Wellbeing Australia, the researchers found that 85.9% of 466 respondents strongly agreed that a

focus on the wellbeing of students created an effective learning environment. The main focus of

educators is to ensure students learn and succeed in a positive environment. Implementing

collaboration between educators creates an encouraging learning environment. Numerous studies

track the amount of teacher collaboration and the link, or lack thereof, to student achievement;

41

for example, Kelly and Cherkowski (2015) traced teacher collaboration and student literacy

results through a case study and found that all students involved in the case study showed higher

achievement in literacy.

Akiba and Liang (2016) study discovered an increase in student test scores when teachers

reported collaboration with one another in mathematics. While Akiba and Liang’s study

controlled for many variables, several variables remained which affected student test scores. The

significance of increased student test scores based on educators who interact more with one

another may occur due to any number of factors such as socioeconomic status, difficulties at

home, or merely poor test-taking skills:

Students in the schools with a higher percentage of midcareer teachers with mathematics

or mathematics education major improved their achievement more than the other students

in the schools with a higher percentage of beginning or experienced teachers without a

major in mathematics or mathematics education. Both poverty level and school location

were also significantly associated with student achievement growth rate after controlling

for individual student’s poverty level, ethnic minority status, and gender. (p. 106)

Further studies exist within different content areas and types of students proving the

effects of teacher collaboration on student learning. For example, collaboration among educators,

specifically for the benefit of Latinx ELL students found to improve mathematics scores among

immigrant students. Bottia, Valentino, Moller, Mickelson, and Stearns (2016) theorized that

educators often hold misconceptions about Latinx students; therefore, collaboration with other

educators clears many of the misunderstandings, which allows educators to teach without bias

and improve the math scores of Latinx ELL students. While the aforementioned theory is logical,

it cannot be proven, based on the study alone, that the collaboration worked due to ridding

42

teachers of bias about Latinx students rather than the pedagogical techniques implemented into

the classroom due to collaboration. While improved test scores for Latinx ELL students may

have occurred as a result of a change in teachers’ mindsets, there are, again, several variables

that may have improved student test scores, so it is difficult to determine what aspect resulted in

higher scores.

Levine and Marcus (2007) studied collaboration between teachers. The authors observed

six teachers for 120 hours and took field notes over a two-year time period. Interviews with

educators and administrators were also conducted. The researchers conducted the study in hopes

of discovering how collaboration between educators can be used to close the achievement gap

between students. Research found that teachers did not challenge one another in regard to

instructional practices, and the educators involved in the study only asked for help with specific

students, rather than help with specific instructional practices. Overall, Levine and Marcus

(2007) noted that while collaboration may be a tool for closing the achievement gap between

students, it may not occur if educators will not truly collaborate and give up complete autonomy

over their classrooms. While the aforesaid study created a solid building block for future

research, the fact that no data collected analyzed student test scores or ability levels in order to

determine if collaboration did close the achievement gap proves that it was not clearly proven if

or how collaboration can close the ability gaps between pupils.

One example at Snow Creek elementary school showed the benefits of teacher

collaboration. Teachers spent 30 minutes each day with their respective grade-level teams to

discuss and create differentiated instruction based upon the results of common formative

assessments. Special education teachers also joined the grade-level team meetings as well as a

Title I specialist, two tutors, and the principal herself. Students moved fluidly throughout the

43

teacher teams. For example, a struggling student would work with a teacher whose students had

performed the highest on the common assessment. Students who performed high on the

assessment would work with another teacher on an enrichment activity. Every teacher had a role

to play, and each student would move in between teachers depending on how they did on the

formative evaluation. In less than two years, Snow Creek became a Title I Distinguished school.

Students performed above the state performance standard in all grade levels and all subject areas.

Before the implementation of the collaboration, 40% of students were considered proficient in

third-grade reading. After, 96% of the same students achieved the status of proficient in reading.

Math proficiency jumped from 70% to 100% (DuFour, et. al., 2008). The increase in proficient

students is a significant number, and clearly shows the benefits of collaboration at Snow Creek.

However, teacher collaboration may not always benefit students. In the study of Levine

and Marcus (2007), collaboration was not effective and did not aid students due to the lack of

true interaction between educators. Bennett’s (2017) doctoral dissertation investigated the ACT

scores of a school in 2010, when PLCs were not required; the mean score for students on the

ACT was 17.5 In 2014, when PLCs were mandatory for three years, the average ACT score was

18. While this seems like a significant difference, the average raised by .5, and Bennett showed

the difference was not statistically significant, therefore making it difficult to determine the

benefit of PLC on student learning specific to the ACT. In both studies, one cannot necessarily

conclude if teacher collaboration was merely not beneficial, or if PLCs at the schools studied did

not implement collaboration well.

Conversely, additional literature showed that students profit from teacher collaboration.

An elementary school showed, through the use of common assessments, that the number of

students proficient in reading rose from 65% in 2014 to 83% in 2015 (DuFour, 2017). After the

44

Springfield (Missouri) Public School district found itself unable to receive accreditation, the

school district implemented PLCs into the district to improve student learning. After five years

of PLCs with a clear focus and approach, Springfield Public Schools received the

Commissioner’s Award of Excellence for Professional Development; in addition, student

achievement rose after the implementation of PLCs. (Lick, 2013). In a meta-analysis of 16

studies researching the results of collaboration, conducted by Blank (2013), he discovered that

each of the studies showed significant gains in student achievement in studies that used treatment

control design or pre-post design. Also, Bishop (2016) discovered an overall increase in Algebra

I and Algebra II test scores when consistent and ongoing professional development occurred.

Bishop’s research provided some evidence to add to the literature; however, the lack of schools

studied is a limitation in the research, as well as the initial decline in scores during the beginning

of the PLC implementation. Student test scores are not the only thing effected by teacher

collaboration; Darling-Hammond, et. al. (2009) argued that collaboration can also lead to school-

wide change that goes beyond change in individual classrooms; students benefit when teachers

learn together. When collaboration and PLCs are implemented well into schools, students benefit

from a shift in how educators teach based on the needs of the students.

Benefits of Collaboration for Educators

While several benefits exist for students when educators collaborate, teachers also benefit

when partnership occurs. Most teachers agreed that implementing collaboration into schools

either would have or does have a positive effect on one’s teaching and the school environment

(Wei, et. al., 2010). The main purposes of collaboration for educators are to discontinue the

cycle of isolation and allow educators access to diverse teaching viewpoints to improve their

teaching (Cederlund, 2018; Chen and Mitchell, 2015). Studies showed that teacher happiness is

45

linked to student performance (Roffey, 2012). Since the majority of the aforementioned research

discussed the positive impacts PLCs have on student performance, when implemented correctly,

PLCs may improve the job satisfaction of educators when students succeed due to collaborative

strategies. In Goodnough’s study (2011), educators participated in an action-research project

involving collaboration with one another throughout the process. At the end of the study,

educators reported that the shared resources and ideas with their colleagues led to sharing of

research outcomes in both formal and informal settings as well as enhancing the knowledge built

for those involved.

One study of chemistry teachers discovered that newer teachers (with 10 years of

experience or less) remained more likely to collaborate with one another, and the partnership

with colleagues led to a higher standard of mastery in the content of chemistry (Copriady,

Zulnaidi, Alimin, and Rustaman, 2018). Collaboration benefits early childhood educators as

well, as Grey (2011) discovered in her research that working in teams and engaging in dialogue

with one another: “is a means for teachers to develop both self-awareness and understanding of

their colleagues’ values. This promotes greater team-work, while alleviating the tension that may

form within a teaching team if conflicting personal theories are not well understood” (p. 23).

PLCs may give educators a sense of different points of views and ways to manage conflict within

a group. Educators also cited collaboration as a positive way to feel comfortable within their

schools and feel like part of a community (Roffey, 2012). Similarly collaboration gave educators

a support group where teachers encourage and care for one another; this support allowed teachers

to take risks and reflect upon their teaching, thereby improving their craft (Darling-Hammond,

et. al., 2017).

46

In addition, educators also reported throughout the case study of Kelly and Cherkowski

(2015) that interacting with other educators and sharing ideas led to changes in their teaching and

meaningful learning, as well as the creation of the belief that learning must be a constant for

educational professionals. Collaboration is also found to increase teachers’ confidence in their

teaching (Rahman, 2011; Fishman, et. al., 2013). The implementation of a collaborative

approach to action research, in Curry, et al.’s study (2018), empowered educators and allowed

them to freely voice concerns and give opinions concerning desired plans. Fishman, et al. (2013)

studied both online and in-person collaborative professional development and found that teacher

confidence with new materials increased, changed their teaching to include the new curriculum,

and found students successfully learned from the curriculum. Bishop’s (2016) discovered that the

opportunities for instructors to collaborate with one another allowed teachers to better understand

the content taught because it was necessary for them to know how to teach the skills, in addition

to the best ways to assess the skills.

However, when a PLC does not implement strategies, such as trust and data, to create a

successful PLC, teachers view the collaboration as a waste of time and believe the time spent in

PLC is a way to control one’s teaching, so no creativity transpires in the classroom (Sims and

Penny, 2014). Grey (2011) also found that while collaboration benefitted many, it also caused

anxiety for some educators; for example, one teacher formed anxiety over collaboration due to

her understanding that she just began her teaching journey while she interacted with experienced

educators. Another teacher noted his/her anxiety came from the desire to please colleagues and

not upset anyone when stating opinions. In addition, DuFour (2017) discussed the fears he

possesses toward the future of PLCs. For example, urban schools do not implement PLCs in the

same way as suburban or small-town schools due to the fact that teachers in urban schools often

47

have several other professional developments going on at once; therefore, educators in urban

districts often do not receive the same benefits from PLCs as those in other areas. Another

concern is that educators will become tempted to take shortcuts during PLCs in order to avoid

the hard work it takes to create curriculum, create common formative assessments, and create

time to collaborate with other educators (Richardson, 2011).

As noted in the above sections, education remains a profession commonly lived in

isolation. Teachers benefit from collaboration, but they must take part in the new image being

created for the profession. Educators must create a common definition of the word, team, and

understand that a team occurs when they work together to achieve a common goal that each

teacher is held accountable to (Dufour, et. al., 2008). When educators work in true teams, they no

longer work alone; rather, they work as a unit that challenges one other to meet the same goals.

This mindset change provides benefits for educators by taking them out of seclusion and

providing them with ways to improve their teaching.

While working as a team is crucial to collaboration, lack of time to collaborate is also

commonly noted as a frustration for teacher collaboration, leading to unsuccessful

communication (Simoncini, Lasen, and Rocco, 2014). The OECD (2014) International study

directed by TALIS, surveyed teachers and administrators. When asked about collaboration, the

survey found that teachers who collaborated described higher levels of self-worth in nearly all

countries who participated in the survey; in addition, teachers reported higher job satisfaction in

two of the countries.

For example, Desimone (2009) argued that collaboration with other educators is a

beneficial form of professional development; additionally, to positively improve one’s teaching,

educators must use one’s new skills and attitudes obtained from collaborating and incorporate

48

those new aspects into one’s approach to instruction. When collaboration is done well, Harris

and Jones (2010) showed evidence of higher job fulfillment, higher morale, and fewer absences

among educators. Lovett and Cameron (2010) discovered in their interviews of new teachers that

instructors often needed to discuss and plan together to evaluate student learning and improve

their teaching practice. Collaborating with one another provided teachers with unique ways to

work with one another to improve their teaching, which led to increased knowledge and a re-

culturing of one’s department and schools, as found in Bianchini and Windschitl’s (2008) study.

Similarly, Nugent, Reardon, Smith, Rhodes, Zander, and Carter (2008) discovered in their study

of collaboration specific to technology use that participation in technology PLCs led to increased

self-assurance, stimulated risk taking, and strengthened self-efficacy in relation to teaching with

technology. When executed correctly, the literature showed a clear benefit for educators who

collaborate with colleagues. Although, without trust or a shared vision, the literature indicated

that teachers’ attitudes toward collaboration often turn negative and view collaboration as a

means of control over one’s teaching. Positive teacher attitudes remain important for educators to

ensure job satisfaction stays high. In addition, a positive teacher attitude regarding collaboration

may determine how much one collaborates and the effectiveness of said collaboration.

Gaps in the Literature

A plethora of research exists discussing the benefits of collaboration for both educators and

students. Additionally, several studies created guidelines for elements that lead to a successful

PLC. However, few studies exist that determine the attitudes of teachers toward PLCs and

collaboration and how those beliefs affect their teaching. If educators come to a pedagogical

collaborative meeting with the belief that it is a waste of one’s time, there is the potential that the

pedagogical technique discussed in the meeting does not receive implementation into one’s

49

classroom, yet there few studies exist to determine if this phenomenon occurs; although, it is

theorized in some of the literature, that when teachers do not use student learning to improve

teaching, they are more likely to attribute the problems of struggling students to be due to lack of

something on the part of the student: “If their analysis leads them to conclude that ‘students need

to study harder’ or […]‘students need to learn how to seek help when they struggle to grasp a

concept,’ they have the wrong focus” (DuFour, 2015, p. 26). When PLCs do not change the

instruction of an educator, due to the educator’s attitudes about either PLCs or the abilities of the

students, the students do not benefit from collaboration of their instructors.

While some of the literature briefly addressed teachers’ attitudes toward collaboration, few

focused a study on how said attitudes effect implementation of pedagogical collaboration. It can

be presumed from some of the studies that teachers’ attitudes regarding collaboration may affect

the desire to form congenial relationships over collegial relationships. Fallon and Barnett (2009)

briefly discussed in their research that collaboration between the educators was ineffective

because teachers did not believe they possessed the creativity and skills necessary to create a

sustainable learning community that would increase student achievement. The aforementioned

study briefly touched on teachers’ attitudes and how the lack of self-confidence within the group

created a negative PLC experience; however, the literature’s main focus was not solely on the

attitudes of educators in regard to collaboration. Teachers’ attitudes toward interacting with one

another may also affect the amount of trust they put in their colleagues, as well as their desire to

take on leadership positions. However, none of the literature focuses solely on teachers’ attitudes

and their effect on educators implementing pedagogical strategies discussed during collaboration

into their classroom. Therefore, the research conducted in this study attempted to determine if an

50

educator’s attitudes toward collaboration effects his/her willingness to use academic strategies

discussed during PLCs into their classroom.

Summary

While collaboration is clearly inevitable for educators in the changes in education today,

there still remains questions of how to effectively implement collaboration into a school and how

exactly does collaboration affect the achievement of students. Many studies show that students

grow significantly in their learning when their teachers collaborate; however, without well-done

partnership, the students feel the effects in their learning in a negative way. Collaboration can

occur in both an informal and formal manner, but it is still crucial that the trust between

educators exists. Collaboration, therefore, is: “to help teachers become healthy individuals. If we

are healthy people inside this building, we will have healthy kids. If we aren’t healthy ourselves,

it doesn’t matter what kind of curriculum or teaching strategies we have because only healthy

individuals can allow and help kids make healthy choices (Clark, 2012, p. 33). When educators

interact with one another, they create a healthy work environment and fine-tune their teaching

practices. However, the aforementioned literature consistently showed that the mere

collaboration of teachers is not enough: Improvement through PLCs and collaboration is only

possible when teachers focus on building relationships based on common goals and trust to

improve student learning (Harris and Jones, 2010). Congenial relationships are important to

build, but they are not enough; collegiality must occur for educators to collaborate in a way that

benefits students and other colleagues.

In addition to collegial relationships, trust is necessary to build throughout PLC meetings.

Trust allows educators to open up to one another and share the private practice that occurs in

their classroom. Correspondingly, strong leadership is also essential to ensure collaboration truly

51

benefits students. Leadership must first come from administration and then be distributed to

teachers in order to create empowerment. Teachers may possess several types of leadership roles,

and allowing opportunities for educators to partake in a leadership role is an important step for

administrators to take. Shared goals are crucial to guarantee faculty members remain on the same

page. Cultural norms also help create an environment of trust and determine how meetings and

collaboration are conducted to ensure everyone is thinking similarly. The use of data is also a

necessity to ensure the pedagogy implemented works and benefits students, but it is important to

note that data alone are not enough; educators must analyze data to discover students’ needs and

the best strategies to meet those needs.

The aforementioned attributes of an effective PLC showed throughout the literature that

students benefit when teachers collaborate. However, the benefits only occur when collaboration

is utilized in a useful manner, discusses teaching practices, and leads to a change in teaching. In

addition, educators also benefit from collaboration. Partaking in PLC meetings often improves

teachers’ self-efficacy and provides teachers with new teaching strategies and confidence in

implementing them. The schools that outperform the United States on international assessments

all have one component in common: They invest in professional learning and provide time

during teacher work hours for collaboration and professional development (Darling-Hammond,

et. al., 2009). To catch up to other countries outperforming the US, collaboration, and time for

collaboration, may prove effective to closing the gap. Overall, collaboration is a skill that is

necessary for all teachers today. Schools have shifted to a workplace that requires collaboration

and a focus on all students, not just students sitting in the classrooms of each individual teacher.

Teaching in isolation cannot occur for the 21st Century teacher.

52

CHAPTER Three: Methodology

Research established a need for research on teachers’ attitudes toward collaboration with

other educators, so a methodology was created, and research was conducted to add to the

literature and determine teachers’ thoughts and mindsets regarding working with other educators.

The research included an ethnographic approach to fully immerse into the PLC culture and align

with the sociocultural theoretical framework. A qualitative study additionally allowed for a

deeper understanding of the culture of the school and teachers’ attitudes regarding one another

and toward collaboration. Chapter Three provides an overview of the specific methodological

approach, including specific data collecting instruments and coding methods.

Chapter Three includes an overview of the research questions, along with a description of

the research approach on the study of teachers’ attitudes toward pedagogical collaboration and

how those attitudes affect their implementation of collaborative discussions into their

classrooms. The description includes the design of the research, in addition to the steps taken to

gather the data and to code and analyze the generated data. Additionally, Chapter Three provides

a description of the population used in the study, the setting for the study, and the rationale for

the sampling procedure. The methods used to protect the identity of the participants is also

included.

The discussion of the data collection procedures, including the management of the data

collection and the process for identifying themes, is also examined. Ethical considerations, such

as how permission to conduct the study was achieved and how objectivity occurred, are also

included. Finally, Chapter Three provides the procedures used to collect and analyze the data

within the context of the methodology and theoretical framework. The applicability of

ethnography as the methodology of the research is discussed in depth in this chapter.

53

Research Questions

The importance of collaboration is clear through past research; however, teachers’

personal views regarding collaboration is not well-defined. Furthermore, how teachers’

implement collaboration into their classrooms based on their collaborative views is also an area

in which minimal research is available. Therefore, the study aimed to provide insight into how

the viewpoint of an educator may affect whether or not collaboration actually occurs. The

qualitative study was guided by two research questions:

Research question one: What are teachers’ attitudes about collaboration?

Research question two: How do educators’ attitudes about pedagogical collaboration affect the

implementation of collaborative techniques in their classroom?

Description of the Specific Research Approach

A qualitative study was chosen for the research on determining teachers’ attitudes

regarding collaboration. Qualitative researchers argue that human behavior is directly linked to

the context in which said behavior occurs (Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, and Walker, 2014). Therefore,

qualitative research focuses on the specific setting in which an event occurs. Consequently,

research on teachers’ attitudes toward collaboration and the effect of those attitudes on classroom

instruction required a focus on the cultural context of the school in which the research was

conducted because the culture is crucial to determining attitudes. The testing of theories occurred

to expand, refine, or remove certain theories based on the data found from the study.

The research used an ethnographic approach. An ethnographic study involves the

observation of educators in their natural setting to determine what cultural patterns occur.

Ethnography involves a venture to “Understand the relationship between culture and behavior,

54

with culture referring to the shared beliefs, values, concepts, practices, and attitudes of a specific

group of people” (Ary, et. al., 2014, p. 490). In this particular study, how educators interact with

one another, particularly during pedagogical collaboration, was observed to determine their

attitudes toward collaboration. With whom teachers wanted to collaborate and with whom they

did not want to collaborate with were also observed and discussed to determine collaborative

attitudes. Ethnography was chosen because it provides a deep insight into the culture of

interaction between teachers and their beliefs on the importance of collegiality. Ethnography

allowed an immersion into the culture of the school and PLCs with direct observation of the

subjects. Ethnography also allowed for a focus on a smaller number of educators to gain insight

into the collaborative practices of a certain content area and how those practices and beliefs

affected classroom instruction. The research was conducted through thorough interviews and

observations within the culture of the school. The participants were members of a mathematics

PLC. Working as an English teacher and not a participant in the PLC or collaborations decreased

bias.

Data Collection. Data collection occurred in three different forms. The first observation

included an examination of a pedagogical PLC meeting. The purpose of this data collection was

to view which teachers collaborated with one another, which seemed more open to collaborating

than others, and those who had formed congenial and collegial relationships. Next, interviews

occurred of all Algebra I and Geometry teachers, in addition to the head of the math department,

for a total of seven participants. During the interviews, the initial observation formed several of

the questions. The educators were asked who they chose to collaborate with and why, as well as

their opinions on collaboration. Furthermore, the math teachers were asked what types of

pedagogical techniques from collaborative meetings they implemented into their classroom. All

55

of the interviews were conducted in person. Finally, a second classroom observation occurred.

The same classroom teachers received an in-class observation teaching their students. The class

was audio recorded, and a transcript was formed after class concluded. Then, what was taught in

the classroom was evaluated to determine what aligned with what educators said during PLCs

and interviews about their views on collaboration. Throughout the first observation, interviews,

and second observation, artifacts were also collected. The artifacts collected along the way

showed what type of pedagogical collaboration occurred and attitudes regarding collaboration.

No interviews or observations occurred without the written consent from the participants.

Coding process. The coding process included open, axial, and selective coding using the

raw data with the constant comparative method (Ary, et. al., 2013). The initial round of coding

occurred during the first observation of the pedagogical collaborative meeting. Key ideas, words,

and topics brought up during interviews added on to the key ideas found during the initial round

of coding. The final observation added to the coding, and the creation of the definitive coding

categories were generated. Open coding was the initial stage in the coding process. Transcripts

and field notes from the first observation were evaluated to identify the main categories to use as

codes throughout. The ideas derived from interviews and observations were labeled with terms

from the literature and categorized low to high depending upon the frequency which they

occurred.

Similar concepts were then grouped together to reduce the number of concepts

implemented and aid in differentiating between different areas of code. Using transcripts of the

interviews, the open coding process occurred again by adding to the previous coding, creating

new categories, and combining others. A similar process ensued during the final observation by

combining and rearranging ideas. All coding of the data involved reading through each part of

56

the data and attaching the appropriate code to the data. When coding data, it was important to

consider cultural beliefs of both the school and the individual teachers, in addition to the

participants’ knowledge of the topic of collaboration (Ary, et. al., 2014). In an ethnographic

study, the culture and context in which the collection of data took place is crucial to the coding

process.

Additionally, all of the artifacts collected added to the initial round of open coding and

rearranged some ideas. Simultaneously, axial coding occurred. Axial coding developed

connections between categories in order to develop main categories and subcategories. Axial

coding separated each of the main themes and ideas into headings of responses of individuals to

collaboration within a certain context, the outcomes of collaboration, and conditions under which

collaboration occurred. Finally, selective coding was used to identify the main categories and

how those identify with the other categories found through open and axial coding. Ideas and

themes from the four data points (observation one, interviews, observation two, and artifacts)

were evaluated to determine why certain ideas and themes emerged, how they occurred, and

under what conditions. Selective coding aligned all categories together into overarching

hypotheses about the data (Bhattacherjee, 2012). Coding was achieved through concept mapping

to visually display the concepts and their relationships to one another. Once additional added

data did not lead to a change in the core categories or their relationships, coding was finished and

existed in its most concise form.

Data analysis process. After the first observation, coding occurred in order to inform the

interview questions. After each piece of data, coding was added to and subsequently rearranged.

The creation of codes occurred to inform the research and analyze the data. Coding was done

manually and with the use of Microsoft Excel to create concept maps. The analysis of all new

57

data occurred until no new topics or ideas were discovered to place into the coding and the data

were completely saturated. The ethnographic study allowed for full immersion into the setting

and culture of the school, which lent itself to the coding process through personal interviews,

observations, and artifacts.

Description of the Study Participants and Setting

The study included three Algebra I teachers, three Geometry teachers, and the head of the

math department in a public, suburban high school labeled throughout the study as High School

A. The school is comprised of grades 9-12 with a population of approximately 1,800 students.

Demographically, the school includes 18% minority students and less than 1% of students are

classified as economically disadvantaged. High School A is extremely high achieving, with an

average ACT score of 27.8, one of the highest in the state. The sample was chosen for

convenience, and the content area of math was selected to separate from the subjects and

decrease bias. All participants remain anonymous. Teachers throughout the research are referred

to with pseudonyms. Informed consent was granted before data collection. Subjects received a

description of the study, the purpose of the research, and the information accrued during the

research through the procedures used. The subjects in the study received information of their

rights and risks and benefits of participation. Subjects signed the informed consent form

(Appendix A) after receiving all necessary information about the study.

Data Collection Procedures

Several forms of data collection occurred. Interviews were transcribed using audio

transcription and to notetaking. During the first observation of the collaborative meeting,

videotaping of the meeting occurred and notes were taken. The taped conversations were then

transcribed. The second observations of the classroom were audio-taped and then transcribed.

58

Videotaping did not occur in order to protect students’ identities. The collection of artifacts

occurred throughout with a gathering of any artifacts pertaining to the research such as activities

taught during the classroom observations and notes taken during the collaborative meeting.

The coding process was implemented using open, axial, and selective coding. Qualitative

research depends upon the trustworthiness of the researcher and his or her interpretation of what

he/shee sees and hears (Ary, et. al., 2012). Therefore, several steps were taken to confirm

credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. After the second observation,

member checks were conducted to ensure dependability. The educators observed and

interviewed were approached after the second observation with the findings from coding and

asked to expand upon areas that needed more detail and elucidate areas they viewed as

misconceptions of the data. To ensure credibility, an audit trail exists with a record of all data

and coding, which will be kept for 7-10 years with access to anyone who inquires. Furthermore,

peer debriefing added an additional layer to increase credibility. A peer debriefer, with no

relationship to any of the subjects, reviewed the data to aid in identifying areas of bias in the

analysis of data. The transcription and coding of all of the data assisted in a deep understanding

of the data, as well as a reduction of bias. Reflexivity assured confirmability with the selection of

the content area of math to further separate from the subjects. Triangulation helped ensure

credibility, transferability, and dependability, and the addition of a second observation added a

further layer of triangulation to further increase credibility. Finally, transferability was pursued

through the number of teachers interviewed so the results are more likely applicable across

different settings.

Ethical Considerations

59

The Carson-Newman University IRB process was the first step in achieving permission

to proceed with the study. Once IRB approval was granted, the school district was then

contacted. All studies occurring in this particular school district had to receive board approval.

Once the school board approved the study, permission from the school’s administrator was

granted to continue. Finally, all participants were notified of the informed consent procedure and

were given details of the study, such as the length, purpose, benefits, and possible risks of the

study; however, there are no known inherent risks to the presented study. Subjects were notified

that they were anonymous and code names would be used in all data analysis. The high school is

referred to as High School A to maintain anonymity, and all subjects are referred to with code

names to protect their identity. To remain objective, the content area of math was chosen to

eliminate bias. All participants in the study signed an agreement to partake in the research and

participate in interviews and observations.

Data Analysis Procedures

Becoming familiar with and organizing the data was the first step in the data analysis.

Numerous readings of field notes and transcripts and re-watching observations ensured a

familiarity with the data to confirm a full understanding. The created transcriptions were directly

transcribed verbatim. Notes taken during data collection of ideas and themes noted throughout

became a preliminary form of coding. Coding of transcripts, field notes, and artifacts occurred

after each data type so there was time to adjust interview questions because different themes and

theories began to emerge from the data. The data analysis occured place simultaneous to the data

collection to begin the development of hypotheses and begin data interpretation (Ary, et. al.,

2014).

60

An interview guide was created to facilitate semi-structured interviews (Appendix B).

Field notes were taken during both observations. The collection of qualitative data was consistent

with ethnography because observations and interviews allowed for an immersion into the culture

of the school to discover attitudes. Sociocultural theory allowed for the framing of the data to

occur around how teachers interacted with one another based on observations during

collaboration and discussions during interviews. Additionally, sociocultural theory added to the

richness of the data due to the observation of social interactions within the specific culture of the

school.

Coding was implemented to aid in discovering the most important attitudes and

perspectives teachers held toward collaboration and how, why, and under what circumstances

collaboration occurred and was implemented into the classroom. Codes were created throughout

the research and coding process and were based on the data for the purpose of data analysis.

Coding was conducted manually and through the use of Microsoft Excel to aid in concept

mapping. Coding included breaking down the data into manageable portions, helped to shape the

interview questions, and eliminate bias. Coding used in the Ethnographic design was crucial to

determining the culture of the collaboration that occurred. All new data were analyzed,

reanalyzed, and compared to existing data, also known as constant comparison. Reviewing each

phase of coding as a new phase began made data review critical to ensure connections continued

to be made until the occurrence of saturation.

Summary

The goal of this chapter was to discuss the research design of the study. The study used

an ethnographic approach to the research, which involved an immersion into the culture of the

math department PLC. Four types of data were collected, with the coding of each data point.

61

Every piece of data received the coding process until saturation was reached. Throughout the

collection of research data, several items were implemented to ensure transferability,

confirmability, credibility, and dependability. Ethical considerations were taken into account to

ensure the study remained ethical and confidential. Code names for the school and teachers

interviewed were applied. The study was approved by the Carson-Newman University

Institutional Review Board and the school district before research was gathered, and all subjects

signed the informed consent form. All study participants contributed to the study by sharing their

attitudes on collaboration and allowing observation both in a PLC and in the classroom.

62

Chapter Four: Presentation of Findings

The purpose of this study was to determine teachers’ attitudes regarding collaboration

and how those attitudes affected pedagogical implementation of discussed techniques during

collaborative meetings. This qualitative inquiry utilized seven educators from a school in a

suburban Tennessee school district. Reoccurring themes occurred throughout the gathering and

synthesizing of data, a culmination of collaborative meeting observations, individual teacher

interviews, classroom observations, and a collection of artifacts. The educators were chosen due

to their deep participation in the collaborative environment through weekly meetings with their

content areas and informal discussions with colleagues. The nature of the qualitative research

allowed an immersion into the environment of both the Geometry and Algebra 1 teams to allow

for a detailed analysis of data to produce theories from the data. Due to the focus on a small

number of people, data saturation occurred. When data saturation ensued, the researcher no

longer found new information in the data which prompted the researcher to end the data

collection. This chapter presents the characteristics of those involved in the research study, a

presentation of the data, and findings from the data analyzed using the conceptual framework

constructed throughout the study.

The qualitative study was guided by two research questions.

Research question 1: What types of teacher attitudes about collaboration exist?

Research Question 2: Do educators' attitudes toward pedagogical collaboration affect how

collaborative techniques are implemented into their classroom?

Data were analyzed from the interviews, conducted one-on-one, from a list of structured

questions (Appendix B). The educators revealed their personal views on collaboration in addition

to their individual views on collaboration done at the school in which the study occurred. The

63

interviews gave insight into specific ideas about what collaboration should look like and views

on its implementation. Additionally, observations of collaborative meetings, as well as

observations of classroom instruction and analysis of artifacts, provided insight into colleagues’

interactions with one another and their implementation of pedagogical techniques discussed

during those collaborative meetings into their classroom instruction. The comparison of what

was said during the interviews versus what was actually implemented into the classroom was

discussed.

After each interview and observation, the data were transcribed word-for-word. During

the interviews and observations, field notes were taken to determine any moods or emotions

observed. The data was then organized through a coding process. Parts of the interviews were

coded or categorized, then subsequently synthesized with the most relevant portions to determine

the results.

Coding was created through a full immersion of the interviews and collaborative meeting

observations to discover common words, phrase, or themes existing throughout. Open codes

were created based upon frequency of the occurrence of ideas for each research question. Labels

were created for each open code, including the properties of each code and examples of the raw

data for each open code. Next, axial coding identified relationships between the open codes. The

connections were determined to combine ideas and themes for each research question. Finally,

selective coding determined what core variable encompassed all the data for each research

question to formulate an answer to the research question. Codes were created using inductive

codes, codes that were developed through direct examination of the data. The codes and raw data

were then scrutinized by a peer reviewer to ensure bias did not occur. A coding visual is included

in Chapter Four.

64

Classroom observations and artifacts were labeled based upon types of instruction and

activities teachers implemented into their classrooms as observed during the lesson, as shown

below in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1

Observation and Artifact Labels

Teacher Name

Same activities as content area teachers

Direct Instruction

Partner/Group Work

Same topic as content area teachers

Derek (Geometry) X X Nicole (Geometry) X X X Hannah (Geometry) X X X Alexis (Alg. 1) X X X X Heather (Alg. 1) X X X X Justin (Alg. 1) X X X X

Descriptive Characteristics of Participants

Educators were chosen for a variety of reasons; however, a convenient sample was a

significant factor in choosing teachers for the study. Furthermore, math was chosen to eliminate

bias and distance the researcher from the subjects.

Selection of Participants

One school was contacted to conduct research via in-person contact. When permission

was received from school and administration, a request was sent to the county’s board of

education to conduct research. When permission from the county was received and approval

from the Carson-Newman University Institutional Review Board was granted, all math

instructors in the school were contacted via e-mail to ask for participation in the study. Due to

the nature of the study, all teachers that taught one subject had to agree to the study. Algebra I

and Geometry teachers, in addition to the head of the math department, volunteered to participate

65

in the study and signed informed consent forms agreeing to partake in the research. All

participants were ensured anonymity and confidentiality. The observation of the collaborative

meeting occurred first for each content area, for a total of two collaborative observations. Each

collaborative met for approximately 45 minutes. Next, each interview was conducted in a face-

to-face environment and lasted approximately 45-60 minutes. Finally, a classroom observation

for each Algebra I and Geometry teacher occurred for a 47-minute class period. The head of the

math department was interviewed for views on collaboration, but a collaborative meeting and

classroom observation did not occur for her.

Participant Demographics

The study participants were secondary-level educators of a suburban Tennessee school

district. The teaching experience ranged from 6-33 years. The teachers interviewed, other than

the head of the math department, taught Algebra I or Geometry. Although some of the teachers

taught other courses, Algebra I and Geometry courses were the only ones observed so the

research question could be answered more effectively. Participants held, at a minimum, a

bachelor’s degree, while some held Master’s and Doctorate degrees. Five of the seven

participants were female and two were male.

All observations occurred within the participant’s classrooms. Interviews occurred in

classrooms to ensure comfort and convenience. Observations of the collaborative meetings

occurred in educators’ classrooms as well.

These educators were chosen because they were willing to provide time throughout the

school day, as well as before or after school, for the study. Additionally, the administrator had

approved the research at the school. All educators are referred to by pseudonyms to preserve

anonymity when reporting the results.

66

Data Presentation

Research Question 1: What types of teacher attitudes about collaboration exist?

During the interviews, educators generally agreed that collaboration was positive;

however, definitions of effective collaboration were different for each teacher. The discussion

during the interviews were then supported through collaborative meeting and classroom

observations, as well as through collection of artifacts. The ideas of relevancy, teacher isolation,

changes to create more positive views on collaboration, and collaborating by grade-level all

emerged as reoccurring themes and were labeled as selective codes. Collaboration was found to

require trust from colleagues and was a positive endeavor because it helped both teachers and

students; additionally, when collaboration is not relevant, it is not as well implemented. Both

ideas emerged as broad topics found from the data. Teachers have positive views of

collaboration, but many educators defined collaboration different depending upon their preferred

way to collaborate.

Coding Visual

Figure 4.1 displays the raw data and selective codes that emerged from the data to answer

research question one. Figure 4.2 displays the raw data and selective codes that developed from

the data to answer research question two.

67

Figure 4.1 Research Question 1 Coding

Data sorted in Levels of Coding for Research Question One: What types of teacher attitudes about

collaboration exist?

Raw Data Open Coding Axial Coding Selective Coding

N

Collaboration involves a trust of other colleagues and is a positive endeavor because it works everyone towards the same goal of helping students.

“Feeling like I’m on an island” (I) “It’s hard for it to be super beneficial.” (I) “There needs to be more training on what a good PLC is.” (I)

“It would be beneficial if we took time to sit in each other’s classrooms and observe what each of us does” (I)

“Cause some of it didn’t apply to me.” (I)

Relevancy is important to collaboration

Teacher isolation

Some changes can be made to create better collaboration

When collaboration feels irrelevant, it’s not as well implemented.

“We’re all working for the same goal. We all care about our students.”( I) “Its opened my mind to different ways of teaching so instead of being suck on ‘I learned it this way so I’m going to teach it this way’ (I) “Don’t have to recreate the wheel” (I)

“They’re doing that in your class too? Well, here’s something that I’ve found that works!” I

“Getting to know each other on a personal level.” (I)

“Just eating lunch together every day- you grow in your relationship with somebody, and it’s not just about students and math all the time.” (I)

Collaboration is a positive that benefits both teachers and students.

Building relationships makes collaboration positive

Collaboration should occur by grade-level teachers

Teachers have mostly positive views on collaboration if they feel it is relevant; however, views on what collaboration should look like are different.

Note: I = Interview

68

Research Question 2: Do educators' attitudes toward pedagogical collaboration effect how

collaborative techniques are implemented into their classroom?

Several ideas were found as themes from the data that were labeled as selective codes.

Openness to sharing ideas, gossip breaks trust, sharing data creates trust, comfortable with other

teachers, way of teaching is not going to change, have taught long enough to know what is being

done, teaching techniques, sharing materials, and pacing all encompassed the selective codes.

From these codes, several topics emerged, such as sharing teaching techniques and lessons made

educators more likely to implement collaboration, teachers comfortable with their teaching styles

were less likely to implement discussed lessons during collaborative meetings, and trust of other

colleagues determined the implementation of collaboration. The data showed that teachers’

attitudes regarding collaboration and trust of one another affected the implementation of shared

teaching techniques and lessons into the classroom, which showed that one’s attitude towards

collaboration was not the only factor to determine implementation of shared activities.

Downfalls of collaboration, the benefits of collaboration for both teachers and students,

improvements upon collaboration, collaboration by grade level, and building relationships all

emerged as themes in a discussion of the data found for the second research question.

69

Figure 4.2 Research Question 2 Coding

Data sorted in Levels of Coding for Research Question Two: Do educators' attitudes towards pedagogical collaboration effect how collaborative techniques are implemented into their classroom?

Raw Data Open Coding Axial Coding Selective Coding

“I don’t think people trust each other enough to say what they really think. I don’t think people have confidence in the other teachers’ abilities, and they talk about each other behind their back” (I)

“You can’t trust somebody if you don’t respect them.” (I)

“Gossiping to you about other teachers… I’m not going to trust that person.” (I)

Offering help and willingness.” (I)

Sharing teaching techniques and lessons more likely to implement collaboration; teachers comfortable with teaching styles less likely to implement.

Comfortable with other teachers.

Open to sharing ideas.

Gossip breaks trust.

Sharing data creates trust

Trust of other colleagues determines implementation of collaboration.

I could teach Algebra with my eyes closed, I feel like ‘cause I’ve taught it for seven years.”( I)

I’m the old dog, so I’m not going to be changing how I teach all that much. I feel like its been pretty effective for the time that I’ve taught. (I)

Way of teaching isn’t going to change Have taught long enough to know what’s being done Teaching Techniques Sharing materials Pacing

Teachers’ attitudes towards collaboration and trust of one another affect implementation of shared teaching techniques and lessons into the classroom.

“Consistency sake with Algebra 2 and pre-calc, that if we teach it by grouping or something that if we teach it now, it’s reinforced as the years go on.” (OB 1)

“That could be something you could reinforce on warm-up (OB1)

“So maybe Friday we will quiz over this. You don’t think that’s too slow?” (OB1)

Note: I = Interview. OB 1 = Observation one.

70

Downfalls of Collaboration

While each teacher had positive discussions on collaboration, there were downfalls noted

by nearly all educators interviewed. One teacher expressed the feelings of isolation due to lack of

relationships with colleagues. According to Alexis, building relationships with other teachers

helps with, “Feeling like you have other people who are in it with you and you’re not on an

island. ‘Cause I kinda feel like that here a bit.” Without connections with colleagues, Alexis

expressed that she felt alone and determined the collaboratives a waste of time. Although Alexis

expressed feelings of isolation, she participated in the collaborative meeting, shown through the

first observation; additionally, she implemented the same strategies as the other two teachers in

her teaching team, as evidenced by the classroom observation and the artifact collection showing

a similar lesson as the other two teachers. Alexis was the only educator interviewed that

expressed feelings of seclusion in her job.

Additionally, the lack of structure was deemed a downfall because, as Heather expressed,

“since they [collaborative meetings] lack structure, it’s a little tedious to meet during those time

frames. Only because we do all those things not on a Power Monday morning. [We] talk

frequently about how our classes are doing, what content we’re teaching, we’re like already on

the same page, so to meet on a Monday morning is like a little repetitive.” However, regardless

of Heather’s thoughts regarding the tediousness of collaboration, she participated in the

collaborative meeting and was observed generating ideas and attempting to align factoring

strategies with those tactics implemented in higher-level math course, as shown through the

observation of the collaborative meeting: “I have found that for consistency sake with Algebra 2

and Pre-Calc, that if we teach it by grouping is something that if we teach it now, it’s reinforced

as the years go on […] for consistency sake, I would teach it that same way.”

71

Nicole discussed the use of common formative assessments and how she articulated her

belief they were not critical to an effective collaborative: “Teachers teach differently, and ask

different types of questions and drive in certain topics that other teachers might not, so I think

common assessments, as far as that goes, can, depending on who made the test or the type of

question it is could just be hard for one class to get but then the other teacher’s class gets it fine,

and I don’t know that that’s actually saying which class knew it more.” For Nicole, the use of

common formative assessments was not a beneficial use of collaborative time as it did not

necessarily assess all students fairly. During a discussion of a common assessment during the

Geometry collaborative meeting, Nicole’s ideas were supported when members of the team

discussed their frustration with certain questions on the common assessment. Nicole and Derek

both expressed exasperation with the questions asked on the assessment because they stated that

the questions were not applicable to their students and did not include well-worded questions.

Additionally, through the artifacts collected in Nicole’s classroom compared to Derek

and Hannah’s, neither common assessments nor common lessons were used, supporting Nicole’s

belief about common assessments, as shown in Table 4.1.

Finally, Hannah entered the study with a unique perspective on collaboration and how her

attitude toward collaboration had changed. Hannah was originally a special education teacher;

however, upon pursuing her Doctorate, she decided to earn her certification in math. During her

interview, Hannah stated that when she taught special education, collaborative meetings were,

“Kinda useless, and my time would have been better served doing what I needed to do rather

than what people thought I needed to do […] Some of it didn’t apply to me. I would have

different responsibilities than the teachers that had students in the self-contained classrooms.”

Hannah had a negative view on collaboration when she was a special education teacher;

72

however, since switching to Geometry, Hannah stated, “This year it’s helpful because this is the

first time I’ve done this, so I’m essentially a new teacher and meeting with [Derek] and [Nicole]

is helpful because they’ve been doing this forever.” For Hannah, relevancy of the meetings was

important regarding her views on collaboration. Hannah’s views on collaboration were noted

during the first observation. Because it was Hannah’s first year teaching Geometry, she

expressed feeling like a first-year teacher. During the initial observation, Hannah was observed

asking for help with lessons and pacing, and she stated during her interview that she was

constantly receiving materials from Nicole to help plan and implement different lessons into her

teaching.

Collaboration Benefits Both Teachers and Students

All educators involved in the study discussed collaboration and its benefits for both

teachers and students. Heather stated during her interview that collaboration is positive because,

You don’t have to re-create the wheel […] we all have great ideas and great strategies in place,

so sharing those is lifesaving, and it benefits our kids because, obviously, if someone has a great

strategy, they can share it out and impact more.” During the observation of the Algebra I

collaborative meeting, all three teachers were observed sharing different lessons through Google

Drive, as well as binders with lessons and handouts. Furthermore, as displayed in Table 4.1, all

three Algebra 1 teachers taught a shared lesson that implemented a common resource.

Chelsea, the head of the math department, stated that when she collaborated with others,

they would “split the work-load. We write the review, we wrote the quiz first, looked at that,

then would go back and say, ‘okay, what would a review look like on this particular one?’ So, it

helps me a lot. I feel like it, besides it just builds comradery amongst your department […] it’s

about are the students getting the same things they need to help them be successful in that class

73

and what they’re moving into on the next level.” Chelsea noted that students are more prepared

for their classes when teachers collaborate. Chelsea’s interview indicated that teachers should

think and act in a similar manner to ensure all students are receiving what they need.

Additionally, Derek stated that collaboration benefits students because, “I know how my

mind thinks, so I know how I would present it, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the best

way, or a good way to do it, or a way it’s going to reach everybody, so the collaboration part of

hearing how somebody else does it, and the confidence level, too, of ‘Well, this is how I do it,’

and they’re like, ‘Oh, I do it that way, too.’ That makes me feel like at least I know what I’m

talking about.” Although Derek discussed the importance of learning different ways to teach for

different students, this idea was not observed in the Geometry collaborative or individual

classroom observations of each Geometry teacher. Each Geometry teacher taught the same

content, but all used different materials based upon their teaching styles and comfort in the

lessons they used, displayed in Table 4.1.

Justin viewed collaboration as a great benefit to both his teaching and his students’

learning because, “super-creative would not be what describes me, so the fact that I’m around

super creative people that have super creative ideas and they tell you about the ideas, and they

show you, ‘well it’s really not that hard. It’s really easy,’ their strategy makes you want to try it,

and as I’ve gotten older into my group as a teacher, I have been more willing to come out of my

comfort zone to try something else because if anyone knows anything about direct instruction,

kids tend to… they like it okay at first, but when you do the same thing over and over and over

and over again, […] they’re bored, and they don’t come to class excited to learn, so I most

definitely use that collaboration to make myself a more well-rounded teacher to step out of my

comfort zone for the benefit of my students.” Justin’s comments during his interview were

74

supported during the classroom observation when he implemented shared lessons from the

collaborative meeting and had his students work in pairs throughout parts of the meeting rather

than using direct instruction for the entirety of the lesson, which he stated during his interview

was outside of his normal comfort zone.

While none of the educators interviewed or observed were first-year teachers, Alexis

reflected upon why collaboration is especially beneficial for first-year teachers: “I think its

helped a ton. I mean, especially my first-year teaching. It helped so much for me to talk to other

teachers […] Especially when you have no clue what you’re doing. It’s super helpful.” As shown

in other parts of Alexis’s interview and discussed throughout the presentation of findings, Alexis

often held a different view on what type of collaboration was most beneficial and helpful for

both her and her students.

Improvements Upon Collaboration

Several of the educators interviewed discussed improvements that could occur with

collaboratives to create a more positive view regarding collaboratives, as well as more effective

teamwork. Derek, who previously discussed learning different teaching methods from one

another, said, “I think if we actually took time to sit in each other’s classrooms and observe what

each of us does […] Trying to be intentional to do that would help each of us just because every

time you get a different viewpoint, it just opens your eyes. If all you see is what you do, then you

don’t have a clear picture of what’s going on.” While Derek held a positive view of collaboration

during interviews, he was not observed implementing other educators’ activities into his lessons,

as shown in Table 4.1; however, he did voice an improvement that could help him observe other

lessons and activities in colleagues’ classrooms.

75

As head of the math department, Chelsea thought many improvements should be made in

the math department’s collaboratives to aid in attitudes held about collaboratives. For example,

when specifically asked what could improve the PLCs, Chelsea stated, “I think there needs to be

more training on what is a good PLC […] To have a quality, professional training on how to set

up a PLC, what are the benefits of a PLC, and have someone to come in and model it. And then,

I think it needs to be done twice. Once at the beginning and then it needs to have a follow

through mid-year. How is it going? Are you getting anything out of it?”

Collaborating by Grade Level

While most teachers interviewed and observed discussed the importance of collaborating

with other content-area teachers, Alexis expressed that she felt collaboration with other grade-

level teachers to be more effective: “ I think you can get insight into students […] It would really

help to hear from other teachers ‘cause sometimes [a student] just hates a certain subject, so it’s

really nice to know like, ‘Oh, they’re great in my class. They’re engaged, they’re listening.’ […]

Or maybe you find out that they’re completely disengaged in every class. I just think it’s helpful

to, especially to get to know your students and to find out if another teacher has found something

that really works to help that kid.”

Alexis’s voiced desire to collaborate with other grade-level teachers with the same

students was one component of her frustrations regarding her feelings of isolation. Alexis viewed

collaboration positively; however, her view on how collaboration should occur differed from the

other educators interviewed and is worth noting. Although, it is also crucial to note that, as

observed in the collaborative meeting, Alexis borrowed material from Heather, another Algebra I

teacher, and was observed implementing said material into her classroom instruction, displayed

in Table 4.1.

76

Building Relationships

Throughout the interview and observation process, several teachers voiced that building

relationships aided in a more positive collaborative as it affected trust between colleagues,

creating a more positive collaborative attitude.

Heather stated several times her belief that relationship-building is essential: “Just getting

to know each other on a personal level [… ] Just eating lunch together every day- you just grow

in your relationship with somebody, and it’s not just about students and math all the time.

Subsequently, Heather said, “That short day in the summer where we get to know each other. We

have that one day of team building. I think that’s so important for letting your guard down and

feeling like you’re all a part of the same family.” Heather’s view on building relationships

outside of math was supported by her interactions with her colleagues during the collaborative

meeting. Heather was observed discussing with colleagues how their weekend was and how they

were doing before the official collaborative meeting began, which supported her idea on the

importance of knowing colleagues personally.

Alexis also agreed that collaboratives were improved by, “Building relationships with

other teachers. Feeling like you have other people who are in it with you and you’re not on an

island.” During the first observation, Alexis seemed to have a positive relationship with the other

two members of the Algebra 1 team. Alexis was observed expressing ideas and asking questions;

however, Alexis often stated throughout her interview that she felt alone and isolated in her job.

Alexis’s views on collaboration conflicted with her implementation of the collaboration into her

classroom. Although Alexis expressed feelings of seclusion, she still collaborated with her

colleagues and implemented shared resources during her second observation, as shown in Table

4.1.

77

Nicole and Hannah both discussed informal collaboration and stated they would discuss

lessons and activities outside of the regular time set aside for collaboration. For example, Hannah

said, “We talk informally like, ‘Hey, this has come up a lot. Make sure you hit this. Like, they

don’t know how to solve simple equations, and that’s a key skill in every math class that they

need to learn in Algebra 1.’ So this year, [Alexis] made sure that the kids really knew how to

solve simple equations this year.” Informal collaboration also helped build relationships, and it

allowed for interaction between Geometry and Algebra I teachers.

The following data and themes emerged in response to the second research question.

Trust of Colleagues

Trust was a vital point of collaboration discussed in all seven conducted interviews.

Teachers expressed a belief that trust among their collaborative team was essential due to the

sensitive nature of some of the shared content that occurred in meetings. In her interview, Nicole

stated, “Trust each other to be honest about your data and where you’re at in your scope [and

sequence] and if someone’s doing something, and you don’t like it, tell ‘em.” Nicole’s desire for

building trust through honesty was observed in the collaborative meeting when one teacher,

Hannah, wanted to teach trigonometry ratios in one day and asked Derek how long he spent

teaching these ratios. During the first observation, Nicole and Derek discussed with Hannah their

concerns about only taking one day to teach sine, cosine, and tangent. Hannah expressed

understanding and asked for clarification regarding what Nicole and Derek taught, and how.

Hannah shared a concern that she would take up too much time, but Derek and Nicole both

reassured her that she would need the time so her students could fully grasp the concept.

In the interview with Hannah that followed the collaborative meeting, she discussed that

she took the advice given to her by Nicole and Derek: “Yesterday, I thought that what I planned

78

for yesterday to do, we could get done in one day and [Nicole] and [Derek] quickly corrected

me. It’s like, “no, no. You need at least two days for that,” and I’m finding that I’m going to

need probably three or four.”

Hannah was observed taking the advice from Nicole and Derek during her classroom

observation when she was still teaching the discussed content of sine and cosine for a third day

upon the time of her observation.

Chelsea also stated the importance of trust and the issues it created in the math

department collaboration: “I don’t think people trust each other enough to say what they really

think, and it something that I can’t make them. I think certain people [in the STEM building]

trust each other. I don’t think people have confidence in the other teachers’ abilities, and they

talk about each other behind their back.” According to Chelsea, the implementation of

pedagogical collaboration does not occur if they do not trust their colleagues with what they do

in their classrooms.

Derek also stated that trust was important to know that colleagues would not, “Take

whatever you discuss in your PLC, and if you go out and you’re talking to another teacher that’s

not in your PLC and you’re trashing them for what they shared […] That doesn’t do anything at

all to help anything […] That’s just going to tear down a math teacher.” The Geometry

collaborative showed they had developed trust in their discussion of data on the latest student

benchmark assessment. Hannah, Nicole, and Derek were observed openly discussing their data

and proficiency rates on the common benchmark. The material the Geometry team discussed was

sensitive and required vulnerability and trust to share, and all three teachers seemed comfortable

in sharing their data, even if it was not all positive. The first observation demonstrated a trust

between the educators. Although the Geometry teachers were observed showing trust to one

79

another in the observation, and consistently expressed in their interviews that they trust one

another, they did not implement any of the same lessons or teaching strategies in their lessons, as

shown in Table 4.1.

Sharing Materials and Ideas

Several educators were observed distributing materials and ideas during the collaborative

meeting and then implementing said tools and ideas into their lessons. Justin stated during his

interview that it was critical to, “contribute, and if you’re not contributing in the collaboration,

you’re not really collaborating, so that can break trust really quickly.”

During the Algebra 1 collaborative, Justin’s thoughts were supported by Heather and Alexis

through the discussion of a specific lesson:

Heather: What I think would be helpful to introduce with your kids. It’s like, find 2 numbers that

multiply to 8 to add to 6.

Alexis: I did that worksheet with them last year! I think it’s in the folder. Oh, they hated it. They

were like crying.

Justin: Ya, that’s factoring

Alexis: But the worksheet is just those over and over. They though it was the most difficult

thing. I think because they actually have to think about it a little bit.

Then, through the classroom observation and artifact collection, Justin was observed

having students complete the specific factoring lesson discussed during the collaborative

observation. Additionally, Alexis and Heather were also observed collecting the same sheet from

students that was given as homework the night before, showing all three teachers implemented

the same lesson into their teaching.

80

While the Geometry teachers discussed sharing materials, none of the materials collected

as artifacts or lessons observed during classroom observations were the same; although, both

focused on the same content for lessons.

Comfort in Teaching Styles

Derek and Chelsea were the two teachers involved in the study that had taught for over

20 years. Both discussed the tendency to get set in one’s ways when teaching certain lessons.

Chelsea stated, “I have taught for so long. You kind of get into this comfortable, ‘Hey, I’ve

already got it. I don’t want to change.’ Which is why I like having the younger teachers, and

they’re bringing a breath of fresh air. This other person I was teaching with just took what I did

and would always question, ‘Why do we do this?’ ‘Why don’t we do this?’”

Derek discussed being stuck in his ways when he said, “I’m the old dog, so I’m not going

to be changing how I teach all that much. I feel like its been pretty effective for the time that I’ve

taught.” While Derek seemed open to collaboration, he taught with more direct instruction than

the other Geometry teachers, as observed during the classroom observation, therefore supporting

his statement. Furthermore, Derek’s artifacts were not similar to either of the Geometry teachers,

and none of the Geometry teachers discussed sharing materials with Derek during either of their

interviews. In a like manner, as shown in Table 4.1, Derek was the only one of the Geometry

teachers who was not observed implementing partner and group work into his instruction, which

further proved Derek’s unwillingness to be more open to new ways of instruction.

Study Findings

Overall, the study provided answers for the following two research questions:

Research question 1: What types of teacher attitudes about collaboration exist?

81

Research question 2: Do educators' attitudes toward pedagogical collaboration affect how

collaborative techniques are implemented into their classroom?

Educators hold mostly positive views about collaboration. However, how this

collaboration should manifest vary from teacher to teacher; furthermore, teachers could hold

positive views on collaboration but not be happy with the way collaboration existed in their

specific context.

Attitudes that each educator held affected how pedagogical collaboration was

implemented into their classroom. While each teacher held a positive view on collaboration, the

Algebra 1 department discussed sharing materials, ideas, and lessons, as observed during the

collaborative meeting. Then, the artifacts collected and classroom observations, as shown in

Table 4.1, confirmed that each teacher implemented some of the same materials and lessons into

their classroom instruction, demonstrating that their positive attitudes toward collaboration

affected what was executed into their lessons. The Geometry team all taught the same content,

but each lesson was vastly different, with no shared material and very different teaching

strategies, as shown through the classroom observations detailed in Table 4.1. The attitudes

toward collaboration for the Geometry department focused more on sharing data, and less on

changing ways of teaching, so their attitudes regarding collaboration did affect the

implementation.

Summary

In Chapter Four, the results of the study were presented through the information the

interviews, observations, and artifacts provided to give insight into the understanding of

educator’s perceptions of collaboration and if those beliefs affected pedagogical implementation

of collaborative lessons. The data showed that attitudes towards collaboration are positive and

82

teachers’ attitudes on collaboration do affect their implementation of those collaborative

strategies into their classrooms, shown through the classroom observations and artifact

collection. One department implemented pedagogical techniques more thoroughly into its

teaching, but this aligned with the attitudes toward what positive collaboration should entail.

The Algebra 1 team shared more materials and included more common instruction and

activities which aligned with discussions during interviews and initial observations. The

Geometry team remained on task with the same content but different lessons; this also was

supported with comments during interviews and observations. The data found in the study

provided insights for future research and further inquiries, as discussed in the fifth chapter.

83

CHAPTER FIVE: Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations

Collaboration is an inevitable part of the education world today. Nearly all involved in

the education of a child collaborate at some level, and for many schools, including the school

involved in this study, collaboration is required. While interactions and discussions about

teaching are unavoidable, literature did not prompt clarity regarding teachers’ attitudes toward

collaboration and how these attitudes affected implementation of collaborative techniques into

their pedagogy. Therefore, it was necessary to conduct the study in a qualitative investigation of

a suburban Tennessee school district.

The organization of the chapter discussed the application of the Theoretical Framework

to data results. The chapter discussed how data results aligned to the literature review and places

which the literature and the data did not align. In addition, the chapter provided implications for

educators and educational leaders to provide further support for collaborative PLCs. Finally,

suggestions for further studies offered recommendations for future research to provide further

insight into the effect of collaborative attitudes on pedagogical implementation.

Research Questions

This qualitative study was guided by two research questions.

Research Question 1: What types of teacher attitudes about collaboration exist?

Research Question 2: Do educators' attitudes towards pedagogical collaboration affect how

collaborative techniques are implemented into their classroom?

An observation of a collaborative meeting occurred, followed by semi-structured

interviews, a classroom observation, and a collection of artifacts throughout the process to

conduct the study. The coded data determined trends and discovered answers to the research

questions. The purpose of Chapter Five was to determine how the answers to the research

84

questions aligned with the literature, discuss implications for educators, and provide

recommendations for further research.

Relevance of Theoretical Framework

The data and research were viewed through the lens of Sociocultural Theory. Culture and

social interactions strongly influence one’s learning (Vygotsky, 1930). Sociocultural theory gives

insight into individual’s beliefs about interacting in a group, the value of interacting in a group,

and individual’s roles in collaborative groups. Through collaboration with colleagues during

PLCs, participants received the opportunity to interact with others to discuss pedagogy, best

practices, data, and other concerns of curriculum, lessons, or assessments. In each interview

conducted, all participants stated that they learned from their colleagues. Several expressed that

they learned how to become more creative and hands-on teachers through collaborative meetings

with other participants to refine their teaching practices. Vygotsky’s theories also discussed a

process called mediation (Snowman, et. al., 2012). Mediation occurred throughout the study

when a more knowledgeable individual helped another individual to transform knowledge to

convey the same idea within one’s culture. Study participants stated collaboration benefited them

when learning the culture of a new school environment. They expressed that they counted on

their colleagues to teach them about the culture of the school. Additionally, participants from the

Algebra 1 team had a collaborative meeting; they discussed how to teach factoring in the same

way the upper grades taught factoring so students would continually see the idea in the same

way. Mediation occurred within the collaborative meetings. Sociocultural Theory was reflected

throughout the findings of the research.

85

Conclusions

Before the observations and interviews occurred, a thorough study of literature transpired

to discover pertinent research on collaboration and its benefits and shortfalls. The literature

shaped the research and identified the major elements of successful collaboration. Therefore, the

findings discovered from the data supported ideas from the literature while simultaneously

uncovering new findings. The conceptual framework focused on DuFour’s existing research of

best collaborative practices. Vygotsky’s Sociocultural theories shaped the theoretical framework.

A comparison of the study findings to the theoretical and conceptual frameworks guided the

categorization of collaborative attitudes and effect on pedagogy based on findings aligned with

the literature review, findings found only in the study, and findings only in the literature.

Study findings aligned to literature review. Throughout most of the literature, the

same, or similar attributes, determined effective collaboration. DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker

(2008), asserted an effective collaboration involved trust, leadership, shared goals, and cultural

norms. Every study participant expressed the need for trust within a collaborative, as aligned

with the literature.

Trust and collaboration. All participants stated that trust was essential to have a positive

attitude regarding collaboration, as fully supported by literature and the importance of trusting

others in order to share ideas (Ford and Youngs, 2018; Cranston, 2009; Musanti and Pence,

2010). During interviews, participants discussed how gossip breaks trust, as clearly supported

through Hallam, et. al., (2015), and the difficulty in creating trust among teachers. Without the

proper trust in place, a positive collaborative attitude will not exist because educators will not

want to discuss ideas and vulnerable data with one another. Whether participants expressed that

collaboration was positive in their school environment depended upon their trust for one another.

86

The Geometry participants involved in the study stated that they trusted one another and held a

positive view on collaboration at their school. Participants’ positive views on collaboration were

shaped by trust in their colleagues because the teachers in their department were helpful to them.

Some participants previously taught other content areas and discussed in their interviews that

their views on collaboration were previously negative because they did not trust their colleagues.

However, in one participant’s switch from the Special Education department to the math

department, the trust between colleagues created a shift in their outlook on collaboration to a

more positive one.

Benefits of collaboration for educators. The literature review indicated that

collaboration proved to be a benefit for teachers. Through interviews and observations,

collaboration benefitted participants in many ways. Darling-Hammond, et. al., (2017) discussed

the importance of reflecting on one’s teaching after collaboration. Participants in this study stated

that collaboration allowed them to reflect on one’s teaching and create better teaching practices.

Other participants expressed the same ideas of feeling comfortable with one another and how

collaboration created a positive working environment, as supported by Roffey (2012). The

collaborative meeting observation also portrayed a comfortable demeanor toward participants in

the study, and both the Algebra 1 and Geometry participants showed openness to other’s ideas

and learned from one another through discussions and activities. Participants’ interaction with

other participants from their Geometry team when corrected one another was fully supported by

Kelly and Cherkowski’s (2015) case study, which stated that collaboration leads to a change in

one’s teaching, as evidenced by participants’ change in lesson pacing and structure due to advice

from colleagues.

87

Change in teaching. During classroom observations of the Algebra 1 department, all

three of the participants shared the same activity to help students with factoring; that same

activity was also discussed during the Algebra 1 collaborative. This was supported by Bates and

Morgan (2018), who discussed that effective collaboration leads to a change in one teaching, also

supported by discussion from participants who stated collaboration allowed them to implement

other ideas outside of their comfort zone.

All three Algebra 1 teachers viewed collaboration as effective for both teachers and

students. One participant expressed feeling that she was alone at the school because she desired

to collaborate with grade-level teachers who shared the same students. The Algebra 1 team was

split, with one Standard Algebra 1 teacher compared to two Honors Algebra 1 teachers. Fallon

and Barnett (2009) researched the importance of shared occurrences within a PLC to plan for

teaching, which supports the participant’s view that collaboration with teachers who shared

similar experiences to her would provide more valuable insight. One participant consistently

stated that she could teach math without help with classroom instruction collaboration; however,

that participant was also observed borrowing materials during the collaborative meeting, and her

pedagogical instruction aligned with what was discussed during the collaborative. Shared lessons

were supported by Shi (2017) in a study of educators sharing resources with one another in order

to increase one’s ZPD, as discussed by Vygotsky (1930). The sharing of resources between the

Algebra 1 participants allowed for sociocultural learning to occur.

While one Algebra 1 participant was an anomaly compared to the other two participants,

both who shared positive views on collaborating and discussing math content, all Algebra 1

participants still implemented the activities from the collaborative into the classroom. However,

the overall positive attitude of collaboration shared by all three participants, indicated that

88

attitude toward collaboration affects willingness to implement lessons from collaborative

meetings into classroom instruction.

Exclusive study findings. The literature consistently stated the necessity of data to

create a strong PLC. However, the participants involved in the study expressed that data was

unnecessary in order to collaborate, and many held positive views on collaboration without data.

In addition, participants expressed the desire for both collegiality and congeniality in a

collaborative so they would be comfortable working with one another and implement the

discussed lessons and pedagogical techniques from the collaboratives into their teaching;

however, the literature stated that congeniality is not as important to a successful PLC as

collegiality.

Data. The most controversial point for effective collaboration was the use of data. While

a few participants, especially the head of the math department, stated that data was critical to the

PLCs, several participants viewed it as unimportant, and many did not praise the use of common

formative assessments to receive relevant data on students. The view of data as unimportant, as

expressed by most of the participants interviewed, contrasted the studies of DuFour (2017),

where data was shown at the center of PLC and found to increase student test scores. In Alexis’s

interview, she stated that a discussion of data during collaborative meetings is discouraging and

does not aid in one’s teaching practice. The most senior Geometry participant did not support

the use of data, either, as he stated that students needed more important life lessons and stated

that he could determine if students had met the standards or not because he had taught long

enough. The use of data, while supported by some participants, was not generally considered to

positively impact collaboration; this idea is in stark contrast to much of the literature that stated

data must occur in an effective collaboration (Avalos-Bevan and Bascope, 2017; Erkens, et. al.,

89

2008). However, even without the use of data, the participants held positive views of

collaboration, but it could be argued if the collaborative meetings were not truly effective with

the absence of data.

Collegiality and congeniality. In addition, much of the discovered literature analyzed

collegiality versus congeniality and how collegiality leads to true collaboration where educators

are vulnerable and open with one another in order to discuss data, students, and teaching

methods, as studied by Evans (2012). However, some of the participants expressed that

congenial relationships were important to developing trust in order to effectively collaborate.

Participants discussed during interviews the need to create friendships before they would trust

colleagues and collaborate with them. Although the literature supported that collegiality, as

opposed to congeniality, is a necessity for collaboration, the study showed that congeniality is

desired by the participants to help build trust and feel more comfortable collaborating with one

another. Cranston (2009) discovered that congeniality can hurt collaboration because educators

will not critique one another; nevertheless, Geometry participants discussed concerns to one

another regarding lesson structure and pacing, and the congenial friendship they both expressed

during the interviews that they shared allowed the participants to evaluate one another and

provide insight into one another’s teaching practices.

Implementing collaborative ideas. Although all participants viewed collaboration as a

positive, those attitudes were not always reflected in their classroom instruction. In both the

Geometry and Algebra 1 department, all participants were utilizing a similar unit, so pacing was

the same; however, the county required participants to follow a scope and sequence, meaning the

implementation of certain units occurred at certain times, so the alignment of units for each

90

participant may have been based on the county requirement rather than an implementation of

collaboration.

Comfort in teaching styles. The Geometry team, conversely, all stated positive views

towards collaboration during their interviews. However, one participant consistently emphasized

that his way of teaching would not change a lot due to the amount of time he has been teaching.

All three participants shared strategies and pacing during the collaborative meeting. However,

when classroom observations occurred, all participants used different lessons to teach the

material; although, participants did take advice from one another on pacing for the unit and

spread the sine, cosine, and tangent lessons throughout three different days, which portrayed the

participants’ trust in their colleagues.

For the Geometry participants, it is unclear if their view on collaboration affected their

pedagogy. It is uncertain if participants are merely maintaining their teaching style through

different use of lessons, or if they are refusing to adopt lessons and activities in their

collaboration because they are set in their ways, as some participants stated in their interviews.

Moreover, due to the nature of the scope and sequence requirement for participants to stay on

pace, it is difficult to determine if participants were in the same unit due to their collaboration or

because it was required. However, the trust the Geometry team shared with one another affected

their willingness to share data with one another and collaborate in that manner. However, the

sharing of data did not lead to a change in teaching, as the literature stated analysis of data

should (Avalos-Bevan and Bascope, 2017; Erkens, et. al., 2008). While data was shared between

the participants, it still is not enough evidence to show that their attitude toward collaboration

affected their pedagogy.

91

Implications

Through this study, several recommendations became evident through interviews and

observations. A need for effective collaborative training, guidance on what collaboration looks

like, and the need for trust-building activities among educators were clear revelations from the

study.

First, teachers and administrators need training on effective collaboration. It is

recommended that school and county leaders implement trainings into each school to teach

teachers how to effectively collaborate and share data.

It is recommended that administration provides more guidance for educators when

collaborating. While many participants expressed that excessive paperwork was unnecessary,

along with feeling as if they were being constantly watched, several articulated that it would be

helpful for administration to give more assistance on the necessities and expectations during each

collaborative meeting.

Implementing trust-building activities is essential to ensure teachers will trust one another

enough to collaborate. All participants interviewed determined that trust was critical for whether

they would collaborate with a colleague; therefore, administrator-implemented activities to help

co-workers build trust with one another is helpful to create trust, and subsequently, more

effective collaboration.

Recommendations for Further Studies

The following recommendations are suggested as possible further studies:

The occurrence of a similar study at other school districts with different demographic make-

ups will give further insight into if the same ideas apply to schools with lower poverty and higher

diversity. It is recommended that TN Ready test scores from both departments involved in this

92

study are collected to determine if implementing ideas discussed in the collaborative into

pedagogy affects student learning. Interviews with educators in other departments would provide

more diverse responses. Due to time constraints, the data were collected in a two-week time

period. A longitudinal study might lead to further insights and allow for the collection of more

data. Studying collaboratives outside the state of Tennessee would allow for an investigation of

trends and insights into the relationship between collaboration and pedagogy. A study of the

benefits of collaborating by grade-level rather than content area would add to the data and

effectiveness of collaboration.

Summary

Through observations of collaboratives, interviews, classroom observations, and a

collection of artifacts, data showed that teachers hold positive attitudes toward collaboration.

However, each educator had a slightly different opinion on what collaboration should entail.

Although most of the literature proved the importance of data implemented into PLCs, nearly

every participant stated during interviews that data was not used in PLC meetings to change their

teaching practice, and many viewed data and common assessments as a waste of time. Although

data was not always noted as an important factor to collaboration, trust was unanimously

specified as important for participants to collaborate with one another. Trust between members

of PLCs was consistently discussed in the literature as a necessary component to PLCs. All study

participants held positive views toward collaboration; however, some views on good

collaboration differed from those detailed in the literature review.

The attitudes the teachers held regarding collaboration and how it was implemented in

their teaching environment influenced their pedagogy. Algebra 1 participants showed a clear

trust of one another and held positive attitudes towards collaboration; they also shared materials

93

and taught many of the same activities in their lessons. As supported by the literature,

participants’ teaching practices changed due to their collaboration with their Algebra 1

colleagues.

Conversely, the Geometry teachers showed a mostly positive view on collaboration, but

many acknowledged that it would not necessarily change their teaching practice. Due to this

preconceived notion, the attitudes of these teachers toward collaboration had little effect on their

instruction.

94

References

Akiba, M. & Liang, G. (2014). Effects of teacher professional learning activates on student

achievement growth. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(1), 99-110. doi:

10.1080/00220671.2014.924470

Antoniadou, V. (2011). Virtual collaboration, ‘perezhivanie’ and teacher learning: A socio-

cultural\-historical perspective. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language &

Literature, 4(3), 53-70. doi: 10.5565/rev/jtl3/424

Avalos-Bevan, B. & Bascope, M. (2017). Teacher informal collaboration for professional

improvement: Beliefs, contexts, and experience. Education Research International 1-13.

doi: 10.1155/2017/1357180

Bates, C. C., & Morgan, D.N. (2018). Seven elements of effective professional development. The

Reading Teacher, 71(5), 623-626. doi:10.1002/trtr.1674

Bennett, C.S. (2017). Professional Learning Community Impact on Student Achievement

(Doctoral dissertation, Carson-Newman University). Retrieved from

https://www.cn.edu/libraries/tiny_mce/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/Dissertations/

Dissertations2017/Courtney_Bennett.pdf

Bishop, M.J. (2016). The Impact of Ongoing Professional Development on Math Achievement

(Doctoral dissertation, Carson-Newman University). Retrieved from

https://www.cn.edu/libraries/tiny_mce/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/Dissertations/

M_Bishop_Dissertation-1.pdf

Blank, R.K. (2013). What research tells us. Journal of Staff Development, 34(1), 50-53.

95

Bottia, M.C., Valentino, L. Moller, S., Mickelson, A., & Stearns, E. (2016). Teacher

collaboration and Latinos/as’ mathematics achievement trajectories. American Journal of

Education, 122(4), 505-535.

Buttram, J. L., and Farley-Ripple, E. N. (2016). The role of principals in Professional Learning

Communities. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(2), 192-220. doi:

10.1080/15700763.2015.1039136

Cederlund, K. (2018). The cross-school teacher team as a site for learning. Education Inquiry,

9(2), 193-209. doi: 10.1080/20004508.2017.1380484

Chen, Y. & Mitchell, C. (2015). Interactions between Professional Learning Communities and

the educational culture where employed: Comparative research across Beijing and

Ontraio schools. International Studies in Educational Administration, 43(2), 39-52.

Childress, G. (2019). From where two or more are gathered: Understanding an interdisciplinary

team. Current Issues in Middle Level Education, 24(1), 14-18. doi

10.20429/cimle.2019.240104:

Clark, T. E. (2012). Designing schools as learning communities. ENCOUNTER: Education for

Meaning and Social Justice, 25(1), 24-40.

Copriady, J., Zulnaidi, H., Alimin, M., & Rustaman. (2018). In-service training for Chemistry

teachers’ proficiency: The intermediary effect of collaboration based on teaching

experience. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4). Doi: 10.12973/iji.2018.11447a

96

Carnson, J. (2009). Holding the reins of the professional learning community: Eight themes from

research on principals’ perceptions of Professional Learning Communities. Canadian

Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 90, 1-22.

Curry, K. A., Mania-Singer, J., Harris, E., & Richardson, S. (2018). Teacher collaborative action

research. Journal of School Leadership.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher

Education, 61(1-2), 35-47. doi: 10.1177/0022487109348024

Datnow, A. (2011). Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Revisiting Hargreaves in the age of

accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 12, 147-158. doi: 10.1007//s10833-011-

9154-1

Desimone, L. M. (2019). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:

Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.

doi: 10.3102/0013189X08331140

DuFour, R. (2015). How PLCs do data right. Educational Leadership, 73(3), 22-26.

DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “Professional Learning Community”? Educational Leadership,

61(8), 6-11.

Dufour, R., DuFour, R., and Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting Professional Learning Communities at

work. Solution Tree Press.

Easton, L. B. (2015) The 5 habits of effective PLCs. Journal of Staff Development, 36 (6), 25-34.

97

Erkens, C., Jakicic, C., Jessie, L. G., King, D., Kramer, S. V., Many, T. W., Ranells, M. A.,

Rose, B., Sparks, S. K., and Twadell, E. (2008). The Collaborative Teacher, Solution

Tree Press.

Evans, R. (2012). Getting to no: Building true collegiality in schools. National Association of

Independent Schools

Fallon, G. and Barnett, J. (2009). When is a learning community just a pseudo community?

Towards the development of a notion of an authentic learning community. International

Studies in Educational Administration, 37 (2), 3-24.

Farley-Ripple, E. and Buttram, J. L. (2013). Harnessing the power of teacher networks. Phi

Delta Kappan, 95(3), 12-15.

Feys, E. and Devos, G. (2015). What comes out of incentivized collaboration: A qualitative

analysis of eight Flemish school networks. Educational Management Administration &

Leadership, 43 (5), 738-754. Doi: 10.1177/1741143214535738

Fishman, B. Konstantopoulos, S., Kubitskey, B. W., Vath, R., Park, G., Johnson, H., and

Edelson, D. C. (2013). Comparing the impact of online and face-to-face professional

development in the context of curriculum implementation. Journal of Teacher Education,

64 (5), 426-438. doi: 10.1177/002248711394413

Ford, T.G. and Youngs, P.A. (2018). Creating organizational structures to facilitate collegial

interaction among teachers: Evidence from a high performing urban Midwestern US

district. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46 (3), 424-440. doi:

10.1177/1741143216682501

98

Gauvain, M. and Parke, R. D. (2010). Handbook of Cultural Developmental Science. Psychology

Press Taylor & Francis.

Grey, A. (2011). Professional dialogue as professional learning. New Zealand Journal of

Teachers’ Work, 8 (1), 21-32.

Goodnough, K. (2011). Examining the long-term impact of collaborative action research on

teacher identity and practice: The perceptions of K-12 teachers. Educational Action

Research, 19 (1), 73-86. doi: 10.1080/09650792.2011.547694

Gutek, G. L. (2011). Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Education. Pearson Education,

Inc.

Hall, P. and Simeral, A. (2015). Teach. Reflect. Learn. ASCD.

Hallam, P. R., Smith, H. R., Hite, J. M., Hite, S. J., & Wilcox, B. R. (2015). Trust and

collaboration in PLC teams: Teacher relationships, principal support, and collaborative

benefits. NAASP Bulletin, 99 (3), 193-216. doi: 10.1177/0192636515602330

Harris, A. and Jones, M. (2010). Professional Learning Communities and system improvement.

Improving Schools, 13 (2), 172-181. doi: 10.1177/1365480210376487

Hirsh, S. (2016, August 25). 2016 Educator effectiveness webinar series creating and sustaining

Professional LearningCcommunities Q&A with Stephanie Hirsh, Ph.D. Regional

Educational Laboratory.

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/midatlantic/app/Docs/TechnicalAssistance/3_32_8

_EE4_Creating_and_Sustaining_Professional_Learning_Communities.pdf

Hoerr, T. R. (2015). The juggler’s guide to collegiality. Educational Leadership, 72(7), 88-89.

99

Hoekstra, A. and Korthagen, F. (2011). Teacher learning in a context of educational change:

Informal learning versus systematically supported learning. Journal of Teacher

Education, 62 (1), 76-92. doi: 10.1177/0022487110382917

Hord, S. M. (2009). Professional Learning Communities. Journal of Staff Development, 30 (1),

40-43.

Kelly, J. and Cherkowski, S. (2015). Collaboration, collegiality, and collective reflection: A case

study of professional development for teachers. Canadian Journal of Educational

Administration and Policy, 169, 1-27.

Kennedy, A. (2011). Collaborative continuing professional development (CPD) for teachers in

Scotland: Aspirations, opportunities and barriers. European Journal of Teacher

Education, 34 (1), 25-41. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2010.534980

Knight, G. R. (2006). Philosophy and Education. Andrews University Press.

Levine, T. H. and Marcus, A. S. (2007). Closing the achievement gap through teacher

collaboration: Facilitating multiple trajectories of teacher learning. Journal of Advanced

Academics, 19 (1), 116-138. doi: doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2007-707

Lick, D. W., Clauset, K. H., and Murphy, C. U. (2013). Schools can Change. Corwin.

Lovett, S. and Cameron, M. (2011). Schools as Professional Learning Communities for early-

career teachers: How do early-career teachers rate them? Teacher Development, 15 (1),

87-104. doi: 10.1080/13664530.2011.555226

100

Maloney, C. and Konza, D. (2011). A case study of teachers’ professional learning: Becoming a

community of professional learning or not? Issues in Educational Research, 21 (1), 75-

87.

Musanti, S. I., and Pence, L. (2010). Collaboration and teacher development: Unpacking

resistance, constructing knowledge, and navigating identities. Teacher Education

Quarterly, 37(1), 73-89.

Moore, T. A. and Rutherford, D. (2011). Primary strategy learning networks: A local study of a

national initiative. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40 (1), 69-83.

doi: 10.1177/1741143211420612

Mullen, C. A. and Hutinger, J. L. The principal’s role in fostering collaborative learning

communities through faculty study group development. Theory Into Practice, 47(4), 276-

285. doi: 10.1080/00405840802329136

Nelson, T. H. (2008). Teachers’ collaborative inquiry and professional growth: Should we be

optimistic? Science Teacher Education, 548-580. doi: 10.1002/sce.20302

Ning, H. K., Lee, D., and Lee, W. O. (2015). Relationships between teacher value orientations,

collegiality, and collaboration in school Professional Learning Communities.

International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 18(issue), 337-354.

doi: 10.1007/s11218-015-9294x

OECD (2014). New insights from TALIS 2013: Teaching and learning in primary and upper

secondary education. TALIS. OECD Publishing, Paris. doi: 10.178719789264226319-en

Ormrod, J. G. (2006). Educational Psychology (5th edition). Pearson Education, Inc.

101

Ormrod, J. E. (2009). Essentials of Educational Psychology (2nd edition). Pearson Education,

Inc.

Owen, S. (2016). Professional Learning Communities: Building skills, reinvigorating the

passion, and nurturing teacher wellbeing and “flourishing” within significantly innovative

schooling contexts. Educational Review, 68(4), 403-419. doi:

10.1080/00131911.2015.1119101

Owen, S. (2014). Teacher Professional Learning Communities: Going beyond contrived

collegiality toward challenging debate and collegial learning and professional growth.

Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 54(2), 54-77.

Postholm, M. B. (2016). Collaboration between teacher educators and schools to enhance

development. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 452-470. doi:

10.1080/02619768.2016.1225717

Rahman, H. (2011). Influence of professional earning community (PLC) on secondary science

teachers’ culture of professional practice: The case of Bangladesh. Asia-Pacific Forum on

Science Learning and Teaching, 12(1), 1-22.

Richardson, J. (2011). The ultimate practitioner. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(1), 27-32. doi:

10.1177/003172171109300104

Roffey, S. (2012). Pupil wellbeing- Teacher wellbeing: Two sides of the same coin? Educational

& Child Psychology, 29(4), 8-17.

102

Roseler, K. and Dentzau, M. W. (2013). Teacher professional development: A different

perspective. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 8, 619-622. doi: 10.1007/s11422-013-

9493-8

Santrock, J.W. Child Development (13th edition.). McGraw Hill.

Sigelman, C. K. and Rider, E. Life-span Human Development (7th edition.). Wadsworth.

Simoncini, K. M., Lasen, M. & Rocco, S. (2014). Professional dialogue, reflective practice and

teacher research: Engaging early childhood pre-service teachers in collegial dialogue

about curriculum innovation. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 27-44.

Doi: 10.14221/ajte.2014v39n1.3

Sims, R.. L. and Penny, G. R. (2014). Examination of a failed professional learning community.

Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(1), 39-45. doi: 10.11114/jets.v3i1.558

Shi, H. (2017). The theoretical interpretation of EFL teacher’s professional development from

the perspective of Sociocultural Theory. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(11),

1059-1064. doi: 10.17507/tpls.0711.14

Snowman, J., McCown, R., & Biehler, R. (2012). Psychology Applied to Teaching (13th ed.).

Woodsworth Cenegage Learning.

Stevenson, H. J. (2004). Teachers’ informal collaboration regarding technology. Journal of

Research on Technology in Education, 37(2), 129-144. doi:

10.1080/15391523.2004.10782429

Stevenson, H. J. (2008). To adapt or subscribe: Teachers’ informal collaboration and view of

mandated curricula. Issues in Teacher Education, 17(1), 75-95.

103

Svendsen, B. (2017). Teacher’s experience from collaborative design: Reported impact on

professional development. Education, 138(2), 115-134.

Struyve, C., Meredith, C. & Gielen, S. (2014). Who am I and where do I belong? The perception

and evaluation of teacher leaders concerning teacher leadership practices and

micropolitics in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 15, 203-230. doi:

10.1007/s10833-013-9226-5

Szczesiul, S. and Huizenga, J. (2014). The burden of leadership: Exploring the principal’s role in

teacher collaboration. Improving Schools, 17(2), 176-191. doi:

10.1177/1365480214534545

Talbert, J. E. (2009). Professional Learning Communities at the crossroads: How systems hinder

or engender change. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6_32

Taylor, P.M (2001). Collegial interactions among Missouri high school mathematics teachers:

Examining the context of reform [Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-

Columbia].

Thacker, E. S. (2017). “PD is where teachers are learning!” High school social studies teachers’

formal and informal professional learning. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 41,

37-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jssr.2015.10.001

Voelkel, R. H. and Chirispeels, J. H. (2017). Within-school differences in professional learning

community effectiveness. Journal of School Leadership, 27(3), 424-453. doi:

10.1177/105268461702700305

104

Vygotsky, L. S. (1930). Mind and Society (A. Blunden & N. Schmolze, Trans.). Harvard

University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Massachusetts Institute of

Technology.

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L. & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional development in the

United States: Trends and challenges. National Staff Development Council.

Wells, C. (2008). A conceptual design for understanding professional learning community

implementation. Catalyst for Change, 35(2), 25-37.

Wiggins, G., and McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (2nd edition). Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

105

Appendices

106

Appendix A

Informed Consent Form

107

Informed Consent Document PROJECT TITLE- Attitudes of Teachers Towards Pedagogical Collaboration PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Samantha McConeghey ssmcconeghey@cn.edu 815.901.2916 INTRODUCTION I am a doctoral student at Carson-Newman University. You are invited to join a research study to look at teachers’ attitudes towards pedagogical collaboration and how those attitudes may affect classroom instruction. You were invited to participate in the study because you are a teacher who teaches math, and you partake in collaborative PLCs with colleagues in which you discuss pedagogical techniques. You may discuss your decision of joining the study with family, friends, or anyone else. Your participation in the study is completely voluntary. WHAT IS INVOLVED IN THE STUDY? If you decide to participate you will be asked to participate in the following;

• an open-ended semi-structured interview, which will take approximately 45-60 minutes; • an observation of a collaborative meeting with other colleagues within your content

area; and • an observation of one instructional class period of 45 minutes. • A collection of relevant artifacts that pertain to pedagogical techniques discussed during

collaboration. The semi-structured interview and the classroom observation will be audiotaped so that it may be transcribed. The collaborative meeting will be video-taped so it can be transcribed, and notes can be taken from the video-recording. The investigator may stop the study or remove you from the study at any time if it is determined to be in your best interest. You may stop participating at any time. If you stop, you will not lose any benefits or services. RISKS There are no risks involving this study. The IRB (International Review Board) of Carson-Newman University has given permission for this study. Additionally, this county granted permission for the study to take place. BENEFITS TO TAKING PART IN THE STUDY It is reasonable to expect the following benefits from this research: (1.) develop a better understanding of your views on collaboration, and (2.) and an opportunity for you to share your thoughts on collaboration and its effect on your instruction. However, there is no guarantee that you will personally experience benefits from participating in this study. Other institutions or students may benefit in the future from the findings of this study. CONFIDENTIALITY

108

The following steps will be taken to ensure the confidentiality of your information and to protect it from from unauthorized disclosure, tampering, or damage:

• Your name will not be used or revealed. You will receive a pseudonym based on your gender.

• The name of this school will not be used or revealed. • All electronic data will be stored on a personal, password protected computer. • All hardcopies of notes, transcripts, or other pieces of data will be stored in a

personal filing cabinet with key lock. • Materials will be maintained under this security for a period of seven-years. At

the end of that time, the materials will be destroyed. INCENTIVES No incentives will be used in this study. YOUR RIGHTS AS A RESEARCH PARTICIPANT Participation in this study is voluntary. You have the right not to participate at all or to leave the study at any time. Deciding not to participate or choosing to leave the study will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits or services to which you are entitled, and it will not harm your relationship with the researcher or anyone involved in the study. CONTACTS FOR QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS Call 815.901.2916 or by email at ssmcconeghey@cn.edu, if you have questions about the study, any problems, unexpected physical or psychological discomforts, any injuries, or think that something unusual or unexpected is happening. The chair of this study may also be contacted: Dr. Brenda Dean Director of the Carson-Newman University Advanced Programs bdean@cn.edu Thank you. CONSENT YOU ARE MAKING A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY. YOUR SIGNATURE BELOW INDICATES THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDY AFTER READING ALL OF THE INFORMATION ABOVE ANDYOU UNDERSTAND THE INFORMATION IN THIS FORM, HAVE HAD ANY QUESTIONS ANSWERED, AND HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF THIS FORM FOR YOU TO KEEP. Signature ________________________________ Date ________________ Research Participant Signature ________________________________ Date ________________ Interviewer

109

Appendix B

Interview Guide

110

Interview Guide

1. How long have you been teaching?

2. What grade levels and classes do you currently teach?

3. How long have collaborative meetings occurred in the structure in which they currently

exist?

4. When you learned you would be participating in the collaborative, what were your initial

feelings? Have those changed over time?

5. How would you describe your collaborative meeting/PLC?

6. Does your collaborative have established rules or norms? What are they? How were they

developed?

7. What do you see as the advantages of the collaboratives?

8. How has your participation in the collaborative affected your teaching practice?

9. What has been the effect of the collaborative on student achievement and growth in your

classes? Within the department?

10. What role does trust play in your collaborative? How is trust developed in a

collaborative? What things negatively affects trust in a collaborative?

11. What are your feelings about common formative assessments?

12. What could improve your collaborative?

13. What advice would you give to a math department in another school who was

implementing collaboratives? What warnings?