Promoting a Culture of Shared Leadership in the Collaborative Inquiry Process

 

 

Alanna Cellini, Sarah Kurrein, Jason Lane, Robert Nemcko, and Kimberly Tobin

 

 

 

PME 801- Collaborative Inquiry

Queen’s University

Dr. Kathy Witherow

Winter 2017

 

 

Inquiry Question:

 

How can we build a school-wide culture of shared leadership in the collaborative inquiry process?

 

Rationale:

 

Collaborative inquiry is a transformative practice for professional learning, which helps teachers to become leaders within their schools, through data-informed and research-driven decision making and problem solving.  Collaborative inquiry allows teachers to integrate new knowledge and understanding of classroom instruction, build on prior knowledge, and enhance their professional practice in order to impact student learning (Capacity Building Series, September 2010). Donohoo and Velasco (2016) state that, “Rather than being merely consumers of research and the professional knowledge that accompanies it, educators who engage in collaborative inquiry become producers and disseminators of knowledge.” (p. xii) Through their collaborative efforts, teachers lead, and learn, with, and from, each other, to become more meaningfully involved in improvements to the school community and “catalysts of change” (Donohoo & Velasco, 2016).

 

Reluctance to participate in the process of collaborative inquiry is often seen as one of the main impediments to its success.

 

Despite the power of collaborative inquiry as a design for professional learning, putting the process into practice is easier said than done. There are significant obstacles that need to be addressed in order to encourage the culture of shared leadership essential to successful collaborative inquiry within schools. Reluctance to participate in the process of collaborative inquiry is often seen as one of the main impediments to its success. Based on practical experiences with collaborative inquiry in schools, this reluctance seems to be a result of the following:

 

Sub-problems:

 

• Time

• Motivation and / or Commitment to Participate

• Supports for the Collaborative Inquiry Process

• An overall lack of Collaborative Inquiry Culture in Schools

 

“Since the ultimate success of a staff development initiative depends upon the willingness of teachers to commit to that initiative, the task of generating a sense of support and ownership among teachers must be a primary concern of the principal” (DuFour, 1991, p.63).

 

The goal of this brief is to provide school leaders and teachers with solutions to the challenges associated with collaborative inquiry, in order to promote a culture of shared leadership in the collaborative inquiry process within our schools.

 

Literature Review:

 

The following is a thorough review of the current literature related to fostering a shared leadership culture in collaborative inquiry.  In preparing this, it was useful to differentiate between problems and relevant solutions in an educational context.  An understanding of the nature of the problems helped in the framing of the presented solutions.  Research has been organized under our identified sub-problems.

 

Time

Time for teachers to engage in collaborative inquiry often competes with demands from students, managerial work, and professional accountability.  Collaborative tasks are not as successful when there is not enough time to tackle the question or problem.  Fairman and Mackenzie (2014) stress that conditions for collaborative professional learning need to be examined carefully in order to promote a culture of collaborative inquiry. Time for teachers to take part in collaborative inquiry and professional learning needs to be afforded to ensure legitimate recognition of the value of this design. With an already busy workload, teachers often find they do not have the time to share leadership responsibilities and invest in collaborative endeavors.

 

Motivation and / or Commitment to Participate

Problems arise when team members are not provided with meaningful opportunities to collaborate, have communication barriers, and feel a lack of social presence (So & Brush, 2008). Strategies to alleviate these barriers include providing collaborators with authentic and relevant problems, requiring accountability, and forming homogenous groups. Though diversity offers a plethora of learning opportunities in the workplace, a level of homogeneity in teams is more beneficial than differences in order for shared leadership to have a stronger effect on outcomes. Teachers will be much more motivated to participate in inquiry if the tasks are relevant to them and their own pedagogy.  

 

A study performed by Scribner et al. (2007) showed that the nature of purpose and autonomy within a teacher team influences the social distribution of leadership. When autonomy is matched with purpose, referred to as enabling autonomy, the team is able to accomplish the task effectively through active discourse. If autonomy and purpose are not matched, this is referred to as disabling autonomy, which negatively affects the team in its ability to complete the task and leads to passive discourse within the group.

 

With an already busy workload, teachers often find they do not have the time to share leadership responsibilities and invest in collaborative endeavors.

Scriber et al.’s (2007) study revealed that without focus, groups spend time talking instead of working and lose sight of their purpose. Both teacher collaboration and resulting student performance depend on having a shared, compelling purpose. This leads to enhanced efficacy and a shared responsibility. Collaborators need to believe in their ability to affect change together. They need to feel as though they have an influence and are relevant to the group decision-making process. This helps foster commitment to goals.  

 

Donohoo and Velasco (2016) write that a lack of motivation and commitment obstructs any best-intended collaborative project. Motivation and commitment tend to wane particularly when teachers fail to see causal links between their efforts and improved student outcomes.  They also believe that voluntary participation promotes ownership and a sense of responsibility to the task, in contrast to DuFour’s (2011) mandated participation. 

 

Supports for the Collaborative Inquiry Process

In Phase 1 of a study by Gallimore et al., (2009), when the principal was the only one responsible for maintaining collaborative inquiry (peer leaders were not identified and supported, summer and winter workshop sessions were not included for staff), engaging in collaborative inquiry was not successful.  Teacher teams often engaged in vague problem solving, administrative tasks, or did not meet at all when school-wide support was not in place.

 

Technology, as a supportive tool, can also be a hindrance when it comes to effective communication in collaborative groups. Team members are increasingly expected to be able to use information and  technology almost intuitively, yet they may have neither the necessary skills nor the time to learn to use new software unaided (Deepwell & King, 2009).

 

Finally, the principal has a central role to play in providing appropriate supports.  Garmston and Wellman (2013) impress that collaboration sessions are not intended to be occasions in which administrators “create tasks and agendas to occupy teachers’ collective energies” (p.16).  Instead, they suggest that unless supports are offered by administrators, this time will only be based on “contrived collegiality” (p. 16), where no positive growth will happen in student learning.

 

Teacher teams often engaged in vague problem solving, administrative tasks or did not meet at all, when school-wide support was not in place.

 

 

Solutions Brief:

 

Leadership Strategies Ontario (2013-14) acknowledges that developing a collaborative learning culture is not a destination, but rather a process that requires skills, knowledge, and persistence. In many schools, this development requires a considerable cultural change among teachers and leaders. Duignan & Bezzina (2006) state that this shift in culture is based on new values and vision in which greater openness, trust, and collaboration are imperative, as is accepting the sharing of leadership responsibilities. This requires major changes in the ways of thinking and doing in many schools. This change may be met with resistance, however, Herold and Fedor (2008), as cited by the Ontario Leadership strategy (2013-14) state, “People do not naturally resist change; they resist change they do not understand, the value of which they do not see, or the demands of which they cannot meet.” This speaks to the need for creating a school-wide culture of collaborative inquiry: one that is based on a culture of trust, one that supports the capacity for collaborative inquiry among teachers, and one that is based on shared decision-making and shared leadership.  

 

“People do not naturally resist change; they resist change they do not understand, the value of which they do not see, or the demands of which they cannot meet.”

 

BUILDING A SCHOOL-WIDE CULTURE OF COLLABORATIVE INQUIRY

 

Establishing a Culture of Trust:

 

In his chapter “Trust: The Secret Ingredient to Successful Shared Leadership” in The Collaborative Administrator (p. 55-71), Austin Buffman stresses that trust between administrators and teachers is the most important factor to building shared leadership.  He suggests that administrators operate with honesty and integrity, make themselves available, demonstrate a caring attitude, listen, encourage risk taking, share decision-making, value dissent, not allow accountability to consume teachers, make certain teachers have what they need to teach, and be prepared to confront ineffective teachers (Buffman, 2008).  Indeed, trust is a key element of organizational culture associated with improved performance and required for the development of effective learning cultures (Ontario Leadership Strategy, 2013-2014).  Leaders must take time to build trust by giving teachers guided practice in conducting conversations, making decisions, and managing conflict as well as keeping the focus on building student and teacher learning.  This will help to strengthen trust in the collaborative inquiry process and in embracing change (Ontario Leadership Strategy, 2010).   Principals can demonstrate this trust by handing over leadership to participants, which removes the negative perception associated with typical power dynamics (Donahoo & Velasco, 2016).

 

Within this culture of trust, administrators also have a role in ensuring teacher participation in the collaborative inquiry process by applying gentle pressure, and upholding high expectations with respect to professional involvement in collaborative inquiry.  According to Dufour (2011), there should be an expectation and ethical commitment among teachers to uphold standards.  Students deserve the benefit of the collective expertise - not the silo that one teacher brings.  Improved outcomes, as the result of engaging in collaborative inquiry, are unlikely in the absence of leadership that holds teachers accountable for sustaining the inquiry process until they see actual results.  As such, there needs to be a balance of administrative support and pressure in order for teachers to persist when addressing problems, long enough to see the causal link between their instructional interventions and improved student outcomes (Gallimore et al., 2009). The Ontario Leadership Strategy (2013-14) further advocates showing teachers the research on benefits of  professional learning communities. This heightens collective responsibility, and increases understanding, feedback, assistance, and professional renewal. The guide acknowledges that these factors are all important but cannot be materialized without trust. It recommends taking the time to build trust through guided practice.

 

Students deserve the benefit of the collective expertise - not the silo that one teacher brings. - Dufour (2011)

 

Supporting Capacity for Collaborative Inquiry Among Teachers:

 

• “Protected” Time:

 

In order to create a supportive culture in which teachers can engage in meaningful collaborative inquiry, there must be a system-wide allocation of time that is intended for purposeful collaborative inquiry.  In a school setting, administrators should be responsible for ensuring teams meet regularly, and time is “protected from outside events that might have negative impacts or erode the time that teams get to spend together” (Martin, 2008, p.153).  If teachers have time allocated to come together to collaborate, their collective efficacy (belief that they can overcome learning challenges when they rely on each other’s expertise) increases (Hattie, 2009, in Donahoo & Velasco, 2016).  Leaders can build a collaborative learning culture by demonstrating value in the process, for example, blocking off weekly collaboration time to allow teachers time to work together (Schnellert & Bulter, 2014). Martin and Brown (2007) also suggest that spending money on substitute teachers to allow classroom teachers more time during their workday to view each other’s classes, learn from each other, and collaborate in meaningful ways, will help increase both efficacy and success in collaborative inquiry.

 

• Providing Support for Building Inquiry Skills:

 

Fairman and Mackenzie (2014) acknowledge that teachers need to learn how to lead collaboratively, be supported with the knowledge and skills to navigate the challenges of organizational change, and to identify themselves in their roles as leaders. Garmston and Wellman (2013) also believe that the fundamentals of inquiry such as collaboration and collegiality must be taught, practiced, and learned. As such, good leadership skills are essential for potential facilitators of collaborative inquiry. This is particularly true when groups face complex tasks, because maintaining focus, so as to accomplish goals, can be challenging (Kolfschoten et al., 2008). Trained peer-facilitators are necessary, as well as focused protocols that provide a guided framework and a stable, protected setting in which to do the work (Gallimore et al., 2009).

 

Building capacity for inquiry skills occurs with support from all who are actively involved in the work: classroom educators and administrators, internal and external researchers, community partners and others with expertise.  Support includes: providing time, resources, and expertise needed for a well-designed inquiry (Schnellert & Butler, 2014). It is important to note that this support must be school-wide and involve the guidance of both trained peer-facilitators and supportive “experts”. It is a culture of school-wide support, particularly having the support of experts to guide teachers when difficulties arise, that is essential to the shared leadership and improved student outcomes of collaborative inquiry (Gallimore et al., 2009).

 

In learning how to lead collaboratively, teachers need to be supported with the knowledge and skills to navigate the challenges of organizational change, and to identify themselves in their roles as leaders.

 

• Building Collective Efficacy  and a Sense of Purpose as Essential to Teacher Motivation:

 

Not only is a trained peer facilitator essential to help the group sustain and commit to the collaborative inquiry process, it also allows all teachers to be in the active rather than passive role of inquiry (Gallimore et al., 2009).  Hattie (2009), in Donahoo & Velasco (2016) ranks collective teacher efficacy as the number one factor influencing individual teacher efficacy.  If teachers have time to come together to collaborate, their collective efficacy, or the belief that they can overcome learning challenges when they rely on each other’s expertise, increases.  But, in order to build this efficacy, a needs-based focus is important where teachers identify needs that are relevant to their classrooms so that they can see causal links between their efforts and improved student outcomes. This is the key to sustainability of the collaborative inquiry process  (Donahoo & Velasco, 2016 and Gallimore et al., 2009).  

 

In order to promote and sustain a culture of collaborative inquiry in schools, teacher inquiry teams should ideally consist of 3–7 teachers of the same grade level, course or subject area (Gallimore et al., 2009).  In terms of motivation, teachers need to inquire into their own problems of practice and use a research process that is relevant and meaningful to their daily work in order to feel motivated.  A personal needs-based focus is important so teachers can identify the student learning needs that are relevant to their own classrooms. This focus can be cultivated through meaningful interactions that are infused with, and guided by, shared values and norms of collaboration. Motivation and commitment to collaborative inquiry is further strengthened within an environment that encourages reflection, inquiry, challenge, and deprivatization of practice for both teachers and administrators (Garmston and Wellman, 2013).   Finally, technical hurdles should be minimized for novice members of a collaborative community to help increase individuals’ perceived levels of self-efficacy. This can be done by using a variety of ice-breakers, modeling behavior, and synchronizing communication channels  (Deepwell & King, 2009).

 

• Motivation as a Way to Promote Teacher Ownership:

 

To promote ownership in collaborative inquiry teams, the process should give team members the power of control and choice over the problem, the resources utilized, the new ideas to implement, and the monitoring progress or way feedback will be delivered (Schnellert & Bulter, 2014). When designing guidelines and strategies to promote ownership in collaborative inquiry teams, personal relevance needs to be ensured so that all members feel closely connected to the issue at hand.  Ownership results when team members derive from the same department or area and all members have equal opportunity for thought, voice, and reflection (Donohoo & Velasco, 2016).

 

Creating A Culture of Shared Decision-Making and Shared-Leadership:

 

The Ontario Leadership Strategy (2013-14) outlines the principal’s role to support strong learning communities based on shared leadership. It emphasizes that teachers must believe they can succeed together and have a responsibility to keep their knowledge fresh. They recommend guiding communities toward self-direction that is democratic and participatory, in which members share authority and decision making responsibilities and prepare others to take the lead. It suggests making data accessible, understandable, and open to interpretation.

Duignan & Bezzina (2006) acknowledge that part of the cultural shift required for effective collaboration, leading to positive change, requires formal leaders to depart from the concept of a hierarchical distribution of leadership and embrace developing leadership as a shared phenomenon. From this perspective, shared leadership requires the contributions of all members of an organization, and this form of leadership grows out of the shared beliefs, vision, and efforts of a group of teachers who are committed to collective action for school success through a sense of belonging and value to the school community (Duignan & Bezzina, 2006). Those engaged in the collaborative inquiry process need to be granted the autonomy necessary for the task at hand, and feel psychologically empowered through beliefs in their competency, and in knowing that their efforts are meaningful and impactful (Grille et al., 2015). For shared leadership within a school to occur, Donohoo and Velasco (2016) discuss how effective collaborative inquiry requires administrators and formal leaders to give the process to the teachers or group, and allow someone from within this group to lead the process.  Thus teachers drive the inquiry rather than become the target of it.  Administrators may guide and advise the inquiry process, but it is most important that they work to communicate their valuing of the process (Donahoo & Velasco, 2016).

 

This type of shared decision-making is essential for the important learning that comes from shared leadership (Buffman, 2008). Teachers need to care about what they are working on and directly see the results before they will take leadership roles and become a ‘community of learners’. To promote shared leadership in collaborative inquiry, all thoughts matter equally regardless of predetermined rank or position in the group (Donohoo & Velasco, 2016).

 

Communities are guided toward self-direction that is democratic and participatory, in which members share authority and decision-making responsibilities and prepare others to take the lead.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion:

 

Promoting a culture of shared leadership in the collaborative inquiry process is no longer a new concept; the benefits are well-documented in the literature.  Implementing this cultural change, however, involves helping leaders, educators, and teachers to think very differently about how they engage with one another within our education systems.  If we truly believe that students deserve the collective expertise within our schools, and if we wish to uphold our moral and ethical responsibility to deliver the best education possible to our students, then we must find solutions that allow this kind of transformative approach to flourish in our educational systems.  To create a collaborative inquiry culture grounded in shared leadership, we need to ensure the correct conditions; just as you wouldn’t plant a pear tree in the desert, creating a collaborative inquiry culture based on shared leadership is only possible in a system designed to foster its growth.

 

This begins with educational leaders.  Administration must make shared leadership and collaborative inquiry a priority, and then demonstrate their valuing of this process by putting supports in place that allow for capacity building among teachers.  By assisting educators in embracing a collaborative inquiry culture, administration will empower teachers to deprivatize their practice.  Equally, teachers will feel motivated to adopt leadership roles within collaborative inquiry, and will feel supported throughout the process.  This involves establishing a culture of trust and openness, that requires time to grow, and is supported by providing “protected time” to teachers, in order to undertake such collaboration. 

 

Just as you wouldn’t plant a pear tree in the desert, creating a collaborative inquiry culture based on shared leadership is only possible in a system designed to foster its growth.

 

Teachers must be given the power to choose problems of inquiry that are relevant to their individual context, and work on them in homogenous groups, led by a trained peer facilitator, with supportive guidance as needed by administration.  Principals can provide support by creating a culture of trust, by displaying prototypical leader behaviors, and by ensuring that teachers are able to take ownership and share the leadership in the process. 

 

What has been described here, and depicted within the accompanying infographic, are the conditions necessary to create a culture of shared leadership in collaborative inquiry.  This is not an overnight fix, but a complex process that requires commitment from the entire school system.  Despite the challenges, shared leadership in collaborative inquiry is an evidence-based change that must be undertaken to ensure we keep pace with evolving best practice and to ensure the best possible outcomes for our students. “While a school can be run by a single leader and managed pretty effectively, increases in student achievement come when that leadership is shared and is larger than a single individual. Leadership has moved far beyond one person in schools that are truly making a difference” (Martin & Brown, 2007, p.66).

 

 

Solutions Infographic (click for PDF):

 

 

Blog of Process Account:

 

http://sarahjasonalannarobbiekim.blogspot.ca

 

 

References

 

Buffman, A. (2008). Trust: The Secret Ingredient to Successful Shared Leadership. In The Collaborative Administrator: Working Together as a Professional Learning Community (pp. 55-71). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

 

Capacity Building Series (September, 2010). Collaborative Teacher Inquiry: New Directions in Professional Practice. Secretariat. #16. Retrieved March 4, 2017 from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/CBS_Collaborative_Teacher_Inquiry.pdf

 

Deepwell, F., & King, V. (2009). E-research collaboration, conflict and compromise. Handbook of Research on Electronic Collaboration and Organizational Synergy, 1-15.

 

Donohoo & Velasco, (2016). The Transformative Power of Collaborative Inquiry: Realizing Change in Schools and Classrooms. Crown, Thousand Oaks, CA

 

DuFour, R. (1991). The Principal as Staff Developer. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree (formerly National Educational Service).

 

DuFour, R. (2011). Work together: But only if you want to. The Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 57-61. doi:10.1177/003172171109200513

 

Duignan, P., & Bezzina, M. (2006, February). Building a Capacity for Shared Leadership in Schools: Teachers as Leaders of Educational Change. In Educational Leadership Conference, University of Wollongong. Retrieved March 1, 2017, from https://www.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@educ/documents/doc/uow037796.pdf

 

Fairman, J. C., & Mackenzie, S. V. (2014) Supporting Teacher Learning and Leadership: Progress and Challenge. Retrieved from: https://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/centres/lfl/about/PDFs/FairmanMackenzieECERpaper081114-1.pdf

 

Gallimore, R., Ermeling, B., Saunders, W. and Goldenberg, C. (2009).  Moving the Learning of Teaching Closer to Practice:  Teacher Education Implications of School-Based Inquiry Teams.  The Elementary School Journal. 109(5), 537-553.

Garmston, R. J., & Wellman, B. M. (2013). The Adaptive School: A Sourcebook for Developing Collaborative Groups (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ont.: Rowman & Littlefield.

 

Grille, A., Schulte, E., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). Promoting Shared Leadership: A Multilevel Analysis Investigating the Role of Prototypical Team Leader Behavior, Psychological Empowerment, and Fair Rewards. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(3), 324-339.

 

Kolfschoten, G., Briggs, R., & de Vreede, G. J. (2008). Design Patterns for Facilitation in E-Collaboration. In Encyclopedia of E-Collaboration (pp. 139-145). IGI Global.

 

Martin, T., & Brown, T. (2007). Improving student achievement: And educational leader’s guide for developing purposeful schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
 

Martin, T. L. (2008). Professional Learning in a Professional Learning Community. In The Collaborative Administrator: Working Together as a Professional Learning Community (pp. 143-157). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

 

Ontario Leadership Strategy (2010). Exploring five core leadership capacities: Promoting collaborative learning cultures: Putting the promise into practice.  Ontario leadership strategy bulletin, 3, 1-23. Retrieved from:

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/leadership/ideasintoactionspring.pdf

 

Ontario Leadership Strategy (2013-14). Exploring five core leadership capacities: Promoting collaborative learning cultures: Putting the promise into practice.  Ontario leadership strategy bulletin, 3, 1-23. Retrieved from:

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/leadership/IdeasIntoAcn3.pdftionBulletin

Schnellert, L., &, Bulter, D. L. (June, 2014).  Collaborative Inquiry: Empowering teachers in their Professional Development.  Retrived from: http://www.cea-ace.ca/education-canada/article/collaborative-inquiry

 

Scribner, J. P., Sawyer, R. K., Watson, S. T., & Myers, V. L. (2007). Teacher Teams and Distributed Leadership: A Study of Group Discourse and Collaboration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 67-100.

 

 

So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318-336.