The Teachers Collaboration As Element of School As Learning Organization Activity

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Crete, 22-25 September 2004
(The Quality Assurance and School Effectiveness network)

The Teachers’ Collaboration as Element of School as Learning Organization Activity

Simonaitene Berita

Institute of Educational Studies, KaunasUniversity of Technology, Lithuania. Email:

Abstract

The object of the research – is the teachers’ collaboration as element of school as learning organization activity.

The aim of the research – is to theoretically found the importance and conception of collaboration in the context of school as learning organization and empirically verify the attitudes of teachers to collaborate.

The research empirical base and methods. The main source of empirical information in the research was the opinion of teachers on the matters of collaboration in one’s own organisation. This information source conditioned the choice of the main research method, namely – anonymous survey in written.

In the process of statistical analysis of the data the methods of factorial and cluster analysis as well as correlation analysis were applied. The data were processed applying the software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences SPSS

There were 247 teachers in the survey. The survey took place in March 2003.

Foundation of research instruments (questionnaires). The questionnaires consisted of two blocks: thematic diagnostic and a demographic block. The questionnaires contained structured questions, nominal and Likert scales. The format of five-rung response was chosen, the respondents evaluated the statements expressing their approval-doubt-disapproval.

Introduction

Collaboration– is one of the essential characteristics of learning organisation (LO), which is discussed by every researcher in the field: interrelationship and collaboration is the condition for an organisation to exist and develop successfully; collaboration is essential feature of new professionalism and the condition to change the culture of individualism existing in organisations, under the conditions of the culture both individuals and groups are equally evaluated, i.e. the opinion, criticism, position of an individual is valued, the atmosphere of person’s respect and trust and favourable/friendly relations (the members of an organisation have to feel the support and trust of each other, they should not be afraid to exchange their doubts, to speak about problems, asking for help has not to be valued as ignorance and the lack of competence) is created (Hargreaves, 1995; Fullan, 1998). Favourable/friendly relations are more psychological category, meanwhile, Senge (1994, 2000) emphasises managerial (structural) decisions more – building connections, i.e. building networks, as the environment for collaboration. Collaboration culture does not tolerate group thinking, but on the contrary – induces critical thinking, diversity of opinions (Fullan, 1998), on the other hand, collaboration ensures common knowledge of an organisation (North, 1990). The skills, which guarantee meaningful and productive existence of a network as well as collaboration of its members, are important enough: listening to others (hearing), expressing one’s opinion, joining diversity of opinions into solid entirety – conceptualisation, ability to express criticism and to accept it, the knowledge of one’s powers (self-knowledge), commitment for mutual work, etc. (Senge, 1994).

Collaboration encompasses common action, planning, culture, development, and organisation, research. Collaboration “provides moral support, increases effectiveness, strengthens efficiency, decreases load, uniforms time perception, induces political approval, enlarges reflection power, improves organisational reaction, gives possibilities to learn, induces constant improvement” (Hargreaves, 1998, p.322).

Unfortunately, an opposite phenomenon – insularity and isolation – is observed in a modern school. Hargreaves (1995) states that in order to transit from individualism to collaboration culture certain changes in teachers’ thinking, value orientations, viewpoints, practical work, i.e. “teachers’ culture” are necessary. However the research in this field is not sufficient. For example, Lithuanian researchers also analyse the phenomenon of collaboration[1], but most researches emphasise collaboration as the teaching/learning method more and insufficient attention is paid to the collaboration as the principle of teachers’ state and action in an organisation. Simonaitiene (1998) analysing the changes of the conception of teachers’ and pupils’ roles found that pupils are ready to collaborate more than teachers. While analysing the expression of LO features in schools it was identified that teachers demonstrate positive attitudes in respect of collaboration, but teachers’ partnership in the professional work manifests weakly, the culture of individualism prevails (Simonaitiene, 2003). Thus teachers’ collaboration as an essential category and significant feature of the performance of learning organisation is the research object of the research and article. The issues – how does the teachers’ collaboration culture manifest and what features does it possess; how can management actions influence teachers’ collaboration culture, weaken or strengthen it when creating and developing learning organisation – are important both in theoretical and practical approach; and the search for answers to these issues formulates the scientific problem presented in the article.

The aim of the article is to highlight the specificity (aspects) of teachers’ collaboration in the context of learning organisation.

Background

The concept of “communicated knowledge” is important for this research. North (1990) assumes that the knowledge, skills and competence possessed by institutions determine its development and survival in the market, and the competence of institutions is conditioned not only by the knowledge and practical skills of individual workers, but it is communicated knowledge, which North (1990) defines as „the knowledge, which one person is able to transmit to another“ (p.74). The author also actualises collaboration as the way for creating common knowledge, but fixates that collaboration is hardly reached position.

Another theoretical attitude of the research – the typology of collaboration phenomenon by Hargeaves (1999), i.e. three types of collaboration are distinguished: Collaboration Culture, Contrived Collegiality and Collaboration That Divides (Balkanisation of Teaching). Each of these types distinguishes in particular characteristic features[2] (Table 1).

Table 1

The Typology of Teachers’ Collaboration

The statements in the questionnaire were constructed referring to characteristic features of each type.

Data Collection

Sample. The size of the sample is N = 247, out of them 190 women (76,9%), 57 men (23,1%). The average of the respondents age is 38,7 years; the maximum age of the respondents - 64 years (1 respondent (0,4%), minimal 22 years (3 respondents (1,2%), the mode of the age Mo = 45 years (21 respondent (8,5%). The average of the respondents’ work experience at school - 14,9 years; Mo = 15 years (21 respondent (8,5%). The distribution of the respondents by professional qualification: 57 (23,1%) teachers and junior teachers, 115 (46,6%) senior teachers, 70 (28,7%) teachers supervisors, 4 (1,6%) experts; the distribution by the type of an institution: teachers of gymnasium 46 (18,6%), teachers of basic/main and secondary school 184 (74,5%), teachers of elementary school 17 (6,9%), geographical territory – Kaunas city and its district.

Measures. The survey was carried out applying the original questionnaire consisting of 31 questions and statements made of two structural derivatives: the block of demographic variables (7 questions) and diagnostic block of variables (collaboration phenomenon) consisting of 24 statements (e.g., “Ingenious and good-natured management facilitates collaboration”, “Coercive collaboration initiated by administration is not effective at schools”, etc.). The respondents valued these statements expressing approval-doubt-disapproval.

Results and Discussion

The research results were processed applying the software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences SPSS.

Item and Factor Analysis

Factor analysis was applied in the research in order to multiplex the primary variables of the research as well as to make scales and indexes. The variables getting into one and the same factor can reasonably be linked into additive indexes, got when having added evaluations for single variables into the total score of the test.

Single/individual variables were linked into scales and indexes referring to the following principles:

• Given sufficiently high inter correlation of the variables (without negative inter correlations among the variables) and sufficient internal consistence of the test that consists of the meanings of Cronbach’s α (α 1,00);
• Given sufficiently high factor weights L of the variables that are the correlation coefficient between the variable and extracted factor;
• Given sufficiently high differential power i/tt of the variables linked into the scale that is the correlation coefficient between the evaluation for a single variable and total score/point of the scale;
• The absence of negative factor weights;
• The theoretically important interpretation of the extracted factors.

It should be noted that the extracted factors reflect the statistical cohesion of multiplexed variables. The latter statistical cohesion can theoretically be interpreted as the inner structure of a diagnosed construct. In other words, if theoretically significant structure is “exposed” as the outcome of the factorial analysis, then this fact is considered to be the argument of the validity of the construct and its scale.

Factorial analysis is significant only if the got data can be theoretically interpreted. Practically this means that theoretically significant titles, resounding the research topic, should be formulated.

The evaluations of 23 statements of the diagnostic block were factorised applying the method of Principal Components and VARIMAX rotation. It should be noted that 8 statements were eliminated as “destroying” internal structure of the diagnostic construct. Remaining 15 statements were factorised for the second time. The data of factorisation are reflected in Table 2.

There were 4 factors, which explain almost 60 percent of the dispersion of all variables. It is to be observed that even the fourth factor explains 11% of the dispersion; this is rather high and valid index (if the dispersion explained by the factor is less than 10%, its interpretation is not significant). It is possible to state that factors are theoretically significant. The first factor – F1, explaining 20,15% of the dispersion of all variables, linked 4 statements, which stress the element of coercion and administrative control in teachers’ collaboration relationship. Thus it is very important that these statements linked into one factor, referring to which it is possible to draw a hypothetic premise that this feature of collaboration is significant and relevant in the surveyed population. The provisory title – “The element of coercion and control in collaboration relationship” – was given to this factor.

In the second factor (F2/explained dispersion – 15,63%) introverted the statements stressing voluntarism and commitment to achieve mutual aim. In other words, this factor confirmed the statement by Hargeaves (1998) that teachers collaborate not following an administration’s order, but realising personal initiatives, and perceive that to work together or to achieve aims is both fun and productive. This factor disclosed a very important feature of collaboration culture. It is provisory called „The element of voluntarism and commitment in collaboration relationship“.

The third factor (F3/explained dispersion – 11,38%) emphasises the importance and balance of individuality and openness as well as efforts for mutual activity. In other words, collaboration relationship does not drown out and does not destroy individuality; on the other hand, an individual has to be open and make efforts (to share, to help, etc.) in creating productive relationship. This factor revealed the dimension of balance or tension among different poles in the level of an individual, i.e. the balance between individuality (self-knowledge, self-reflection, self-development (intra-approach) and obligatory contribution to partnership relationship, common activity, knowledge bank or the like (extra-approach) (Simonaitiene, 2003). It is provisory called „Aspects of the balance between individuality and collective“.

Table 2

Factor analysis of item (N = 247)

1. Coercive collaboration distracts, degrades and detains teachers.

1. Coercive collaboration initiated by administration is not effective in schools, i.e. teachers do not meet when they would wish, but they meet when there is nothing to discuss

1. Coercive collaboration drowns out teachers’ professionalism, based in independent decisions, as well as distorts teachers’ efforts and energy.

1. Collaboration cannot happen at a certain place and certain appointed time. School’s administration cannot administer collaboration.

1. Collaboration culture fosters teachers to work together or to achieve aims but not to pursue the aims provided by others.

1. If it is necessary to react to outside orders to act in a group (to perform mutual work), teachers do it for choice referring to professional self-assurance and free decision of the community.

1. Productive, collegial relationship is the premise of efficient improvement of curriculum at school.

1. Collaboration relationship is unconstrained. Teachers collaborate because they, referring to their experience, personal disposition and without coercion perceive that to work together it is fun and productive.

1. Collaboration relationship is spontaneous, it develops out of teachers’ community and the community supports it. Collaboration culture means the creation of consensus/agreement.

1. Collaboration relationship does not endanger teachers’ independence and individuality.

1. Confidence in colleagues occurs by sharing, helping, working together, productive relationship of teachers develops.

1. Collaboration culture makes the mutual work of most teachers almost invisible; short, but frequent and informal. Real collaboration is “invisible”.

1. Mutual work depends very much on the context. It is not standardised and cannot be such, which administrators wish.

1. Collaboration relationship is not directly administered; it is not dropped “from the top” or enforced. Collaboration culture is born and develops by itself; participants’ wishes and efforts determine it.

1. The requirement of administration that teachers would communicate and work together, declaring their work purpose, instructing and demanding results, contradicts collaboration essence: spontaneity, initiative, voluntarism.

The fourth factor linked the statements reflecting hidden “invisible” but very important features of collaboration culture: real collaboration is “invisible”, collaboration relationship is born and develops by itself, and the requirement of administration that teachers would communicate contradicts the essence of collaboration: spontaneity, initiative, and voluntarism. The fourth factor was relatively called “Informal (hidden) aspects of collaboration“(F4).

The application of factorial analysis method enabled without losing essential information to multiplex the number of primary variables and to make the scales resounding theoretical-diagnostic constructs of the research: it was preceded from 23 variables to 5 scales.

The statement „Good-natured and ingenious management facilitates collaboration” as a very important aspect for the research was purposefully not included into the factorisation model; it made an independent scale. The evaluation of this statement is presented in Figure 1.

Fig. 1. The percentage evaluation of the statement „Ingenious and good-natured management facilitates collaboration” (N=247).

The scales and their methodological quality characteristics formulated during the research reflect in Table 3. It should be noted that carrying out the research “in the field”, i.e. not under laboratory conditions, it seldom happens to reach unblemished psychometric quality of scales. The coefficient of inner consistency CRONBACH- of diagnostic variables’ indexes in the surveyed teachers’ population ranges from = 0,55 to = 0,84. The more the coefficient meanings draw near one, the more reliable index (scale) is.

The psychometric quality of made scales and indexes can be treated as satisfactory and/or good.

Having made the scales, the further analysis was performed referring not to single variables, but to the made scales (having performed their Z-standardisation).

Table 3

Diagnostic blocks (scales) made by means of factorial analysis and their statistical indicators (means and psychometric characteristics) (N teachers = 247)

We searched for statistical cohesion how good-natured and ingenious management can influence teachers’ collaboration culture. It was indicated that ingenious management could decrease the element of coercion in collaboration culture; statistical link is weak, but significant (rho= -0,22, p=0,000). Ingenious management will influence the voluntary commitment to achieve common aim as well (rho=0,44, p=0,000) and will help to keep balance between person’s individuality and his/her contribution to the mutual activity in order to achieve organisation’s aims (rho=0,34, p=0,000). Meanwhile, ingenious and good-natured management is not able to influence informal (hidden) aspects of collaboration (rho=-0,03, p=0,62).