Dissertation KatrienVangrieken Final...en (2) curriculum autonomie en (3) openheid t.a.v....

Towards an inclusive understanding of individual and collaborative work

Katrien Vangrieken

Doctoral thesis offered to obtain the degree of Doctor of Educational Sciences (PhD)

Supervisor: Prof. dr. Eva Kyndt Co-supervisor: Prof. dr. Filip Dochy

2018

FACULTY OF PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES

The teacher or the team? Towards an inclusive understanding of

individual and collaborative work

2018

Doctoral thesis offered to obtain the degree of Doctor of Educational Sciences (PhD)

Katrien Vangrieken

Supervisor: Prof. dr. Eva Kyndt Co-supervisor: Prof. dr. Filip Dochy

OCCUPATIONAL & ORGANISATIONAL

PSYCHOLOGY AND PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

Samenvatting

Leraren zullen (in toenemende mate) (moeten) samenwerken om met de uitdagingen en eisen in het huidige onderwijslandschap om te gaan. Hoewel de evolutie naar een op teams gebaseerde organisatie al lang een gevestigde waarde is in een variëteit aan organisaties, resulteerde de push naar samenwerking in uitdagingen en spanningen in de traditioneel geïndividualiseerde context van leraren. Het doel van dit doctoraat is om deze uitdagingen en de relatie tussen de leraar als individu en als teamlid te onderzoeken.

De eerste uitdaging vertrekt vanuit de diversiteit in samenwerking tussen leraren, gaande van los samenhangende individuen en oppervlakkige samenwerking tot echte teams en diepgaande samenwerking. Het doel van de eerste twee hoofdstukken is inzicht krijgen in hoe samenwerking geconceptualiseerd wordt en plaats vindt in de onderwijspraktijk. Hoofdstuk 1 (systematische literatuurstudie) exploreert het concept van samenwerking tussen leraren en integreert bestaand onderzoek. Een verduidelijkt terminologisch kader wordt voorgesteld. Daarnaast worden mogelijke voordelen en nadelen, faciliterende en hinderende factoren, en criteria voor succesvolle samenwerking besproken. Hoofdstuk 2 brengt de verschillende vormen van samenwerking en het onderliggende continuüm in kaart door het introduceren van het construct team entitativity (conceptueel en empirisch door het valideren van een meetinstrument). Dit verwijst naar de mate waarin een verzameling van individuen een echt team is, gekenmerkt door gedeelde doelen, cohesie en taak- en uitkomstinterdependentie. Het overbrugt de conceptuele kloof tussen echte teams en andere vormen van samenwerking die strikt genomen geen teams zijn (bv. lerarenteams) en overschrijdt de grens tussen teamonderzoek en onderzoek naar samenwerking tussen leraren.

De tweede uitdaging focust op de paradoxale relatie tussen autonomie en samenwerking bij leraren. De traditionele interpretatie van autonomie als onafhankelijkheid die resulteert uit een lange geschiedenis van voornamelijk individueel werk, bemoeilijkt de combinatie met samenwerking. Deze relatie ontwarren is het hoofddoel in Hoofdstukken 3 en 4. In Hoofdstuk 3 onderscheiden we twee autonomie-attitudes: een reactieve attitude stelt autonomie gelijk aan onafhankelijkheid en weerstand tegen externe invloeden terwijl een reflectieve attitude start van professionele agency en vrijheid voor zelfsturing, wat verbondenheid niet uitsluit. Een meetinstrument bestaande uit drie subschalen werd ontwikkeld: (1) didactisch-pedagogische en (2) curriculum autonomie en (3) openheid t.a.v. samenwerking (wijzend op een reactieve of reflectieve attitude). Dit kader is het startpunt voor de mixed methods studie in Hoofdstuk 4. Gebaseerd op correlaties en de identificatie van verschillende autonomieprofielen bij leraren en hoe die gerelateerd zijn aan samenwerking, vonden we dat leraren die hoog scoren op autonomie en openheid t.a.v. samenwerking het meest samenwerken. Kwalitatieve interview-analyses toonden dat didactisch-pedagogische autonomie opgesplitst kan worden in inhoud-gerelateerde en klas-gerelateerde aspecten en dat openheid t.a.v. diepgaande samenwerking mogelijk geen uniforme attitude is maar verschilt afhankelijk van het autonomie domein (manier van lesgeven en onderwijsmethoden zijn de meest gevoelige topics voor samenwerking).

De derde en laatste uitdaging is gerelateerd aan het welzijn van leraren in een samenwerkingscontext. Samenwerking wordt gesteld welzijn te bevorderen en de toename van samenwerking toont aan dat – naast de nood aan bevlogen leraren die bereid zijn om een extra inspanning te leveren – het essentieel is om ondersteunende bevlogen samenwerkingscontexten te creëren. In Hoofstuk 5 gaan we door middel van een longitudinaal design (latente groei-analyses) na hoe de dynamieken rond individueel werk en samenwerking samenhangen met welzijn van leraren. Gebaseerd op de door leraren gepercipieerde team entitativity, onderscheidden we een hoger en lager scorende groep en onderzochten we de effecten van autonomie en samenwerking op individuele en teambevlogenheid in beide groepen. De resultaten demonstreren dat leraren die zich meer bevlogen voelen, hun team ook als meer bevlogen ervaren en vice versa. Verder blijkt een hoge mate van team entitativity voordelig voor zowel team als individuele bevlogenheid en voorspellen zowel autonomie als samenwerking individuele en teambevlogenheid. De compatibiliteit van het individu en het collectief wordt versterkt bij een hoge mate van entitativity.

Summary

In order to cope with the challenges and demands of today’s educational landscape, teachers will (increasingly) (have to) collaborate. While the evolution towards a team-based organisation has long been commonplace in other types of organisations, in the traditionally individualised context of teachers the push towards collaborative work has resulted in challenges and tensions. We aimed to disentangle these challenges, investigating the relationship between the teacher as an individual and as a team member.

The first challenge relates to the diversity in teacher collaboration, ranging from loosely coupled individuals and superficial collaboration to real teams and deep-level collaborative work. We aimed to gain understanding of how teacher collaboration is conceptualised and takes shape in practice. This objective is addressed in the first two chapters. Chapter 1 (systematic literature review) explores the concept of teacher collaboration and integrates existing research. A clarified terminological framework is proposed. Moreover benefits and possible negative consequences, facilitating and hindering factors, and criteria for successful collaboration are listed. Chapter 2 maps different shapes of teacher collaboration and the underlying collaborative continuum by introducing team entitativity (conceptually and empirically by validating a questionnaire). The latter refers to the degree to which a collection of individuals is a real team, characterised by shared goals and cohesion and task and outcome interdependence. This bridges the conceptual gap between real teams and other types of collaboration that are not strictly teams (e.g., teacher teams), crossing the boundaries between team research and research on teacher collaboration.

The second challenge focuses on the paradoxical relationship between teacher autonomy and collaboration. The traditional understanding of autonomy as independence resulting from a long history of predominantly individualised work challenges its combination with collaboration. Disentangling the relationship between (different understandings of) autonomy and collaboration is the core objective in Chapters 3 and 4. In Chapter 3, we distinguished two autonomy attitudes: A reactive attitude equates autonomy to independence and resistance to external influence while a reflective attitude starts from professional agency and freedom to act in a self-directed manner, which does not exclude connectedness. A new measure consisting of three subscales was developed: (1) didactical pedagogical autonomy, (2) curricular autonomy, and (3) collaborative attitude (indicating a reactive or reflective attitude). This framework is the starting point for the mixed methods study in Chapter 4. Based on correlations and the identification of different autonomy profiles of teachers and how they relate to reported collaboration we found that teachers scoring high on both autonomy and collaborative attitude reported to collaborate most. Qualitative interview analyses indicated that didactical-pedagogical autonomy can be split up into content-related and classroom-related aspects and that openness towards deep-level collaboration may not be a unified attitude but differs depending on the domain of autonomy (teaching styles and methods being the most sensitive topics for collaboration).

The third and final challenge relates to teachers’ wellbeing in a collaborative context. Collaboration was argued to foster wellbeing and the evolution towards increased collaborative work demonstrates that – besides needing engaged teachers who are willing to go the extra mile – it is essential to create supportive engaged (and engaging) collaborative contexts. In Chapter 5, we assessed how the aforementioned dynamics of individual and collaborative work relate to teachers’ wellbeing using a longitudinal design (latent growth curve analyses). Based on teachers’ perceived degree of team entitativity, we distinguished a high and lower scoring group and assessed the effects of autonomy and collaboration on individual and team engagement in both groups. Results indicate that teachers feeling more engaged, also experience their team as more engaged and vice versa. Furthermore, high levels of entitativity are beneficial for team and individual engagement and both autonomy and collaboration predict individual and team engagement. The compatibility of the individual and the collective tends to be reinforced in highly entitative teams.

Dankwoord

Iets minder dan vier jaar geleden begon ik aan mijn tocht die uiteindelijk naar dit punt leidde.

Deze tocht verliep niet steeds langs de geijkte paden en bracht me – vrij letterlijk – van de ene

kant van de wereld naar de andere. Ik heb onderweg ontzettend veel geleerd en genoten van het

avontuur. Ik heb er ook nooit alleen voor gestaan maar werd steeds omringd door vele

medereizigers en passanten. Dit doctoraat was dus uiteraard geen “one-man (of toepasselijker:

one-woman)-job” maar is tot stand gekomen dankzij de hulp en input van velen. Aan het einde

van deze tocht wil ik dan ook graag de tijd nemen om hen hiervoor te bedanken.

Allereerst, leden van mijn begeleidingscommissie en jury: bedankt voor jullie interesse in mijn

onderzoek en om mij uit te dagen met kritische vragen.

Uiteraard gaat de grootste dankjewel naar mijn promotoren, zonder jullie had ik hier nooit

gestaan. Jullie leverden ieder op jullie eigen manier een essentiële bijdrage aan dit doctoraat

enerzijds maar ook breder aan mijn vorming als onderzoeker anderzijds.

Beginnend bij het begin: Filip, bedankt voor alle kansen die je me gegeven hebt. Van

masterproef-promotor en stagebegeleider, tot uiteindelijk promotor en co-promotor van mijn

doctoraat heb je mijn evolutie als onderzoeker opgevolgd. Bedankt voor de ruimte en autonomie

die je me gegeven hebt om mijn onderzoeksproject zelf vorm te geven en mijn eigen interesse in

de context van secundair onderwijs – het was dan misschien niet volledig te bedoeling – toch te

volgen. Bedankt ook voor je enthousiasme, blijvende aanmoedigingen, en eindeloze vertrouwen.

Bedankt om mij letterlijk te promoten en voor je positieve woorden.

Eva, begonnen als mijn co-promotor en daarna de rol van promotor overgenomen. Al vrij snel

hadden we elkaar gevonden in onze gezamenlijke interesse in statistiek, ik heb dus ook op dat

vlak veel van je kunnen leren. Ik heb heel erg genoten van onze fijne samenwerking en onze

overleg- en brainstorm-momenten. Bedankt om mij te stimuleren om buiten de lijntjes te kleuren

en steeds mezelf als onderzoeker te verbeteren. Bedankt om mij de ruimte te geven om “mijn

ding te doen” – soms hierin waarschijnlijk wel iets te ver te gaan met een zoveelste analyse-

experimentje – maar er tegelijkertijd steeds te zijn als klankbord wanneer ik het nodig had. Als

kers op de taart gingen we in Australië tussen het werk door samen wildlife spotten – van

kangoeroes en koala’s tot echidna’s en pelikanen. Bedankt voor alles!

Verder wil ik graag alle scholen en leerkrachten die deelnamen aan mijn onderzoek en tot twee

jaar toe vragenlijsten invulden, heel erg bedanken. Dit vergde ook voor jullie een hele inspanning

en ik wil hiervoor graag nogmaals zeggen: bedankt, uit de grond van mijn hart. Jullie maakten

door jullie blijvende inzet dit onderzoek en mijn doctoraat mogelijk. Bedankt ook aan het LiSO-

team voor de fijne samenwerking.

To my present and former O2L-colleagues: Thank you all for contributing to an inspiring work

environment, for the relaxing – and very entertaining – lunches and cooling ice-cream breaks,

and for all the nice activities and parties. To all of you: Thank you for the interesting, inspiring,

and enjoyable discussions. Although I am grateful to you all, a few of you have played a slightly

more special role in my PhD trajectory.

Eduardo, thank you for believing in me. Thank you for challenging, inspiring, and supporting me.

Thank you for your open door and for triggering me to veer off the beaten path and colour

outside the lines.

Nele, bedankt voor de fijne gesprekken, voor je steun, en droge humor.

Collega’s “van het eerste uur” – Elisabeth, Anne, Natalie en Kelly. Jullie verwelkomden mij bij

POOLL als stagiaire en ik voelde me al heel snel deel van het team. Jullie zijn stuk voor stuk

fantastische en toffe mensen. In jullie groep vond ik mijn ideale werkplek waar ik me thuis kon

voelen. Bedankt voor de fijne babbels en vele leuke momenten.

Anne – fantastische bureaugenoot en co-auteur – bedankt voor de fijne samenwerking,

gesprekken en alle toffe momenten (onder andere tijdens ons INGRoup-tripje naar Helsinki). Ik

ben blij dat je in mijn “teams”-team zat.

Ilke – toch wel een categorie apart; niet zomaar een collega, niet zomaar een vriendin. We zijn als

goede vriendinnen samen aan dit avontuur begonnen maar ik durf toch stellen dat onze

vriendschap heel wat nieuwe dimensies heeft gekregen doorheen de afgelopen vier jaar. Van

“avondshiften” met Mplus-probeersels, twee jaar mijn bureaugenoot tot “roommate” in

Australië, wat een mooie tijd is het geweest. Bedankt om altijd voor mij klaar te staan, eindeloos

naar mij te luisteren, en over letterlijk alles mee na te denken. Je zal me allicht willen

tegenspreken, maar die kans krijg je nu niet. Je bent een toponderzoeker en fantastisch persoon –

of zoals een populaire Vlaamse meidengroep zou zeggen: “jij bent de bom”. Bedankt om van

lokaal VHI 02.04 – al dan niet samen met “Ed” – een “home away from home” te maken.

Hoewel we na deze vier jaar mogelijk geen collega’s meer zullen zijn, blijf je als fantastische

vriendin één van de belangrijkste personen in mijn leven.

Familie en vrienden, bedankt voor jullie steun, interesse, en de fijne en gezellige momenten

samen. Mijn gezin – ouders, Thomas & Michelle en Emily – bedankt voor de steun, het

luisterend oor, de gezellige etentjes en uitstapjes. Hannes – Hanne Blockx en Hanne Damen –

mede-pedagogen en fantastische vriendinnen, of zoals Hanne Blockx zou zeggen: samen met Ilke

een “dreamteam”. Wat is het fijn om jullie tot mijn vrienden te kunnen rekenen. Ook al zien we

elkaar niet meer even vaak, elke reünie is het weer alsof het nog maar gisteren was. Bedankt voor

alle fijne en hilarische momenten en bedankt om altijd voor mij klaar te staan – van “het leven is

een tranendal”-dagen tot momenten vol zonneschijn. Jasmien en Eli; Evelyne en Steff: bedankt

voor de fijne dubbeldates, uitstapjes, etentjes, spelavonden, en leuke gesprekken.

Juf Liliane en Dirk, bedankt om van de balletstudio een soort van tweede familie te maken.

Hoewel ik er minder ben dan ik soms zou willen, vormen de studio – en de kleine ballerina’s en

dansers – een belangrijk deel van mijn leven. Bedankt ook aan mijn mede-pré-ballet-juffen –

Jasmien, Marlies, Sara en Justine – voor de toffe en vaak hilarische zaterdagochtenden met de

kleuters.

Tot slot wil ik nog graag de belangrijkste persoon in mijn leven – mijn steun en toeverlaat – heel

erg bedanken. Lieve Yens, bedankt voor wie je bent en wie je mij laat zijn. Jij hebt mijn

doctoraatstraject van op de eerste rij samen met mij beleefd. Bedankt om de mooie momenten

nog zoveel meer kleur te geven en uitdagingen en tegenslagen zoveel minder scherp te maken.

Bedankt voor je eindeloze begrip, om steeds te luisteren naar mijn verhalen en er altijd voor mij

te zijn. Bedankt om mijn thuis te zijn, altijd en overal.

Table of Contents

General Introduction 1

Challenge 1 – Conceptualising Teacher Collaboration 19

Chapter 1. Teacher Collaboration: A Systematic Review 21

Chapter 2. Group, Team, or Something in Between?

Conceptualising and Measuring Team Entitativity

71

Challenge 2 – Teacher Autonomy in Relation to Collaboration 115

Chapter 3. Teacher Autonomy and Collaboration: A Paradox?

Conceptualising and Measuring Teachers’ Autonomy and

Collaborative Attitude

117

Chapter 4. The Teacher as an Island? A Mixed Methods Study on

the Relationship Between Autonomy and Collaboration

147

Challenge 3 – Teachers’ Wellbeing Through Collaboration 177

Chapter 5. Engaged Teacher, Engaged Team? The Influence of

Collaborative Context and Teachers’ Autonomy

179

Final Conclusions 215

Concluding Chapter 217

Epilogue 249

References 251

Appendices 285

General Introduction

Teaching for the Future: Not a Solitary Adventure

Society is complex and continues to evolve rapidly. Given that education is its cornerstone,

changes in society also require changes in education. The latter is expected to prepare students

for the future of our knowledge society wherein rapid knowledge development and innovation

are key. Binkley et al. (2012) refer in this respect to 21st century skills that students need to develop

to be successful in work and life. These skills are categorised in: ways of thinking (creativity and

innovation, critical thinking, learning to learn), ways of working (communication and

collaboration), tools for working (information and ICT literacy), and living in the world

(citizenship, life and career, personal and social responsibility). This broad variety in skills

demonstrates that schools do not solely need to prepare students for a job but more broadly for

life in today’s society. Schools need to be transformed in ways that allow students to acquire

these skills and teachers increasingly need to focus on individual development and personalised

learning of students (Griffin, Care, & McGaw, 2012). Together with the fact that education is

often expected to provide solutions for problems and challenges in society and there tends to be

a continuous stream of (small or larger scale) innovations (e.g., the current focus on inclusive

education or dual education systems), this demonstrates that teaching is a highly demanding job.

It is thus no surprise that the teaching profession has been described as being prone to stress and

burnout, resulting in substantial levels of attrition among teachers (Chang, 2009; Hakanen,

Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006).

In order to cope with these challenges and demands, teaching cannot be a one-(wo)man job;

teachers will (increasingly) have to work collaboratively (Griffin et al., 2012). Traditional egg-crate

schools in which teachers teach in isolated classrooms no longer suffice to meet the demands of

the current educational landscape and society. Teacher collaboration is believed to enable

teachers to deal with their changing work context and result in positive outcomes for teachers

and students. For teachers, reported benefits include stronger motivation, increased job

satisfaction, decreased workload, and instruction strategies becoming more student-centred

(Bertrand, Roberts, & Buchanan, 2006; Egodawatte, McDougall, & Stoilescu, 2011; Reeves, Pun,

& Chung, 2017; Slavit, Kennedy, Lean, Nelson, & Deuel, 2011). Not surprisingly, this also

resulted in improved understanding and performance of students (e.g., Goddard, Goddard, Kim,

& Miller, 2015; Reeves et al., 2017; Ronfeldt, Owens Farmer, McQueen, & Grissom, 2015).

2 | GENERAL INTRODUCTION

In order to foster collaborative work in this context with a tradition of predominantly individual

work, collaborative structures are often formally implemented from the top down. This formal

structure is designed by school governance, creating subunits of teachers within the school to

foster efficiency, teacher learning, and control and to reduce coordination efforts (Gulati &

Puranam, 2009).

Problem Statement

This evolution towards a team-based work environment has long been commonplace in various

types of industry and organisations. Research of Weiss and Hoegl (2015) demonstrated an overall

steady increase of teamwork since approximately 1970. However, in the context of teachers it

seems to be more challenging to leave the culture of individual work behind and realise effective

collaborative formats. The aforementioned push towards collaborative work seems to result in

tensions and challenges as traditionally, teachers have taught – and often still do – students in

isolation in the sanctity of the classroom (Gajda & Koliba, 2008). This dissertation focuses on

disentangling these challenges and investigates the relationship between the teacher as an

individual on the one hand and as a team member on the other hand. Three challenges within the

main topic of teacher collaboration will be addressed in this dissertation.

A first challenge includes that if the goals and purposes of collaborative work are not endorsed

by teachers, formally imposed collaboration can result in collaborative structures being a mere

formality and contrived collegiality consisting of superficial collaboration aimed at fulfilling

assigned tasks (Hargreaves & Dawe, 1990). Moreover, while most research on teacher

collaboration starts from a generic approach towards collaboration and neglects the diversity in

collaborative formats, teacher collaboration is not uniform and may serve different – potentially

conflicting – agendas (Vangrieken, Meredith, Packer, & Kyndt, 2017c). Different stakeholders are

involved in teacher collaboration that may have different – not necessarily compatible – interests.

For example, while the government may focus on the implementation of curricula deriving from

a political agenda, the principal is focused on his or her idea of an effective school organisation,

and the teachers involved have their own objectives that are focused on their view on teaching

and practical needs. While schools rely on these formal collaboration structures to support their

functioning, assuming that they foster effectiveness, fine-grained insights into the functioning

and diversity of these structures remain scarce. Based upon this challenge, the first objective of

this dissertation includes:

Objective 1. Gaining insight into how teacher collaboration is conceptualised and takes shape in

educational practice.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION | 3

A second challenge includes the paradoxical relationship between teacher autonomy and

collaboration. As mentioned, traditionally teachers have mostly performed their job individually

with high levels of discretion in how they tackle their job. This traditional way of working seems

to have become the standard for teachers’ understanding of autonomy. The latter is often

equated to independence and individual work (Moomaw, 2005). This interpretation of autonomy

challenges its combination with collaboration and may result in teachers experiencing a loss of

(highly valued) professional autonomy in a collaborative context. The increasing trend towards

collaboration may thus create tensions in a context wherein individual work has been the norm

for so long. However, as mentioned by Darling-Hammond (2012), the case of Finland – with

highly effective schools – demonstrates that autonomy and collaboration go hand in hand in

schools where students acquire the diversity of 21st century skills. Here, schools and teachers

receive an extensive amount of autonomy that fosters teachers’ collaborative work in collectively

developing local curricula and student assessments. This seems to disclose a different

understanding of autonomy, wherein the latter is described as fostering collaboration. There thus

appear to be different interpretations of autonomy with a different relationship to collaboration.

As a result, the second main objective of this dissertation reads as follows:

Objective 2. Understanding teacher autonomy in relation to collaboration and disentangling different

interpretations thereof.

The third and final challenge addressed in this dissertation relates to teachers’ wellbeing. As

suggested above, teachers are described as being prone to stress and burnout. Collaborative work

was found to foster teachers’ wellbeing as it results in improved morale, motivation, and work

engagement (Albrecht, 2012; Johnson, 2003; Simbula, Guglielmi, & Schaufeli, 2011). Given that

schools are loosely coupled organisations wherein it is difficult to assess teachers’ performance or

mandate specific practices, engaged teachers’ motivation is essential to create quality education

(Somech, 2005). The increase of collaborative work demonstrates that it is not only important to

have individual employees who are willing to go the extra mile, but also indicates that it is

essential to create supportive engaged (and engaging) collaborative contexts. While it is thus

important to combine an individual and a collective perspective when looking at teachers’

wellbeing, the focus has mostly been on the individual teacher. Moreover, constructs such as

individual and team work engagement have mostly been investigated separately and the

relationship between both is underinvestigated. The question thus remains how both are

interrelated. These dynamics and relationships between the individual and the collective may be

especially challenging in this context wherein collaborative structures tend to be top-down


imposed and the goals and purposes thereof are not always fully endorsed by individual teachers.

Hence, the final objective of this dissertation includes:

Objective 3. Gaining insight into how the dynamics and relationships between individual and

collaborative work relate to teachers’ wellbeing.

Formal Collaborative Structures Under Investigation: The Case of

Subject Groups

The common formal organisational structure of secondary schools – the context of this

dissertation – consists of a collection of subject groups. These are disciplinary structural units

within schools that gather teachers who teach the same or closely related subjects. They

collaborate on subject-related matters, such as the curriculum and student evaluation. This

structure of subject groups can be found in almost all secondary schools in Flanders. Subject

groups are supposed to collaborate as teams on core teaching issues (i.e., curricular issues as well

as didactical-pedagogical matters). Previous research has indicated that for teachers teaching the

same subject in the same school there is an increased likelihood to find a common ground and

experience shared teaching problems (Bidwell, 2001; Yasumoto, Uekawa, & Bidwell, 2001).

Bidwell and Yasumoto (1999) argued that problem-solving interaction should be facilitated when

teaching fields are formally organised into departments or subject groups.

This formal structure is in accordance with the traditional structure and organisation of secondary

education in Flanders, where the educational program is organised in different subjects.

Organising the teaching staff in different subject groups seems to be expected by educational

authorities (educational networks). However, how this traditional idea on the organisation of

education is realised in practice can vary across schools. Both under the influence of structural

features (e.g., size, educational tracks) and school culture (e.g., collaborative climate), differences

can arise in the number of meetings of subject groups, whether or not different subjects are

clustered in one group (e.g., all science subjects), whether they are organised within or across

grade level, whether members participate mandatory or voluntary, et cetera. Moreover, even

within schools a lot of differences can arise across subject groups. Both their structure or the

degree to which they actually work as a team as well as the content of their collaboration can vary

strongly, some focusing more on making superficial practical arrangements, others discussing

more profound pedagogical and didactical matters related to the subject. Moreover within each

subject group, differences can arise between teachers in how they perceive their group and the

amount of effort they invest herein. Although teachers can be assigned to subject groups and


these can formally be forced to interact in mandatory meetings, there will always be a gap

between these formal structures and actual practice where teachers will maintain a certain degree

of freedom in who they turn to for help (Penuel et al., 2010). To some extent, collaborative

structures can be imposed, but how they are actually realised in practice will always be influenced

by the individual teachers. This is supported by the fact that most of the variance in collaboration

tends to be situated at the level of individual teachers (Ronfeldt et al., 2015). This is in line with

the abovementioned idea that there are different stakeholders involved in teacher collaborative

work (Vangrieken et al., 2017c): While a structure is expected by educational authorities, school

governance will have a voice in how this will be implemented in the school and teachers will still

have their own objectives focused on their view on teaching. Hence, school level – or even group

level – analyses do not suffice to fully capture the concept of teacher collaboration as the

individual teacher plays a key role in how collaboration occurs in practice.

Challenges in Subject Groups

Below, we will introduce how each of the three aforementioned challenges in teacher

collaboration manifests itself in this context of subject groups in secondary education.

Challenge 1: Conceptualising Teacher Collaboration

The first challenge includes gaining insight into the functioning of these subject groups and how

collaborative work actually takes shape herein. Research on teachers’ collaborative work mostly

starts from a generic approach, assuming that collaboration is uniform. As such it lacks a deep-

level investigation of quality features of collaboration. Lavié (2006) warned for this persistence of

generic discourses and both structural features and the content and purpose of collaboration may

strongly influence its added-value beyond individual teacher work. In our conceptual framework

of teacher collaboration, we map this diversity by acknowledging the varying shapes of

collaboration or different ways in which collaborative formats can be organised and different

colours thereof. The latter refers to what topics are addressed and how (i.e., which collaborative

activities are used). Figure 1 provides an overview of this overarching conceptual framework.


Figure 1. Conceptual model of teacher collaboration.

Shapes: Group, team, or something in between? Previous research on teacher

collaboration seemed to suggest that there is a variety in the concept and that it can take different

shapes evolving from independence to actual interdependent teamwork (Bovbjerg, 2006; Little,

1990; Ohlsson, 2013; Smith, 2009). Moreover, diverse terminology is used in research on the

topic and theoretical frameworks backing up these constructs are often diffuse and ill-defined.

Although research on teacher collaboration could learn a lot from research in other industries

and organisations – that have a stronger tradition in thoroughly investigating teams and other

collaborative structures – the current boundary crossing is very limited. On the one hand, this

means that research on teacher collaboration rarely applies frameworks that have been well

established in team research, such as frameworks on team learning and team processes (e.g.,

Decuyper, Dochy, & Van den Bossche, 2010; Edmondson, 2002; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro,

2001). On the other hand, traditional team researchers tend to keep away from this context

because teacher teams often do not fit traditional team definitions wherein a team is defined as

A collection of individuals who are interdependent in their tasks, who share responsibility

for outcomes, who see themselves and who are seen by others as an intact social entity

embedded in one or more larger social systems (for example, business unit or the

corporation), and who manage their relationships across organizational boundaries

(Cohen & Bailey, 1997, p. 241).

Elements such as interdependence – a core defining feature of teams – appear to be difficult to

achieve in teacher collaboration and teacher teams tend to operate more as aggregates of

individuals bonded by social ties, stressing psychological safety (Ohlsson, 2013; Smith, 2009).

This hampers a straightforward application of team theories and frameworks. This lack of

boundary crossing leads to a paradoxical situation in which teacher collaboration is becoming


increasingly popular and there is an extensive (and growing) amount of research on the topic, but

at the same time this stream of research has not fully outgrown its immature status and still lacks

comprehensive theoretical frameworks. In order to bridge this conceptual gap between

traditional teams and other types of collaboration that are not strictly teams (e.g., teacher teams),

we propose a more flexible team concept. Combining research on group perceptions originating

from social psychology (Campbell, 1958) and team research, the concept team entitativity is

introduced. The latter refers to the degree to which a collection of individuals possesses the

quality of a team and captures the continuum ranging from a collection of loosely coupled

individuals to a real team meeting traditional team criteria. In this way, this dissertation aims to

contribute to creating a shared language that may foster boundary crossing between research on

teacher collaboration and research on teams and collaboration in other types of organisations.

Colours: Topics and collaborative activities. In line with the teacher team

typology described in Vangrieken, Dochy, Raes, and Kyndt (2013), teacher teams are not only

defined by structural features, but also by the core task(s) they are working on. These tasks

determine the focus and purpose of teacher collaboration and partly determine the collaborative

format that is most suitable to serve this. Furthermore, the content of collaboration can be

addressed in different ways, in different types of collaborative activities.

Purpose and topics. The tasks of teacher teams can range from a focus on policy-

making and school-level decisions to teamwork that is focused on classroom education and

problem solving (Vangrieken et al., 2013). In this dissertation the focus is on teaching-related

collaboration rather than for example school-level policy making. Within this domain of

collaboration, a strong variety exists in the level of depth of topics being discussed. Teacher

collaboration often remains limited to discussing practicalities rather than discussing teaching

didactics or problems they meet in their daily practice (Cheng & Ko, 2009; Plauborg, 2009).

Collaboration that goes beyond mere practical arrangements and includes deep-level discussions

of teachers’ practice and functioning is challenging. The latter requires exposing and discussing

teachers’ underlying beliefs, which inevitably leads to disagreements while teachers tend to avoid

conflict, focusing on psychological safety (Kelchtermans, 2006; Ohlsson, 2013). Hence, the

content of teacher collaboration can vary strongly, ranging from superficial and safe topics (e.g.,

exchanging materials, discussing the pace of teaching) to deep-level discussions of teachers’

classroom practice.

Collaborative activities. In traditional team research, different collaborative

activities are investigated in the form of team learning behaviours. While a variety of team learning


behaviours can be distinguished, in this dissertation the focus is on the basic behaviours

identified by Decuyper et al. (2010): sharing, co-construction, and constructive conflict. Sharing is

a central process of articulating a personal meaning, such as identifying a problem, proposing

ways to handle it, or sharing ideas with other members (Dochy, Gijbels, Raes, & Kyndt, 2014;

Stahl, 2000). This can lead to collaborative construction or co-construction when members

actively listen to the articulation of meaning, reply and attempt to resolve the problem at hand by

matching ideas and giving feedback (Paulus, 2000). Co-construction includes the refinement of,

building on, or modifying the original offer by mutual discussion and cooperation among the

other team members (Baker, 1994; Webb & Palincsar, 1996). This eventually leads to shared

knowledge or new meaning that was not present in the team before (Van den Bossche,

Gijselaers, Segers, & Kirschner, 2006). Finally, constructive conflict includes a process of

negotiation and the open and respectful expression of diverging views, looking for agreements

that are mutually acceptable to the team members by listening and trying to understand each

other and integrating different points of view (Tjosvold & Yu, 2007; Van den Bossche et al.,

2006).

However, as suggested above, traditional teamwork models may not always be readily applicable

to the context of teachers. Moreover, team research tends to focus on ‘whole team’ learning,

including all team members in the learning event and in which the learning needs to become part

of the shared mental model of the team in order to be defined as team learning. However, in the

case of teachers, currently teamwork is only a minor fragment of their job as most part of their

job is still performed individually in their classrooms. This gives team learning, and the

possibilities thereof, a different twist. Hence, in this dissertation the conceptualisation of team

learning was adapted to this context. First of all, the collaborative activities proposed here are not

limited to team meetings or events in which all team members are present as such situations are

rather uncommon in the case of teachers. It focuses on learning behaviours that occur among

(part of) the members of a teacher team, this learning may or may not be fed back to the whole

team to become part of a shared mental model or shared knowledge. Second, while the processes

of the basic team learning framework (sharing, co-construction, and constructive conflict) were

maintained, the content thereof was specified to match the educational context. To avoid

conceptual confusion, we will refer to collaborative professional development (CPD) rather than team

learning. The concept of CPD is based upon the work of de Vries, Jansen, and van de Grift (2013)

who studied teachers’ continuing professional development. The authors distinguished between

three continuing professional development activities: updating knowledge and skills, reflection on

experiences, and collaboration with colleagues. Given the scope of this dissertation, the focus is


on the latter category of activities. These CPD activities again include two categories: exchange

activities and professional collaboration. As suggested above, conceptually as well as in their

operationalisation, these categories follow the structure of the basic team learning behaviours

identified by Decuyper et al. (2010). The category of exchange activities includes mostly sharing

behaviours, more specifically sharing ideas, experiences, information, instructional materials, et

cetera. Professional collaboration mainly corresponds to co-construction including for example

joint preparation of teaching and evaluation materials and jointly preparing lessons.

Constructive conflict is not clearly reflected in this conceptualisation. In research on teacher

collaboration, there appears to be limited attention for disagreement and conflict as a positive

aspect of collaboration. While teacher research starting from a micropolitical stance has

acknowledged the occurrence and role of task-related professional conflicts (e.g., Achinstein,

2002; de Lima, 2001; Kelchtermans, 2006), empirical research on the topic remains scarce.

Moreover, teachers tend to restrict collaboration to more safe and less threatening aspects,

avoiding conflict (Achinstein, 2002; Gajda & Koliba, 2008; de Lima, 2001; Ohlsson, 2013).

However, Lavié (2006) described education as a contested domain in which complete consensus

among teachers on values, visions, and pedagogical beliefs seems unlikely, and even undesirable.

Moreover, allowing and fostering disagreement may help counter groupthink, where group

members of a strongly cohesive group tend to focus on concurrence, ignoring alternative

perspectives and contradicting information (Janis, 1973). Hence, in this dissertation an additional

category of constructive conflict is added to exchange activities and professional collaboration in

order to be able to investigate the role of disagreement in teacher collaboration. This category

refers to openly and constructively discussing professional disagreements.

Challenge 2: Teacher Autonomy in Relation to Collaboration

The second challenge relates to the understanding of autonomy in the context of teachers.

Traditionally, teachers’ job is predominantly individual in nature. The stereotypical image of

teachers is one in which they teach in isolation within the boundaries of their classrooms. How

schools are traditionally structured leads teachers to be restricted to and protected by a state of

classroom isolation excluding interference and close examination of their classroom practice

(Bidwell, 1965; Gajda & Koliba, 2008; Goddard, Goddard, & Tschannen-Moran, 2007;

Hargreaves, 2010; Westheimer, 2008). To some extent, the zone of instructional autonomy concept

proposed by Lortie (1969) may still apply to the current educational system. Teachers’ classroom

practice – such as the teaching methods and strategies they use – tends to remain largely

unsupervised with minimal evaluation (Somech, 2005). The long-standing culture of teacher


isolation and individualism, together with a wish of teachers to preserve their individual

autonomy may withhold a more collaborative culture to rise in education (Gajda & Koliba, 2008;

Somech, 2008). Lortie (1975) described this traditional school organisation as egg-crate schools, in

which teachers are isolated in their classrooms without close interaction with their colleagues.

This traditional way of working often seems to have become the baseline for teachers’

understanding of autonomy. Teacher classroom autonomy can be defined as “the ability to control

daily schedules, to teach as one chooses, to have freedom to make decisions on instruction, and

to generate ideas about curriculum” (Husband & Short, 1994, p. 60). Teacher autonomy is

perceived to affect teachers’ professional status and job satisfaction and is an ever-recurring

desired workplace condition (Strong & Yoshida, 2014). Fear that this state of professionalism will

be undermined results in non-accountable autonomy in which teachers’ accountability is rejected

(Timperley & Robinson, 2000). A fundamental belief and trust in teachers’ professionalism and

prevalent norms of non-interference make it difficult to call teachers to account for their actions

in their classrooms. This norm of teachers as legitimate classroom authorities – having

discretionary power in the classroom – tends to call for resistance to external influences (Licata,

Teddlie, & Greenfield, 1990). In 1983, Parish and Arends argued that

It is well known that norms exist in schools that promote teacher autonomy and

individualism. This means that most teachers cope with everyday teaching tasks and those

associated with change efforts individually, that they are prone not to interfere with the

work of colleagues, and that for the most part they guard carefully their right to teach in

ways they think best. (p. 63)

Although this old understanding of autonomy as being equal to independence and individualism

still seems to be present among teachers and traditional ways in which schools are currently

organised, it does not match the current requirements and challenges teachers are confronted

with that elicit a more collaborative work environment.

As suggested earlier, in order to breach this tradition of individual work and optimally meet the

requirements and challenges of today’s society, teachers are expected to be team players and formal

collaborative structures are imposed from the top down. As discussed in the proposed

conceptual framework of teacher collaboration, this has resulted in varying collaborative shapes

and colours. While subject groups were found to facilitate interactions among teachers to some

extent (Meredith, Van den Noortgate, Struyve, Gielen, & Kyndt, 2017c), this push towards

collaboration has not always resulted in deep-level collaboration in true teams. At the same time,

organic systems theory suggests that teachers’ work environment is dynamic, with complex


interests and performance demands (e.g., Rowan, 1990). There are no ready made answers to

issues teachers come across in their classroom, which creates pull factors to search help and

support from colleagues (Bidwell, 2001; Rowan, 1990).

These two contradicting dynamics – a tendency to preserve and protect a state of individualised

autonomy on the one hand and an internal need to consult with colleagues on the other hand –

leads to a paradoxical relationship between teachers’ autonomy and collaboration. On the one

hand, collaboration may be experienced as a threat to individual autonomy when the latter is

understood as working fully individually and independently. On the other hand, exactly this state

of classroom autonomy leads to a need and desire to consult with colleagues. In teachers’ zone of

instructional autonomy, they may be confronted with a lot of uncertainties and issues that require

teachers to abandon their state of individualism. Moreover, this zone may present teachers with a

certain amount of latitude in how they do their job, which actually creates room for teachers to

collaborate.

Challenge 3: Teachers’ Wellbeing Through Collaboration

The third challenge regarding teacher collaboration addressed in this dissertation includes its

relationship to teachers’ wellbeing. Teacher collegiality and collaboration have been suggested to

foster teachers’ wellbeing by reducing feelings of isolation (e.g., Albrecht, 2012; Johnson, 2003;

Reeves et al., 2017). However, deep-level insights into this relationship – taking the diversity of

teacher collaboration and how it relates to teacher autonomy into account – are lacking. Similar

to the contradicting dynamics described above, the relationship between collaboration and

teachers’ wellbeing may be less straightforward than assumed. On the one hand, the increase of

challenges for teachers may pressurise their work-related wellbeing, resulting in additional

workload and stress. Help and support from colleagues may alleviate this load and provide

support in tackling these challenges, in this way fostering teachers’ wellbeing. At the same time,

the question rises whether this is also the case when collaboration is top-down imposed like in

subject groups. Previous research on the relationship between subject group collaboration and

teachers’ wellbeing mostly lacks. This gap will be addressed in this dissertation.

Here the focus is on one aspect of teachers’ wellbeing, namely work engagement. This is defined

as a multidimensional, positive, fulfilling, work-related psychological state of mind characterised

by vigour, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002;

Schaufeli, 2013). Vigour refers to teachers experiencing high levels of energy and mental

resilience, demonstrating a willingness to invest effort in one’s work and persistence – even when


facing difficulties. Teachers with high levels of dedication demonstrate strong involvement and

identification with their job and a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and

(positive) challenge. Finally, absorption includes being strongly concentrated and happily engrossed

in one’s job, experiencing that time passes quickly, and having difficulties to detach oneself from

work. Engagement is described as both a psychological as well as a behavioural concept, referring

to employees’ feelings about their work that influence their work behaviour and effort

(Kirkpatrick & Johnson, 2014).

While teachers’ work-related wellbeing can be regarded as a valuable outcome in its own right, it

can also be interpreted as being instrumental in fostering the quality of education. The

effectiveness of schools in large part depends upon engaged teachers’ enthusiasm to create

quality education, nowadays even more given the on-going increase in demands placed on

teachers as professionals (e.g., growing diversity in the classroom, increasing expectations

regarding student achievement, educational changes and developments) (Runhaar, Konermann,

& Sanders, 2013). Moreover, teacher engagement is essential in fostering student learning as the

latter can only be achieved through teachers’ active commitment in their job and classrooms

(Lee, Zhang, & Yin, 2011). For example, research on teachers’ engagement found it to be related

to teachers’ creativity in teaching and learning approaches, instructional performance, and

students’ motivation (Bae, Song, Park, & Kim, 2013; Bakker & Bal, 2010; Klusmann, Kunter,

Trautwein, Lüdtke, & Baumert, 2008).

More recently, the tendency towards collaboration elicited attention for team work engagement. The

increase in demands placed on teachers does not only indicate the importance of engaged

teachers but also demonstrates the need for engaged subject groups in order to reach their

collective goals. Similar to individual work engagement, team engagement is defined as a positive

work-related and shared psychological state of mind including team vigour, dedication, and

absorption (Torrente, Salanova, Llorens, & Schaufeli, 2012b). It is assumed to emerge from team

members’ interactions and shared experiences. Team work engagement is not merely the mean of

individual team members’ individual work engagement, but refers to a collective state where the

team is the point of reference. Previous research demonstrated that team work engagement

fosters team performance (e.g., Mäkikangas, Aunola, Seppälä, & Hakanen, 2016; Torrente et al.,

2012). In the context of teachers, the focus has predominantly been on individual rather than

team engagement, which is not surprising given the aforementioned dubious role of collaborative

work here. Moreover, given that team engagement is described as emerging from members’


interactions in teams, it can be assumed that the aforementioned variety in shapes and colours of

collaboration influence team engagement.

Moreover, in research in various other work contexts, individual and team engagement have

mostly been investigated separately. The question on how both relate may be especially

interesting in the context of teachers, where the balance – and tension – between collaboration

and individual work tends to be prominent. The dynamics discussed in the abovementioned two

challenges – the diversity in teacher collaboration and in the understanding of autonomy in

relation to collaborative work – may influence teachers’ wellbeing, the relative importance of

engagement of the individual employee versus the collective, and the relationship between both.

Overview of the Dissertation

As mentioned before, how collaboration is actually realised in practice will strongly be influenced

by individual teachers and most of the variance in collaboration tends to be situated at the level

of the teacher. Hence, despite the main topic being collaboration, the protagonist of this

dissertation is not the collective but remains the individual teacher (embedded in a collaborative

context). The common theme in this dissertation includes the interaction between the role of the

teacher as an individual and his or her role as part of a collective entity, being the subject group.

Below we will shortly describe the samples that are used and provide an overview of how each of

the aforementioned challenges is addressed in this dissertation.

Characters of the Play: Description of the Samples

This dissertation is based upon two large-scale samples of teachers in secondary schools in

Flanders for quantitative analyses, one longitudinal and one cross-sectional dataset, and one

smaller subsample of teachers was interviewed for qualitative analyses.

The longitudinal sample consists of four waves of data collection spread over the course of two

school years. Teachers of the participating schools were asked to fill out a questionnaire in

November/December 2015, April/May 2016, November/December 2016, and April/May 2017.

In total, 37 secondary schools participated in this data collection. Of each school, teachers who

are part of a selection of subject groups or all teachers of the school were invited to participate

(how many subject groups participated was decided by the school). All participating teachers

were invited to participate at each time point. This led to a total of 2060 teachers who

participated at least once. In the first wave 1627 teachers participated (1593 completed the full

questionnaire), 1302 in the second wave (1259 complete), 1282 in the third wave (1239


complete), and 1220 teachers participated in the last wave (1190 complete). In total, 800 teachers

participated in all waves, of whom 772 completed the full questionnaire at each time point. At the

end of the questionnaire of the first wave, teachers were asked to indicate whether they were

willing to participate in an interview on their perceptions of autonomy. A purposive sample of

teachers (n = 17) was selected from the teachers who indicated to be prepared to participate.

The cross-sectional data collection took place in the context of the LiSO (Dutch acronym for

“Loopbanen in het Secundair Onderwijs”) project. The LiSO-project is part of SONO (Dutch

acronym for “Steunpunt voor Onderwijsonderzoek”) and is supervised by prof. dr. Bieke De Fraine.

The data for this dissertation were collected by means of the school team questionnaire in March

2016. Teachers of 22 different schools (part of the larger sample of 58 schools participating in the

LiSO-project) were invited to complete the questionnaire. In total 1439 teachers participated in

this data collection (1390 completed the full questionnaire).

Conquering the Challenges

The aforementioned three challenges related to teacher collaboration – conceptualising teacher

collaboration, autonomy in relation to collaboration, and wellbeing through collaboration – were

tackled in five studies. A schematic representation of the studies is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Research model.


Challenge 1: Conceptualising teacher collaboration. The first two studies

aimed to tackle the first challenge, namely gaining insight into how teacher collaboration is

conceptualised and occurs in educational practice. Study 1 focused on exploring the concept of

teacher collaboration and mapping the research that has already been done on the topic. The

second study addressed the issue of different shapes of collaboration, starting from the finding

that teacher teams are often not teams in the strict sense of the word.

Chapter I. Teacher Collaboration: A Systematic Review. In a first step

towards gaining deep-level insight into the phenomenon of teacher collaboration, a systematic

literature review study was set up. This study reviewed 82 primary studies on different types of

teacher collaboration. The first and second aim of this study focused on gaining insights into the

different shapes and colours of teacher collaboration. First of all, given the conceptual confusion

present in this research domain – different terms being used interchangeably without clear

definitions – the first aim of this review included clarifying the terminological framework on

teacher collaboration. Different structures of collaboration and the underlying collaborative

continuum are described. The second aim included providing an overview of the content or

colours of this collaborative work by mapping the focus and level of depth of prevailing

collaboration. Third, this review aimed to provide an overview of the rationale for supporting

teacher collaboration and potential pitfalls thereof by summarising possible positive and negative

consequences. Fourth, an overview is provided of what are factors facilitating and hindering

collaboration. This elicited a fifth and final research question, namely what it is we are aiming for:

What is successful teacher collaboration?

Chapter II. Group, Team, or Something in Between? Conceptualising and

Measuring Team Entitativity. The second study focused on the diversity in collaborative

formats or shapes. There appears to be a collaborative continuum underlying these formats,

ranging from loosely coupled individuals to real teams. However, this continuum was not yet

clearly made explicit and conceptualised. This resulted in a gap between team research – focusing

on archetypically defined teams – and research focusing on more flexible collaboration constructs

(e.g., communities), commonly found in the context of education. In order to be able to transfer

insights and approaches developed in team research to various kinds of collaboration, there was a

need for a new and continuum-based team concept. This study introduced the concept team

entitativity to bridge the conceptual gap between real teams and other types of collaboration that

are not strictly teams. In this way it crosses the boundaries between team research and research


on teacher collaboration, providing the potential to expand the scope of traditional team research

and strengthen the rigour of research on teacher collaboration.

Furthermore, this study made this continuum measurable by developing a questionnaire to assess

team entitativity. The psychometric quality of the instrument was tested in two waves of data

collection (N1 = 1320; N2 = 731). A combination of Classical Test Theory analyses (exploratory

and confirmatory factor analyses) and Item Response Theory analyses were used. Further

psychometric analyses include the investigation of validity, longitudinal measurement invariance,

and test-retest reliability.

Challenge 2: Teacher autonomy in relation to collaboration. Study 3 and 4

addressed the second challenge, deepening our understanding of teacher autonomy in relation to

collaboration and disentangling different interpretations thereof. While study 3 focused on a

conceptual analysis and development of a new measure that matches our clarified

conceptualisation of teacher autonomy, study 4 aimed to deepen these insights and map how

these different understandings manifest in practice and relate to reported collaboration. In order

to get a detailed picture of this relationship, the level of depth of the colours of collaboration (i.e.,

content and collaborative activities) was taken into account.

Chapter III. Teacher Autonomy and Collaboration: A Paradox?

Conceptualising and Measuring Teachers’ Autonomy and Collaborative

Attitude. As mentioned before, the relationship between collaboration and autonomy in the

context of teachers was found to be ambiguous. Disentangling this complex relationship was the

main objective of this study. The first part of this study consisted of defining teacher autonomy

in relation to teacher collaboration. In order to disentangle autonomy and independence or

individualism, two autonomy attitudes were distinguished. A reactive autonomy attitude refers to

the equation of autonomy to independence, being resistant to external influences (such as

colleagues). In a reflective attitude, autonomy is defined starting from professional agency and

freedom to act in a self-directed manner; this does not exclude connectedness and consultation

with colleagues. By distinguishing between these attitudes, it was demonstrated that autonomy in

itself does not hamper collaboration and vice versa. The relationship between teacher autonomy

and collaboration – excluding each other or both existing in parallel – is hypothesised to be

influenced by teachers’ autonomy attitude.

Moreover, because the existing measures of teacher autonomy are not suited to clearly capture

this distinction between autonomy and teachers’ attitude, a new measure was developed. The


psychometric quality of this instrument was assessed in a quantitative study consisting of two

waves of data collection (N1 = 1639; N2 = 1133) using factor analyses to assess the structure of

the questionnaire. Further psychometric analyses again include the investigation of validity,

longitudinal measurement invariance, and test-retest reliability.

Chapter IV. The Teacher as an Island? A Mixed Methods Study on the

Relationship Between Autonomy and Collaboration. This study aimed to deepen the

insights into the relationship between autonomy and collaboration described in Study 3. While

the latter was focused on a theoretical and conceptual exploration of the relationship between

autonomy and collaboration – developing a conceptual framework and operationalisation – this

study investigated how this occurs in teachers’ practice. The main aim of this study was to assess

how teachers understand and value autonomy and collaboration: Are they experienced as

conflicting or compatible? Does this relate to different understandings of autonomy and colours

of collaboration?

These questions were addressed using a mixed methods approach. Quantitative analyses were

performed on two independent samples of secondary education teachers (N1 = 1610; N2 = 1408).

First of all, correlations between autonomy, teachers’ autonomy attitude, and collaborative

activities were assessed (multilevel structural equation model). Second, latent profiles of teachers

based upon perceived autonomy and autonomy attitude (individualistic or reactive versus

collaborative or reflective) were identified (multilevel factor mixture modelling). Next, these were

compared with regard to reported collaborative activities. To deepen our insights and explain the

quantitative findings, a purposive sample of teachers (N = 17) was interviewed. These data were

analysed using qualitative content analyses.

Challenge 3: Teachers’ wellbeing through collaboration. The final challenge

of this dissertation, aiming to gain insight into how the aforementioned dynamics and

relationships between individual and different shapes and colours of collaborative work relate to

teachers’ wellbeing, was tackled in the fifth study. In this study, the focus was on individual and

team work engagement and the relationship between both.

Chapter V. Engaged Teacher, Engaged Team? The Influence of

Collaborative Context and Teachers’ Autonomy. In this final study, the focus was on

teachers’ wellbeing in a collaborative context, more specifically their perceived levels of work

engagement. Not only teachers’ individual engagement, but also that of their collaborative

context was taken into account. Despite the tendency towards collaborative work, research on


work engagement still tends to focus on individual employees. Moreover, the limited amount of

studies that do investigate team work engagement, mostly neglect the relationship between the

individual and the team perspective. Given that the latter is the main theme of this dissertation,

this study aimed to investigate the relationship between individual and team engagement. This

was investigated in a longitudinal quantitative design (four waves of data collection spread over

the course of two school years) using latent growth curve analyses (N = 1571).

Insights derived from the previous studies were combined to further our understanding of this

relationship. First of all, the variety in shapes of teacher collaboration was taken into account by

assessing the degree of team entitativity teachers ascribe to their subject group. Based upon these

perceptions, two groups of teachers were made in the dataset: high versus lower degree of

entitativity. Furthermore, the influence of teacher autonomy, their attitude towards autonomy,

and collaborative activities (i.e., different colours of collaboration) was taken into account by

investigating them as resources influencing individual and team engagement.

Conceptualising Teacher Collaboration

CHAPTER 1

Teacher Collaboration: A Systematic Review

This study presents a systematic review on teacher collaboration. In total, 82 studies were

selected based on predefined selection criteria and reviewed by means of a narrative review

method to thematically gather information across the studies. A first aim of this review was to

provide an overview of the terminological framework to describe teacher collaboration used in

previous research. Collaboration was perceived here as a continuum ranging from mere

aggregates of individuals to strong team collaboration. This continuum was conceptualised as the

degree of team entitativity. Second, the review investigated the focus and depth of collaboration.

These appeared to be important issues and provide different opportunities for (collaborative)

learning. Third, although realising teacher collaboration proves to be challenging, this review

listed benefits for students, teachers, and the school. Fourth and fifth, various facilitating and

hindering factors were explored that may serve as valuable points of action to realise effective

collaboration. The latter has vital importance for the future as it is needed to build schools into

learning organisations, to anticipate the growing importance of collaboration in society and to use

education as a role model for students to properly prepare them for the future.

Keywords: teacher collaboration; teacher teams; team entitativity

This chapter is based on Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17-40.

22 | CHAPTER 1

The educational sector is confronted with an increasing pressure towards collaboration: Teachers

need to be proficient collaborators in order to successfully perform their job. There are different

reasons for this evolution and the fact that teamwork is a phenomenon of growing importance in

society overall is one of the contributing factors. A collaborative work environment seems to

become the norm for every organisation (Decuyper et al., 2010; Edmondson, 2013). Education is

often seen as an important context for students to acquire these collaborative skills before they

enter the labour market. Within education, teacher collaboration plays an important role in

transforming students into proficient future collaborators as teachers model cooperative learning

for students by working together as a team (Coke, 2005). They can only teach collaborative skills

when they “practice what they preach” (Coke, 2005). Moreover, in order to successfully

implement innovative, student-centred, and collaborative learning methods proficient

collaboration among the teaching staff is required (Dochy, Segers, Van den Bossche, & Gijbels,

2003; Meirink, 2007; Shipley, 2009; Slavit et al., 2011). Results from The Teaching and Learning

International Survey (TALIS) 2013 demonstrated that teachers involved in collaborative learning

reported using more innovative pedagogies (e.g., working in small groups), and displayed more

job satisfaction and self-efficacy (European Commission, 2013). In countries with high

performance in education such as Finland, teachers collaborate to a high extent with excellent

results as a consequence. In other countries, this appears to be rather difficult to achieve.

Present Study

As teacher collaboration is important, this review can form a contribution by investigating

different forms of teacher collaboration, the positive and negative consequences, and facilitating

and hindering factors of teacher collaboration.

In order to get an overview of the state-of-the-art of research on teacher collaboration, previous

reviews on the topic were reviewed, aiming to provide an overview of what is known and to

expose the gaps in current research. This review set five research aims that are deemed relevant

for research as well as practice. These focus on terminology used in previous research to describe

teacher collaboration, gaining insight into what teacher collaboration is about (the focus and

depth thereof, distinguishing between superficial and deep-level collaboration), benefits and

negative consequences of collaboration, facilitating and hindering factors for teacher

collaboration, and clarifying what effective collaboration includes. The aims were addressed using

a systematic literature search and a narrative review method to synthesise the literature that was

selected. In the results section, the five aims described above are elaborated upon based on

TEACHER COLLABORATION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW | 23

analyses of the collected studies. This is followed by an overview of conclusions and discussion

on the main results, limitations of the manuscript at hand, and possible areas for future research.

Earlier Reviews

In this section an overview of the current state-of-the-art of research on teacher collaboration

will be presented based on earlier reviews. To focus on the most recent knowledge on this topic,

the overview is deliberately limited to three most relevant reviews written after 2000.

The three reviews investigated different aspects and kinds of teacher collaboration. Kelchtermans

(2006) focused on the broad constructs collaboration and collegiality. Both other reviews looked

at teacher professional communities. The review of Lomos, Hofman, and Bosker (2011a)

specifically focused on the relationship between teacher professional communities and student

performances. Similarly, Fulton and Britton (2011) investigated Science, Technology, Engineering

and Mathematics (STEM) teachers in professional learning communities (PLCs), focusing on

what happens when teachers work together in PLCs in order to improve teaching and student

achievement.

As the reviews had a different focus, they also used different terminological frameworks.

Kelchtermans (2006) conceptualised teacher collaboration and collegiality as working conditions

for teachers and as embedded in the organisational context. He used a micropolitical stance,

including a focus on individual differences, diversity of goals and conflict, the use of informal

power, and the different interests that are at play in interactions in an organisation. Collaboration

was used here as a descriptive term, referring to the cooperative actions teachers undertake for

job-related purposes (their actual doing things together). Kelchtermans (2006) distinguished

collaboration as being a descriptive concept from collegiality. The latter was used to describe the

quality of the relationships among staff members in a school and has a normative dimension

because it often includes a positive value, referring to good relationships among colleagues, and is

part of the organisational culture. Fulton and Britton (2011) and Lomos et al. (2011a) discussed

professional communities, a construct that is not easy to capture. Lomos et al. (2011a) argued

that a universal definition and operationalisation of professional community is lacking and

discussed different conceptualisations. This lack of clarity was reflected in the work of Fulton and

Britton (2011) who did not provide a clear conceptualisation of professional learning

communities and adopted a very broad definition of the construct: They required that it involved

three or more teachers in a sustained effort over time.

24 | CHAPTER 1

Different, more or less systematic, methodological approaches were applied in these reviews. In

the case of Kelchtermans (2006) little methodological information was provided. The approach

of collaboration and collegiality as meaningful organisational entities guided literature selection

and analysis. Kelchtermans (2006) listed the topics that were not included in the review (e.g., the

pedagogy of cooperation, formal relationships of supervision) but more information on the

selection and analysis procedure was not provided. Fulton and Britton (2011) provided more

detailed information on their search process. Different variants of “professional learning

community”, related to STEM teachers with Boolean logic, were used as search terms to gather

literature. Researchers then judged the strength of the retrieved studies using 31 standards of

evidence (developed by Horizon Research inc. [Heck & Minner, 2010]). Besides these selected

research studies, published expert knowledge and advice, published descriptions of models of

STEM teaching in PLCs, and a panel of practitioner experts were included for analyses as well.

However, a clear description of selection criteria and analyses were lacking. Finally, Lomos et al.

(2011a) performed a systematic and comprehensive search of the literature, using the databases

EBSCOhost, ERIC, PiCarta2, and Google Scholar. The search was restricted to articles from

1982 (first official publication on teachers working together in a professional group) until 2009.

The authors used conceptual (a clear conceptualisation of professional community) and

methodological criteria (quantitative empirical research into the effects of professional

communities on student achievement within secondary education) to select literature. Five

articles were included in the meta-analysis. The latter included the computation of correlation

coefficients at the student level for each study (transformed in Fischer Z Units and Cohen’s d)

and analyses by means of a random effects model.

The results of the review of Kelchtermans (2006) showed that collaboration and collegiality are

determined and mediated by the organisational context, that is the structural and cultural working

conditions in schools. Collaboration and collegiality are thus considered to be organisationally

embedded, taking different forms with different values and contributing to different agendas that

are not all necessarily positively appreciated. Kelchtermans (2006) stressed that the school

context has to be taken into account when looking at collaboration and collegiality and that a

cultural perspective (that focuses on sense-making, the values, and norms) as well as a micro-

political perspective (addresses issues of power, interests, and influence) is needed to clarify these

concepts. He furthermore argued that professional learning communities (PLCs) are cultural and

political (rather than structural) environments in which collaboration and collegiality can occur in

a way that they really contribute to the learning of students, teacher professional development,

and school improvement. Such a community should balance a focus on interpersonal ties and


room for constructive controversy in which differences in opinion and beliefs can arise in order

to enhance authentic professional learning. Moreover, not only does teachers’ learning progress

as a result of collaboration, the review of Lomos et al. (2011) showed a small but significant

aggregated effect of professional communities on student performance. More specifically, the

presence of professional communities enhances student performance (d = .25, p < .05). The

results of Fulton and Britton (2011) confirmed this finding, indicating that students of teachers in

STEM learning communities learn math better. They provided more information on the

underlying mechanisms supporting this relationship. Fulton and Britton (2011) found that

teachers engaged in discussions about the mathematics and science they teach, understood

mathematics and science better, felt more prepared to teach mathematics and science, used more

research-based methods for teaching, paid more attention to students’ reasoning and

understanding, and used more diverse modes of engaging students in problem solving. The

review furthermore mentioned a few design and implementation principles considering STEM

learning teams: shared values and goals, leadership support, time, use of student data and work,

collective responsibility, good facilitation, trust, and a single school subject (learning teams being

composed of teachers who all teach one particular school subject).

Gaps in Current Reviews

Looking at these three studies, it became clear that no systematic review on actual teacher teams

as such was found but that the focus was on professional learning communities or ad hoc forms

of collaboration. Moreover, the reviews of Kelchtermans (2006) and Fulton and Britton (2011)

did not provide sufficient information on the literature search and analyses performed. This is in

line with the statement of Crow and Pounder (2000) who argued that research on teacher teams

and other collaborative work arrangements is vulnerable to a critique on its lack of

methodological rigor. Additionally, the reviews focus on one aspect of teacher collaboration (e.g.

effects on student achievement). A review presenting a more holistic picture of teacher

collaboration, clearly defining and differentiating between different kinds of collaboration,

appeared to be lacking. In conclusion, there seemed to be a need for a new systematic review on

teacher collaboration.

26 | CHAPTER 1

Aims and Research Questions

Below, the specific aims and corresponding research questions are listed, providing the focus and

structure of this review.

The first aim of this review included providing an overview of how teacher collaboration was

described in previous research. Thus, the first research question to be answered was: What is the

terminology used in previous research to describe teacher collaboration?

The second aim included what teacher collaboration is about. While the first aim of this review

referred to structural aspects of collaboration, this second aim zoomed in on the content of

collaboration, distinguishing between superficial and deep-level collaboration. In this way, the

goal was to gain insight into the depth of prevailing teacher collaboration and how this is

important. The question to be answered thus included: Is there a variety in the focus and depth

of teacher collaboration and how is this important?

The third aim of this study was to display positive consequences of teacher collaboration, but

also to inform about potential downsides. The third research question can be stated as: What are

possible positive and negative consequences of teacher collaboration?

Furthermore, the fourth aim included gaining insight into what is needed for teacher

collaboration to be successful. This resulted in a fourth research question: Which factors facilitate

and which factors hinder successful teacher collaboration?

The previous research question elicited the fifth and final aim of this study, namely clarifying

what successful teacher collaboration actually is. What is it we actually aim for? Hence, the research

question to be answered was: What is effective teacher collaboration?

Method

Literature Search Procedure

Literature was collected in August-September 2012 using the following databases: ERIC (U.S.

Dept. Of Education), APAPsycnet and Scirus and the search engines Limo (databases included:

OneFile [GALE], Taylor & Francis Online – Journals, Informa – Taylor & Francis [CrossRef],

SciVerse ScienceDirect [Elsevier], MEDLINE [NLM], Arts & Sciences [JSTOR], Sage

Publications [CrossRef], SAGE Journals, Emerald Management eJournals, MLA International

Bibliography, Informa [CrossRef], Wiley Online Library, Directory of Open Access Journals


[DOAJ], SpringerLink, Social Sciences Citation Index [Web of Science], NARCIS [Royal

Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences], M.E. Sharpe, Science Citation Index Expanded

[Web of Science], Lirias, Arts & Humanities Citation Index [Web of Science, SpringerLink Open

Access, American Chemical Society [CrossRef]) and Web of Knowledge (databases included:

Web of Science, Inspec, BIOSIS Citation Index and BIOSIS Previews).

The most relevant literature sources were found through ERIC. Searching through the other

databases did not lead to a considerable amount of additional literature and no literature was

selected from APAPsycnet. The search terms used were ‘teacher teams’, ‘teacher collaboration’

‘teacher groups’, ‘professor teams’, ‘professor collaboration’, ‘lecturer teams’, and other Dutch

terms to describe teacher collaboration (teacher teams [‘leerkrachtenteams’], lecturer teams

[‘docententeams’], professor teams [‘professorenteams’], subject groups higher education [‘vakgroepen

hoger onderwijs’], teams in higher education [‘teams hoger onderwijs’], cooperation teachers

[‘samenwerking leraren’] and cooperation lecturers [‘samenwerking docenten’]). In order to limit our

searches, the searches were limited to full text online and from 2000 onwards.

An overview of the number of sources delivered by and selected for each search term and

database can be found in Table 1. The first selection in the wide variety was done on the basis of

the titles. Literature sources with titles that were not relevant for the subject under study, not

referring to any of the terms describing teacher collaboration or referring to elements that do not

meet the selection criteria (see next section) were eliminated. The remaining sources were further

assessed by their abstract and if necessary (if the ab

Dissertation KatrienVangrieken Final...en (2) curriculum autonomie en (3) openheid t.a.v....

Documents

Transcript of Dissertation KatrienVangrieken Final...en (2) curriculum autonomie en (3) openheid t.a.v....