Collaborative Learning. Teachers Learning Trough Relationships and Conversations

7/29/2019 Collaborative Learning. Teachers Learning Trough Relationships and Conversations

1/26

1

Collaborative Learning:

Teachers Learning through Relationships and Conversations

Harlene Anderson and Sylvia London1

Our collaborative approach to education is based in a patchwork of practical

philosophical assumptions (Anderson, 1997; 2007). This patchwork includes pieces of the

fabrics of postmodern and contemporary hermeneutic philosophies and social construction, and

dialogue theories. These assumptions provide an alternative language that in turn provides a

particular orientation to educational practices in which students are actively and intimately

engaged in their learning and have a voice in determining and evaluating the what and how of it.

In earlier writings we referred to this orientation as collaborative learning and collaborative

learning communities (Anderson, 1998, 2000, in press; Anderson & Swim, 1993, 1994;

Fernandez, London & Rodriguez, 2006). We first discuss these assumptions and then illustrate

their transportation to education through a story about the development of a collaborative

learning community: a training project for teachers in which the teachers become conversational

partners with each other and with their students.In turn, students become conversational partners

with each other. Through this relationship and activitycollaborative learning--teachers and

students and students and students engage in creating new kinds and qualities of connections

with each othercollaborative learning community--that enhance relationships, citizenship and

of course learning. These collaborative partners through their dynamic exchanges generate

knowledgei and other newness far more creative and abundant and specific to their local context

and needs than any member of the partnership could accomplish alone.

1An earlier version of this article was published in Danis: Anderson, H. & London, S. (2011) "Undervisning som

kollaborativ lring - Lrere, der lrer gennem relationer og samtaler". Kognition og pedagogik nr. 81,AKT og

inklusion. Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. arn


2/26

2

Features of Collaborative Learning Communities

Collaborative learning entails a learning environment and activity in which the wisdom,

knowledge and customs of the members of a local educational context (e.g., a classroom of

students or a group of teachers) are acknowledged, accessed and utilized. This kind of learning

environment and activity requires particular educator values and attitudes regarding: a) the

transformative nature of dialogue and collaboration, b) trust and confidence in each members

expertise and judgment about, and what is critical to, their daily and future lives; c) the

knowledge and experiences that the learners bring is as valuable and necessary as what the

educators bring and d) self-reflection and openness to the educators perspectives being

examined, challenged and changed. Foremost, this requires that the educator, the one designated

as teacher, expresses these values and attitudes in their words, actions and attitudes.

Collaboration is the fertile means to creative ends. The emergence of the notion of

collaborative learning--variously referred to as collaborative, collective, cooperative, action,

peer, partner, group and team learning--has been documented for more than three decades

(Anderson, 1998, 2000; Anderson & Swim, 1993, 1994; Astin, 1985; Bonwell & Eison, 1991;

Bosworth & Hamilton, 1994; Bruffee, 1983; Freire, 1970; McNamee, 2007; Shotter, Golub,

1988; Goodsell, Maher, Tinto, Smith & MacGregor, 1992; Johnson & Holubec, 1990; John-

Steiner, 2000; Kuh, 1990; Mezirow, 1978; Mezirow & Associates, 2000; Peters & Armstrong,

1998; Sir Ken Robinson, ; Slavin, 1990; Weiner, 1986). Collaborative learning is defined here as

a relational and conversational approach to education in which each member of the learning

community, educators and students, contributes to the production of new learning (knowledge,


3/26

3

skills, expertise) including its integration and application and they share responsibility for these.

It is based on the supposition that knowledge construction is a communal activity, created in

social exchange rather than instructive interaction and that the collective learning experience is

transformative. As well, what is being learned is itself transformed in the learning process.

Likewise, the learning or knowledge-making process is transformed in its making and the

persons involved in the learning process are transformed. Transformative or transforming refers

to the generative process in which people engage with each other and with themselves in the

sharing and inquiring into the subject matter and their experiences, critically considering and

reflecting on familiar and new reference frames and assumptions. Transformative learning is not

informational or instructive learning. As Chilean biologist-philosopher Humberto Maturana

(1978) maintains, there is no thing as instructive interaction. You cannot put knowledge into the

head of another person. In other words, you cannot have control over what you hope and think

the other is learning. Each person brings their unique history and so forth to the educational

encounter. This among other things influences how each person (e.g. student) will hear, read

or experience the educational material and therefore each will have their own interpretation or

translation of these. From this perspective, learning is an active and generative process in which

what is learned is particular to a learner. As Harvard University educator and psychologist

Robert Kegan suggests, . . . genuinely transformational learning is always to some extent an

epistemological change rather than merely a change in behavioral repertoire or an increase in the

quantity or fund of knowledge (2000, p. 48). Similar to Kegans notion of epistemological

change, educator Jack Mezirow (2000) suggests that it is a change in habits of mind that lead to a

change of reference or perspective. Transformational learning has implications beyond the

educational context itself. It is an opportunity to think differently about ourselves and others and


4/26

4

to live differently in our educational and personal worlds and to propagate the seeds of

opportunity for changing our world for the better. Importantly, collaborative learning is a culture

of learning based in the belief and value of the goodness and positive motives of teachers and

students regarding learning.

The Development of the Collaborative Learning Approach

Our interest in collaboration in the education of children and adults evolved through our

experiences of focusing on collaboration in our practices as psychotherapists, consultants and

trainers in various clinical, university and post-graduate training contexts (Anderson, 1997;

Anderson & Gehart, 2007; Anderson & Goolishian, 1988; Anderson & Swim, 1993; Fernndez,

London & Rodriguez, 2006). Our philosophy of education is based in a patchwork of abstract

assumptions that form a world view of understanding human beings as unique, active, engaged

participants in the construction of knowledge that has local relevance and fluidity and which

support the notion of collaboration in education. Maintaining congruence between our

philosophy of psychotherapy and our philosophy of education and being able to perform

consistently with these has been of primary importance to us. This requires being what learning

systems theorist Donald Schn (1983, 1987) describes as a reflective practitioner or reflecting-

in-action: reflecting, pausing and inquiring into both theory and practice to understand ones

theoretical underpinnings and to describe ones practice as one does it. In doing so, theory and

practice reciprocally influence each other as the practitioner makes new sense of each and thus

becomes more thoughtful and accountable regarding their work. In turn, the theory and the

practice continue to develop. Based on his research about how professionals learn, Schn

suggests that incorporating reflective practice in education leads to learning that is more


5/26

5

profound. He further suggests that such self-discovered, self-appropriated learning or learning

that belongs to the learner is the only learning that significantly influences behavior. 2

The above philosophical assumptions and the challenges that flow from them contribute

to a different way of thinking about our world and our experiences of it and therefore how we

conceptualize and organize our education practices. They inform a philosophy of education and

an educators philosophical stance: a way of being, referring to a way oforienting withhow we

approach--the people and circumstances we meet in our educational practices and the doing with

of our practices. This includes a way of thinking with, being in relationship with, talking with,

acting with and responding with. With emphasizes a shared engagement that puts a teacher and a

student in a conversational partnership in which members connect, collaborative and create with

each other. The notion of with is similar to Hoffman (2007) and Shotters (200 ), influenced by

the Russian critical theorist Mikhail Bakhtin, focus on the notion of withness. The

philosophical stance and the notion of with or withness suggests a partnership, a conversational

partnership. Education is one kind of conversational partnership.Features of the philosophical

stance include: engaging in mutual/shared inquiry, the relational creation of

expertise/knowledge, not-knowing, being public, trusting uncertainly, mutually transforming,

and therapy/education as similar to everyday life. (See Anderson, H. (2007) for a discussion of

the features.).central to this philosophical stance is the notion of collaborative relationship and

generative conversation that involve dynamic two-way exchanges, sharing, criss-crossing and

weaving of ideas, thoughts, opinions and feelings through which newness emerges. An

educators way of being, for instance, sets the stage for and invites these kinds of relationship

and conversations.

2Although we say self we keep in mind that the person is a relational being (Gergen, not an encapsuled self.


6/26

6

Collaborative Relationship. St. George and Wulff (2011) at the University of Calgary

suggest that collaborating entails

a way of interacting with others such that everyone contributes in his/her preferred

way(s) and a new understanding, idea, or process is developed that would be unlikely by

any individual actor. This dialogue is threaded, meaning that comments/actions are

connected to the other comments/actions. The beauty of collaborating is that there are no

set roles; there is a flexibility and fluidity that allows for leading and following to be in

motion. In collaborating, all participants appreciate the variety of ideas and strive to be

inclusive. (St. George and Wulff, 2011)

For collaboration to occur there must be room for each person and their voice; each

person must be welcomed and allowed to be unconditionally present and to fully participate.

What each contributes must be equally acknowledged, appreciated and valued. Having a full

sense of being valued leads to a sense of belonging (e.g., to the educational community). A sense

of belonging to the community leads to a sense of participation which in turn leads to contributing

to the learning product and thus a sense of ownership and shared responsibility. All combine to

promote sustainable learning. Just a note: sustainable does not mean that what is newly learned

stands still, rather the process of the learning is sustained and therefore the new learning continues

to develop and further new learning can occur. This focus on participation and acknowledgment is

viewed as particularly critical to the development of childrenbeginning with newborns--in

social, knowledge and skill learning (See Trevarthen, 2005 for an encouraging discussion).

Dialogic Conversation. Dialogue or dialogic conversation refers to a dynamic form of

talk in which participants engage with each other (out loud) and with)with or without words--

in a mutual or shared inquiryjointly examining, questioning, wondering, reflecting and so forth


7/26

7

about the subject or task (e.g., a discourse, subject content, opinions). What is put forth in

dialogue is interacted with and interpreted, entailing two-way exchanges and crisscrossing of

ideas, thoughts, opinions and feelings. Participants are engaged in a shared inquiry in which they

try to understand each other, try to learn the uniqueness ofeach others language, their meanings

whether expressed in words or without words. In other words, participants do not assume they

know what the other intends, they do not try to fill in meaning gaps. Through these dialogic

exchanges, through the shared inquiry, participants engage in a process of trying to understand

each other, through which and in turn new meanings, viewpoints and perspectives (e.g. learning)

are created. Again, a teachers way of being sets the stage for, invites and continually supports

collaborative relationships and dialogic conversations.

In education, the goal of collaborative learning and generative conversation is

transformative learningiie.g., the development of new knowledge, expertise, skills, etc.--that

has relevancy and usefulness beyond the classroom. The process of achieving this goal has

several features. Foremost, the one designated as a teacher must believe in and trust the

collaborative-dialogic process and must believe in and trust their student. If so, they will

effortlessly act and talk consistent with the philosophy of collaborative learning. In other words,

they must live it, being genuinely and naturally collaborative. This includes respecting, inviting

and valuing each voice from the time they first meet and through the duration of the learning

program (e.g., course, workshop). This requires being flexible, responsive and creatively doing

what is necessary for any situation at any moment. Relationships and learning begin to be created

that are more horizontal iii rather than the hierarchical and dualistic teacher-student relationships

and learning processes that is usually more familiar to educators and students.


8/26

8

Student and teacher and student and student develop connections in which what is

learnede.g., knowledge, expertise, skillsis jointly selected and created in contrast to a so-

called knower (e.g., a teacher) bestowing knowledge that is pre-determined (e.g., by a teacher,

learning institute or larger learning context) upon the one (e.g., student) who does not know. This

is in contrast to teaching and learning as instructive interaction (mentioned above) in which it is

assumed that one persons knowledge can be transferred to another person. It is important to note

here that the classroom learning always occurs within multiple contexts and stakeholders, and

each with their own agenda. These are respected but do not become straight-jackets of teacher and

student creativity.

A collaborative educator wants to create and facilitate learning relationships and

processes where participants can identify, access, elaborate and produce their own unique

competencies, cultivating seeds of newness in their personal and professional lives outside the

learning context. They want to talk and act to invite and encourage participants to take

responsibility for, and to be the architects of, their learning.

The following story illustrates. Sylvias xperience of being invited, and

subsequently providing a training program for teachers with the goal of improving relationships

among the teachers and between them and a university. She illustrates the importance of

preparing the stage for the possibility and encouragement of generative relationships and

collaborative processes in which the needs and desires of both the institutions and the learners

were acknowledged and responded to and in which the learning goals and learning design were

mutually constructed. (See London, St. George & Wulff, 2009for guidelines for collaboration)).

The story focuses on the training process and not its content.

Preparing the Stage for Collaborative Relationships and Dialogical Conversations: Sylvias Story


9/26

9

I was born in Mexico City and grew up within the Mexican-Jewish Community. I

attended schools within the Jewish Education Network , went to college in Mexico City,

completed graduate studies abroad, lived in the United States for eight years and then came back

to Mexico (20 years ago) to live and work. Currently I teach at public and private universities

and at a postgraduate training institute that I founded with colleagues. I provide consultation and

supervision to therapists and psychologists in schools including schools within the Jewish

Education Network. The Network has 10 schools, ranging from Montessori to religious. The

Network has a Board of Education composed of representatives from the board the principal of

each school. The Board sets policies and addresses issues regarding quality of education,

finances, scholarships, security, continuation of the Jewish tradition, relationships with Israel,

etc. The Board is a support network for the schools and offers access to resources to address the

needs of the schools and the community at large. The board does not have decision-making

authority; each school is independent.

An Invitation

I received a call from the president of the Hebraica University requesting a consultation.

She wanted to strengthen the relationship between the university and the schools within the

Network and thought that offering training for teachers could be a good way of doing it. The

Universitys mission is to train teachers to provide quality education within the Network schools.

The university offers baccalaureate and masters degrees in education and Jewish studies and

provides continuing education to teachers through a variety of externship and training in

different subjects.

I met with the president and learned that, in addition to what she stated in the phone call,

she wanted to provide a program for the Network schools to train teachers to become head


10/26

10

teachers (called tutors in the Mexican national education system) to meet the requirements of a

new initiative by the Mexican Board of Education mandating that each school have head

teachers. The head teachers role should include monitoring the development of the children in

the school as well as addressing academic and social issues. The president saw this initiative as

part of the mission of the university: To improve the quality of education within the Network

by helping teachers develop better teaching and relational skills with each other and with their

students and to provide an opportunity for exchange of ideas among teachers in the different

schools. After learning more about her aims, I proposed a training program design that would

introduce the collaborative practices philosophy to the schools and that would help develop the

teachers conversational and relational skills inside and outside the classroom. We concluded the

meeting with the idea of a 10 week pilot project for middle school teachers that we would

present to the Network Board of Education for their consideration. We decided to tentatively call

the program Tutorial Skills for Teachers. This name allowed us to talk about tutorial skills, not

only for tutors, but for any teacher interested in improving their relational and conversational

skills. It was important to use the word tutor to make in congruent with the mandate from the

Mexican Board of Education.

We thought that the best age group to pilot the project was middle school because

middle school teachers seemed to have the greatest need to develop relational and conversational

skills given the age group they work with.

Relationships, Relationships and Relationships: Or, One Conversation Leads to Another and

In line with the collaborative philosophy, it would be important to present the project to

the board as a proposal for consideration and simultaneously to invite their input regarding their

defined needs and how to best address them. The university president thought that the next step


11/26

11

should be to meet with the president of the board and talk to him about the project, get his input

and decide how best to present the project idea to the board and then to the school principals. I

knew the president well since we had grown up together and our children had attended the same

school. He was happy to meet with me and the university president and was enthused about the

project idea. We scheduled a meeting within the same week and I described the details of the

pilot project aimed to develop a friendly and dialogical atmosphere within the school system that

would address the question: How can professionals create the kind of conversations and

relationships that allow all participants to access their strength, resources and creativity to

develop possibilities where none seem to exist before (Anderson, 1997).

The Jewish community in Mexico City is close-knit. I have known the board president

through my community activities and through other consultation work within the various

schools. When we met with the board president he was quite welcoming and immediately

curious about the collaborative approach and wanted to know more details about it, my personal

history with the ideas and the ways I had worked with them in educational and other settings. We

spent some time exchanging ideas in a lively conversation, where I shared the philosophical

stance and my experience with the application of collaborative practices in therapy and

education. He asked many questions regarding the application of these ideas in the development

of relational and conversational skills for the school personnel and the changes I envisioned in

the quality of education, classroom environment and management. The proposal made sense to

him and he wanted to present the project as soon as possible to the Network Board of Education.

Our conversation was very collaborative with each person contributing to it from their

perspective and expertise base. My role in the conversation was to present the content of the

program, including the methodology and the philosophical stance. In turn, they offered the


12/26

12

knowledge, language and internal culture to translate the ideas into a project suitable for their

organizations. I was curious and my responses were offered to learn more about them and their

situations. In response they further articulated and expanded on what they were telling me.

Together, the three of us fine-tuned the details of the proposal and once in agreement, it was time

to find the appropriate language and description to present the idea of the pilot project to the

principals in the Network, keeping in mind that there were similarities and differences between

the schools, their cultures and needs and that participation in the project would be voluntary.

We decided to present the project using the working title Project Mentsch, from the

Yiddish which meansgood human being. The idea of using a word in Yiddish and its

emphasis on being a good human being and learning good manners could help bypass the

differences between the schools and emphasize their common goal in educating good and

responsible citizens within the Jewish tradition. The board president suggested I present the

project proposal in the next Network Board meeting which was scheduled the following week.

The meeting agenda was full, but the president was able to allow 15 minutes on it to present the

project.

The Characters: Relationships Again

Given the time constriction, the fact that the project presentation was added to the agenda

at the last minute, and following my belief in the importance of conversations and relationships

to develop trust and intimacy, I decide to arrive early to the meeting, hoping to have the

opportunity to talk with the members of the Board as they arrived. I was not a stranger to most of

the people I would meet, I have had a life- long relationship with some of the principals who I

had gone to school with and worked with in the community, others knew my work because I

have been a consultant in some of the schools, and some I had never met meet. The principals I


13/26

13

knew were very curious about my presence in the meeting. We began informal conversations

about updates in our personal lives and people we had in common, the way you usually meet

people you knowthe small chit-chatting. These informal conversations created a relaxed and

friendly environment, slowly the rest of the members joined in and the people I knew introduced

me to the members of the Board I did not know. When it was time to present the proposal, I felt

comfortable and the group was curious and open to listening to the ideas. The president of the

board introduced me and talked about the project and his interest in it, then I gave a brief power

point presentation and left a few minutes for questions and comments. The principals liked the

project idea and they thought there was a need in their schools for it. At the end of the meeting I

offered to meet with each Principal and their school personnel (at their school) to talk about the

program, listen to their needs and incorporate their unique and valuable expertise from the years

of experience in working with teachers in the program content and design.

The Response

Their responses to my invitation to meet with each of them arrived the following day by

phone and e-mail and included additional questions and comments. They wanted more details

about the program, including the philosophy, teaching methodology and content. They also

wanted guidance in choosing the appropriate teacher candidates for the program. I followed-up

with a visit to the schools that wanted me to come and talked with the principal and some of the

teachers at each. I invited their input and addressed their questions and concerns. Being available

to meet in the schools and have conversations with them was an important element in building

relationships with trust, respect and confidence.


14/26

14

We started the training program one month later; it included 18 teachers from the 8

schools that decided to participate. The group was scheduled to meet for two-hour sessions for

ten weeks and would meet at the university.

The Creation of Our Collaborative Learning Community

Following my years of experience teaching in universities it was important for me to

begin the first training session by providing the time and space to meet each participant as a

unique human being and to have them meet each other, both to creating a collaborative learning

community (Anderson 1997). Taking time for what we call conversational or narrative

introductions, begins to acknowledge the importance of each participant and does not assume

that members, regardless of their histories together, know each other. Each member is

introducing themselves in a new context, full of opportunity to be known differently and to know

the others differently. To create the context in which it is possible to experience the possibility of

knowing the familiar differently. I used an exercise that began with three questions: What is

your name, what is the story of your name and how do you want to be called in this group? This

exercise invited participants to introduce themselves through personal stories that connected

them to their families and experiences. At its conclusion, they shared and discussed their

experiences of it and I shared my reasons for beginning the group with it. Later in the training we

would discuss ways they could take the concept of the exercise back to their classrooms. I

followed with a second exercise that focused on the participants goals and learning styles and

included the following: What do you think needs to happen in the training during our ten

meetings that would make your investment in time, money and effort worthwhile?

The second question was about their learning styles and preferences for learning formats.

They discussed these two questions in three small groups, and then each group told the highlights


15/26

15

of their conversation and summarized their goals and learning styles. We then had a group

discussion about the shared goals and the implications of the differences in preferences and

learning styles. We also compared their experiences of the two exercises, of talking in big and

small groups and the difficulty of reporting or reproducing the content of the conversations in the

small groups. At the end of the first meeting we had developed the beginning of a learning

community and learning contexts and had begun to talk about possible ways to take the concepts

and exercises to their classrooms. Each teacher had the opportunity to include his or her voice,

expressing their ideas, knowledge and expertise as well as personal agendas, learning goals and

styles.

From a collaborative practice perspective, learning takes places within the walls of the

classroom and outside of it. In other words, the classroom learning is a springboard or invitation

to continue the learning process and be a reflective learner outside the classroom as well It is

therefore important for the one designated as the trainer or teacher to help facilitate the

continuance of the outside learning. The participants and I discussed this concept and developed

the idea of a writing a weekly chronicle at the end of each session, Each week a designated

teacher would create a written document summarizing the learning along with their reflections

on their experiences of the session and he or she would share it with the rest of the group

between sessions via email. The group members were encouraged to respond with comments,

questions, etc about each others documentations and reflections. These reflections would invite

the teachers to reflect upon their learning and create interactions and connections with each other

I offered to write the first chronicle to start the process and as one example of a description and

reflection that I hoped would invite responses from the group. There was a lot of enthusiasm and


16/26

16

participation in this first meeting: our learning community had begun and the stage and tone

were set for the rest of the training.

The Experience

The teachers began the program with hesitation, meeting at 4 PM after a full day of

teaching with no break and little time for lunch, did not provide the best conditions for learning.

After the first meeting they all seem to be engaged and willing to participate in the program.

They found the content challenging but potentially useful to solve their daily dilemmas. Being

part of an active learning community, being able to talk about their dilemmas and listen to others

provided a safe environment to share and wonder. Experiential exercises, interviews and

reflective processes provided an interesting laboratory to asses and practice their teaching and

relational abilities.

Assessment and Evaluation

As mentioned earlier, the program was designed as a pilot project and we needed to

assess its applicability within other schools in the Network. The basic question that guided our

work and the goals of the course was adapted from Andersons (1997):

How can professionals create the kind of conversations and relationships that allow all the

participants within the school community to access their creativity, strengths and resources to

develop possibilities where none seem to exist before?

I wanted to use an assessment tool that would help the teachers have an awareness of

their strengths and talents and would help them find ways to use these in their work as teachers

and learners, as well as create a culture of appreciation and possibilities.. The VIA Signature

Strength questionnaire developed by Seligman and Peterson and available on-line (


17/26

17

www.authentichappiness.com) met the criteria. They completed the survey questionnaire

between the first and second sessions and then would re-take between the 9th and the 10th ones.

The teachers brought the survey results on the second session, the information was used to talk

about strengths and possibilities individually and as a group. I also created exercises through

which they could practice nurturing their strengths in the classroom. The questionnaire

experience and the exercises helped us create a strength-based culture and language. Teachers

were encouraged to take the strength culture to their teaching environment and look at their

students through these lenses. At the end of our ten week training the information produced in

the post-questionnaire allowed us to assess the possibilities of change as they related to the basic

questions that guided our learning experience. Below is the comparison of averaged results of the

group, listed in descending order of strength frequency:

Questionnaire Results:

Pre-Questionnaire Post-Questionnaire

Curiosity Creativity

Appreciat.ion of beauty and excellence Curiosity and Sense of Humor

Justice and Equity Team Work

Tenacity Optimism and hope

Gratefulness and sense of humor Gratefulness

We can appreciate some differences when comparing the results of the groups strengths

between the pre- and the post-surveys: In the post-survey we see that the first strength is

creativity, we also find team work and hope, three strengths that were not present in the pre-

survey. We could assume that the changes we found in the group might be a result of the training
http://www.authentichappiness.com/http://www.authentichappiness.com/http://www.authentichappiness.com/


18/26

18

program as they seem to represent the content and spirit of the philosophical stance as expressed

in the basic question, though the teachers themselves would be the ones to explain the

differences.

Comments from the Participants

University Required Questionnaire. In addition to the strength assessment, the universityalso had a standard questionnaire that they used to assess all of their programs. It

included the following questions:What do you value about the training program?

What did you learned? How do you plan to implement the learning in your personal and professional life? What have you applied so far? Who do you recommend this training to and what would you say when recommending it? What recommendations you have for the institution where you work? What do you suggest to improve this training program?Summary of Responses to the Universitys Questionnaire.

The teachers commented that it was easier to first take the learning to their personal lives,

mainly at home in their relationships with family members and then to try them in the classroom.

They said that this was not a program to learn tutorial abilities, but a program that trained them

to change their lives especially the ways that they thought about themselves, their roles as

teachers and their students. They said they would recommend this program to any person

interested in improving their relationships and making a better world. On the other hand, they

felt that the program was too short and did not provide enough time to practice the application of

the ideas and abilities. They did not feel ready or confident to take the ideas to the classroom yet

or share them with colleagues. They valued the opportunity to work with teachers from other


19/26

19

schools and realized that they shared similar challenges and dilemmas. They appreciated the

richness of the reflective processes and the possibilities of looking at multiple ways to solve

problems and value multiple perspectives.

In response to the university questionnaire the teachers decided to write a joint letter

addressed to their Institutions where they made comments and suggestions regarding what

needed to be present in the school in order to be able to put collaborating relationships and

generative learning processes in action in the school in general and with their relationships with

their students in particular. Two schools contacted me after the training was concluded and

asked me to provide this type of training to all of their educational personnel. As well, the

training group members contacted me at the beginning of the following school year asking for a

refresher course. We met and revisited the ideas presented in the course, discussed how

members were putting the learning into action and developed ideas for further applying their

learning in the new school year.

In response to the evaluation and the success of the first group, the university decided to

organize a second group with the same format and content for the following semester. This time

the group was composed by a mix of teachers from middle and grammar schools. We began the

training program with the same content and exercises. The nature of the group and the individual

characteristics of the participant created a different learning environment and community. This

group was very interested in learning and practicing reflexive processes and the design of

reflective teams. Following their initiative, at the end of the ten weeks, the university organized a

consultation group on a biweekly basis to offer a consultation space for interested teachers.

Reflecting Remarks


20/26

20

I was very excited about the possibility to bring collaborative ideas and practices to the

school system and to work with the teachers. The training with the two groups provided me the

experience and realization that it is possible to make significant changes in the school

environment by helping teachers consider and change the value they give to themselves and the

way they relate to each other and to the students in the classroom. The changes take place in the

type of relationships and conversations they foster on the daily interactions and do not seem to be

very visible or important, but in the long term they have the possibility of influencing the school

culture. I am pleased to report that in the four years since the pilot project, I have implemented

the above, or similar, training in seventeen schools and organizations. I have worked with

approximately 1500 teachers in the public and private sectors in Mexico. The program remains

very close to my heart and I keep exploring ways to improve the quality of conversations and

relationships inside and outside the classrooms.

Harlenes Reflections on Sylvias Story

I have heard Sylvia tell this story before, but each time as with this reading, I hear it as if

for the first time. A story told always has nuanced differences in its telling and the context and

listeners of the storytelling is often different. This ability to hear or see as if the first time is

critical to collaborative practices: the ability to not-know ahead of time and to be able to see and

hear the familiar with fresh eyes and ears requires the same genuine interest in the retelling as in

the first telling. In Sylvias story, though she was familiar with the Network, its schools and its

members she approached the situation freshly. Of course, previous experience with the systems

and its members influenced her but her pre-knowing (which is always there) did not determine

her words and actions. Just as I was hearing her story as if for the first time, she was able to meet


21/26

21

them and be curious and learn about their needs and expectations from its members as if for the

first time--from the university president to the teachers.

Though a heading in the story is preparing the stage, preparing does not refer to

planning as in planning a structure or steps ahead of time. Preparing refers to being ready to meet

each and every situation as a new one that you have not met or experienced before and to being

ready to spontaneously respond to it. Being prepared is also being able to be open to, inviting of,

appreciative ofand to be able to work within the other persons local knowledgetheir wisdom,

custom, language, etc. Sylvias story illustrates the critical nature of local knowledge and its

importance in inviting a sense of belonging, participating, creating and owning of what is

produced and how it is produced. As always, she was keeping in mind, as in this case, that local

knowledge is not static. It continually evolves.

When she began the consultation/training, she had no idea where it would lead. She was

open to where the relationships and conversations would take her and the participant, trusting the

uncertainty inherent in a collaborative process. Just as I began to touch my keyboard in Houston

and Sylvia began to touch her keyboard in Mexico as we began to write this article, on our work

with schools , we had no idea where our collaborative journey would take us.

References

Anderson, H. (1998). Collaborative learning communities. In. S. McNamee & K. J. Gergen

(Eds.).Relational responsibility. Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA.

Anderson, H. (2000). Supervision as a collaborative learning community.American Association

for Marriage and Family Therapy Supervision Bulletin. Fall 2000, 7-10.

Comentario [H1]: I'll work on the

references


22/26

22

Anderson, H. (2009). Collaborative practice: Relationships and conversations that make a

difference. In J. Bray & M. Stanton (Eds.). The Wiley Handbook of Family Psychology.

(pp. 300-313). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Anderson, H. & Goolishian, H. (1991). Supervision as collaborative conversation: Questions

and reflections. In H. Brandau (Ed.). Von der supervision zurystemischen vision.

Salzburg: Otto Muller Verlag.

Anderson, H., & Rambo, A. (1988). An experiment in systemic family therapy training: A trainer

and trainee perspective.Journal of Strategic & Systemic Therapies, 7(1), 54-70.

Anderson, H. & Swim, S. (1993) Learning as collaborative conversation: Combining the

student's and the teacher's expertise. Human systems: The journal of systemic

consultation and management. 4:145-160.

Anderson, H., & Swim, S. (1995). Supervision as collaborative conversation: Connecting the

voices of supervisor and supervisee.Journal of Systemic Therapies, 14(2), 1-13.

Anderson, H. D. (1985, July). The new epistemology in family therapy: Implications for training

family therapists.Dissertation Abstracts International, 46.

Andersen, T. (1995). Reflecting processes; acts of informing and forming: You can borrow my

eyes but you cant take them away from me. In S. Friedman (Ed.).The reflecting team in

action: Collaborative practice in family therapy. New York: Guilford. pp. 11-37.

Astin, A. W. (1985).Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of the mind: A revolutionary approach to mans

understanding of himself. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986).Women's ways of knowing: The

development of self, voice, and mind. New York, NY US: Basic Books.


23/26

23

Bonwell, C.C., &Eison, J.A. (1991).Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom.

ASHE-ERIC Higher education report no. 1. Washington, DC: The George Washington

University, School of Education and Human Development.

Bosworth, K. (1994). Developing collaborative skills in college students.New Directions for

Teaching & Learning, (59), 25.

Bruffee, K. (1993).Higher education, interdependence and the authority of knowledge.

Caldwell, K., Becvar, D. S., Bertolino, R., & Diamond, D. (1997). A postmodern analysis of a

course on clinical supervision. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal,

19(2), 269.

Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and difference. (A. Bass, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press.

Fernandez, E., London, S. & Rodriguez-Jazcilevich, I. (2006). Learning/teaching postmodern

ideas in three different settings,Journal of Systemic Therapies. Vol. 25, pp. 32-43.

Goodsell, A., Maher, M., Tinto, V, and Associates (Eds.) (1992). Collaborative learning: A

sourcebook for higher education. University Park: National Center on Postsecondary

Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, Pennsylvania State University.

Fernandez, E., London, S. & Rodriguez, I. (2006)

Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge. (A. M. Sheriden Smith, Trans.) New York,

NY: Pantheon Books.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Gadamer, H.-G.(1975). Truth and method(G. Burden & J. Cumming, Trans). New York, NY:

Seabury Press.

Garfinkle, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.


24/26

24

Golub, J. (1988).Focus on collaborative learning. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English,1988.

Hermans, H. M. (1995). The limitations of logic in defining the self. Theory & Psychology, 5(3),

375-382. doi:10.1177/0959354395053005

John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Holubec, E. J. (1994). The nuts and bolts of collaborative

Learning. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Kegan, R. (2000). What form transforms?: A constructive-developmental approach to

transformative learning. In J. Meizrow (Ed.). Transformational Learning. Jossey-Bass:

San Francisco, CA.

Kuh, G. D. (1990). Study group on the conditions of excellence in higher education, 1984).

London, S., St George, s. & Wulff, D. (2009). Guides for collaborating.International journal of

Collaborative practices, 1.www.collaborative-practices.com/

Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis, MN:

University of Minnesota Press.

Mead, G.H. (1934).Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962).Phenomenology of perception (trans. C. Smith) London, England:

Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Mezirow, J. & Associates (2000).Learning as transformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Peters, J. 7 Armstrong, J. (1998).Collaborative learning: People laboring together to construct

knowledge. In Saltiel, I. M., Sgroi, A. & Brockett, R. G. (Eds.).The power and potential

of collaborative learning partnerships. New Directions for Adult and Continuing

Education, no. 70. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
http://www.collaborative-practices.com/http://www.collaborative-practices.com/http://www.collaborative-practices.com/http://www.collaborative-practices.com/


25/26

25

Resnick, L. B. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice. In L. B. Resnick, J.M.

Levine and S.D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially sharedcognition. Washington,

DC: American Psychology Association (pp. 1-20).

Schn, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in America. New York,

NY: Basic Books.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Needham Heights:

Allyn and Bacon.

Smith, B. L. & MacGregor, J. T. (1992) What is collaborative learning? In A. Goodsell, M.

Mahe & V. Tinto (Eds.) Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education.

Pennsylvania: The National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning and

Assessment at Pennsylvania State University.

St. George, S. &Wulff, D. (2011). Frequently asked questions: What is collaboration?

International journal of collaborative practices, 2.www.collaborative-practices.com/

Trevarthen, C. (2005). First things first: Infants make good use of the sympathetic rhythm of

limitation, without reason or language.Journal of child development. 31(1): 91-133.

Von Foerster, H. (1982). Observing systems. Seaside, CA: Intersystems Publications.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E, Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge:

MIT Press. (Original work published in 1934).

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wiener, H. S. (1986) Collaborative learning in the classroom: A guide to evaluation. College

English. 48(1), 52-61.

Wittgenstein, L. (1961). Tractatuslogico-philosophicus (D. Pears & B. McGulness,
http://www.collaborative-practices.com/http://www.collaborative-practices.com/http://www.collaborative-practices.com/http://www.collaborative-practices.com/


26/26

26

Trans.).London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. (Original work published in 1922).

iWe use knowledge as a collective term that includes expertise, truth, perspective, etc.iiAll educators would say their goal is new learning. We are emphasizing the difference between thinking that a

student learns what is said or read as it is in contrast to thinking that a student in their interactions with they hear and

read that they create new learning that is unique to each.iiiIt is important however that the difference not be so great as to jar the students and invite what can be mis-

interpreted as resisting behaviors.

Harlene Anderson, Ph.D.

Houston Galveston InstituteTaos Institute

Sylvia London, M.A.

Grupo Campos Eliseos

Houston Galveston Institute

Taos Institute

Documents

Collaborative Learning. Teachers Learning Trough Relationships and Conversations