stages of collaboration and the realities of professional learning communities

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - s

doi:10.1016/j.ta

�Correspond+204 489 3300(

E-mail addr

(A.-M. Dooner

Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 564–574

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Stages of collaboration and the realities of professionallearning communities

Anne-Marie Dooner�, David Mandzuk, Rodney A. Clifton

Faculty of Education, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Mb., Canada

Received 12 April 2007; received in revised form 7 August 2007; accepted 26 September 2007

Abstract

Although professional learning communities are often promoted as unique learning opportunities, little is known about

how they get started and how they are sustained. For this reason, group members are often unprepared, and then

frustrated, by inevitable group tensions. With this in mind, Karl Weick’s [(1979). The social psychology of organizing.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley] model of means convergence was used to analyze the social dynamics of a small group of

Middle Years teachers over a 2-year period as they implemented Egan’s [(1992). Imagination in teaching and learning: The

middle school years. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; (1997). The educated mind: How cognitive tools shape

our understanding. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press] theory of Imagination and Learning to their practice.

Along with the analysis of journal entries, focus-group discussions, and individual interviews, Weick’s (1979) four

developmental stages of collaboration provide a broader understanding of why conflict occurs in learning communities and

its effect on collaborative learning.

r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Collaborative process; Interpersonal tension; Egan’s theory of Imagination and Learning; Inquiry process; Middle Years

education; Professional learning community; Weick’s stages of collaboration

1. Introduction

Many educators argue that professional learningcommunities offer an important and distinct formof professional development because they aresituated between the educational policies of schooldistricts and the realities of schools and practicingteachers. From this perspective, professional learn-ing communities can translate knowledge from thedistrict into an understanding of a particular

ee front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

te.2007.09.009

ing author. Tel.:+204 694 8071 (work),

home); fax: +204 694 8383.

ess: [email protected]

).

school’s day-to-day practice (McLaughlin & Tal-bert, 2006). Central to this concept, though, is theongoing interplay between the notion of communityand its demand for a shared perspective, and thecommunity’s focus on professional growth and theinherent need to consider individual needs (Little,2002). Teachers, armed with only a vague under-standing of a community’s features of ‘‘sharedbeliefs’’, ‘‘interdependence’’, and ‘‘meaningful rela-tionships’’ (Westheimer, 1999), soon find the criticalnature of the communal learning experience to beextremely challenging and surprisingly ambiguouswork. Uncomfortable with the existence of compet-ing tension, the community’s learning experiencecan often be reduced to ‘‘having everyone just try to

.

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.09.009

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

ARTICLE IN PRESSA.-M. Dooner et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 564–574 565

get along’’ (Westheimer, 1999). For this reason, weknow little about how effective professional learn-ing communities develop, how they are sustained,and how teachers learn to work collaborativelythroughout the inquiry process (McLaughlin &Talbert, 2006; Wilson & Berne, 1999).

What is clear, however, is that the notion ofinquiry, which is at the heart of a learningcommunity, is a substantial source of interpersonaltension. A group’s ‘‘inquiry stance’’ complicatesmembers’ relationships because as they initiategroup learning, negotiated agendas, shared author-ity, and compromised actions become paramount(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). Although Wenger,McDermott, and Snyder (2002) argue that tension isinherent in group work, little educational researchexplores the difficulties that teachers experience inestablishing and sustaining productive learningcommunities. In this respect, McLaughlin andTalbert (2006, p. 11) note: ‘‘Lack of trust, time,and talent are the usual reasons’’; however, Har-greaves (2001) and de Lima (2001) suggest thatteachers often do not understand the nature of theinterdependence required in effective learning com-munities. Moreover, there is little research thatexamines teacher interactions in professional learn-ing communities as they strive to contribute toeducational reform (Little, 2002). This, then, raisesthe question: What collaborative dynamics areinvolved in developing and sustaining a professionallearning community?

2. The nature of collaboration

To begin, teachers need to appreciate thedemands inherent in the collaborative process.Although individuals come with their own expecta-tions of group work, they need to define eachothers’ actions so that they ‘‘fit together’’ to create ashared practice. Out of necessity or convenience,individuals coordinate their activities to achievecommon goals that, in time, guide future sharedactions (Weick, 1995). The group’s ‘‘shared historyand culture’’ (Selznick, 1992) eventually provide thestability and predictability that are crucial formeaningful collaborative work to occur (Weick,1995). There is, however, much more required totransform a group of individuals into a learningcommunity.

Aligning acts to develop a group’s practicerequires the ‘‘mutual engagement’’ of members(Wenger, 1998). In fact, members’ engagement in

the learning process provides them with a sense ofbelonging, an essential element of any professionallearning community (Weick, 1995). Research sug-gests, then, that a learning community is a group ofpeople that act on an ongoing basis to develop theirknowledge of a common interest or passion bysharing individual resources and by engaging incritical dialogue (Wenger et al., 2002). Thus, ifmembers’ relationships are built on trust, theforthright nature of the group’s practice cangenerate honest interactions, challenging questions,and constructive feedback (Wenger et al., 2002), allof which are essential for intellectual growth tooccur (de Lima, 2001; Grossman, Wineburg, &Woolworth, 2001). The problem remains, however,that interpersonal tension often makes peopleuncomfortable and teachers are no exception tothis general observation (Goulet, Krentz, & Chris-tiansen, 2003; Little, 1990). As Hargreaves (2001, p.19) explains: ‘‘Too often y conflict in schools isseen as a problem, not an opportunity, wherepurposes are threatened, competence is questionedand undertones of status and power strain thefragile bonds that hold teachers together.’’

What types of opportunities and challenges canconflict present? Intragroup conflict, sometimesdescribed as ‘‘opposing and divergent interests’’(Tjosvold, 1997), is often identified as either‘‘cognitive’’ or ‘‘affective’’ (Amason & Schweiger,1997; de Lima, 2001; Jehn, 1997). Cognitive conflictis related to problem-solving; the thoughtful con-sideration of critical feedback and alternative view-points enhances the group’s collective ideas (DeDreu & Weingart, 2003; Westheimer, 1999). Whenthese professional tensions are interpreted as personalattacks, however, the more destructive ‘‘affectiveconflict’’ (Jehn, 1997), marked by feelings of ‘‘friction,frustration, and personality clashes’’ often surfaces(Rentsch & Zelno, 2003). From this, suspicion anddistrust can permeate the collaborative process,leaving members unwilling to tolerate differencesand unable to trust each other’s motives (Amason &Schweiger, 1997); in fact, teachers often describethemselves as feeling ‘‘devastated’’, ‘‘personally at-tacked’’, and ‘‘angry’’ during group work (Har-greaves, 2001). Not only is any move towards publicdiscussions of deeply held teaching beliefs going toarouse affective tension in teachers (Hargreaves, 2001;Kelchtermans, 1996), but the collaborative processalso presents still other significant challenges.

Teachers collaborate by drawing on each other’sstrengths to achieve a shared goal. The increase in

ARTICLE IN PRESSA.-M. Dooner et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 564–574566

frequency and intensity of their interactions, how-ever, increases the potential for conflict (de Lima,2001; Grossman et al., 2001) because as memberswork more closely with each other to develop theirshared practice, fewer assumptions are left unchal-lenged (Wenger et al., 2002). Ironically, the featuresthat are essential to a strong community, such as ashared identity and perspective, and meaningfulrelationships, eventually become sources of tensionfor its members (Westheimer, 1999). In an effort toovercome these challenges, the educational litera-ture offers teachers a myriad of strategies, such asexploring members’ assumptions, sharing pertinentinformation (Russo & Giblin, 2000), and educatingmembers to reach a consensus on effective groupnorms (Dufour & Eaker, 1998). These strategies arehelpful, but do teachers have the necessary under-standing of the inherent tensions embedded incollaborative processes to effectively implementthese strategies? Do they know what challenges toanticipate as they collaborate to combine theirstrengths in a professional learning community?

Although educational research has explored theactions and emotions of individual teachers as theycollaborate with colleagues (Goulet et al., 2003;Hargreaves, 2001; Mandzuk, 1999), we believe thatsome helpful regularities can also be identified in thecollaborative dynamics of people who, through theconstraints of a social setting’s norms and sanctions,chose similar courses of action (Kerckhoff, 1993;Weick, 1995; West, Tjosvold, & Smith, 2005). Theseregularities, whether described as ‘‘stages’’,‘‘phases’’, or ‘‘ages’’ (Hargreaves, 2000; Weick,1979; Wenger et al., 2002), help to further under-stand a group’s new state within the context of the‘‘significant residues and traces’’ of earlier experi-ences (Hargreaves, 2000), a continuity that ispresently lacking in educational research(McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006; Wilson & Berne,1999). For this reason, we believe that Karl Weick’s(1979) model of means convergence is a usefultheoretical framework from which to analyze theinteractions of seven teachers over a 2-year periodas they collaborated to understand and to imple-ment Egan’s (1992, 1997) theory of Imagination andLearning to their Middle Years teaching practices.By concisely describing members’ actions as a groupform and then as norms are established andmaintained, Weick’s (1979) stages of collaborationprovide teachers with a greater understanding of thechanging requirements in the development of alearning community; ultimately, it may help them to

navigate more effectively through the complexitiesof collaborative work (Kerckhoff, 1993; McLaugh-lin & Talbert, 2006).

3. Weick’s model of means convergence

Little (2002, p. 14) describes the development of acommunity’s practice as members’ ongoing negotia-tion between ‘‘collective obligation’’ and ‘‘indivi-dual preference’’. Weick (1979, 1995) reminds us,though, that group members’ interdependence iscentered on their need to adopt shared actions to‘‘get the job done’’, rather than on others’ indivi-dually desired ends or preferences. Furthermore, thefundamental tension that exists between the twoperspectives in the collaborative process can beanalyzed using the four stages of Weick’s (1979)model: (1) diverse ends, (2) common means, (3)common ends, and (4) diverse means. Thesedevelopmental stages (Weick, 1979) provide tea-chers with a broader understanding of why challen-ging shifts occur in a learning community’sdynamics and how they may effectively implementstrategies to further support collaborative learning.

To begin, individuals, motivated by their personalexpectations, unite on a common interest or ashared passion; in fact, meaningful collaborationstems from this initial overlapping of values (Weick,1979). At this time, people converge to find outwhether they share enough common ground topotentially work together, although their individualexpectations or diverse ends, such as developingleadership skills or expanding social networks,remain private. If, then, a shared group interestcan be identified (Wenger et al., 2002), members’interdependence becomes centered on the develop-ment of their common means or their practice, suchas assigned readings and meeting agendas, toachieve the group’s goals (Weick, 1979). It isimportant to remember, though, that while mem-bers collaborate to develop their practice, theirpersonal intentions and expectations regarding thegroup experience remain disconnected, and thesedifferences eventually create conflict (Jehn, 1997;Weick, 1995; Wenger et al., 2002). As members’unmet expectations eventually surface and inter-personal tension ensues, a subtle change occurswhere the group begins to reflect an overridingconcern for its own survival; the group’s practicenow includes common ends, such as sanctions andthe clearer articulation of members’ roles, to addressits tenuous stability in light of the group’s goals


(Weick, 1979). In the end, the adopted changes mayultimately re-energize the group or simply drain it ofits energy (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 96), but individualmembers’ efforts to stabilize the group by becomingmore focused on individual tasks generally meansthat they have become less attentive to the group asa whole (Weick, 1979). Furthermore, some indivi-duals eventually react to the group’s incessantdemands for conformity by adopting idiosyncraticbehavior in the hope of reasserting their uniqueness(Weick, 1995). With this in mind, the group’s practicetends to eventually ‘‘break down’’ and individuals areleft pursuing diverse means or acts. At this point,communities often split into sub-groups, or simply‘‘fade away’’ (Wenger et al., 2002).

4. The analysis

As such, Karl Weick’s (1979) model was used toanalyze the social dynamics of a group of sevenMiddle Years teachers from one suburban MiddleYears school over a 2-year period as they attemptedto implement Egan’s (1992, 1997) theory ofImagination and Learning to their teaching practice.Briefly, this theory argues that there are innovativeways in which the imaginative capacities of bothteachers and students can be further engaged in orderto enhance student learning. The study’s non-prob-ability sample included the first author as researcher,and also included one Grade Six teacher, three GradeSeven teachers, and one Grade Eight teacher from theEnglish program, one Grade Seven teacher from theFrench Immersion program, and the principal of theschool. The group, consisting of five females and twomales, ranged in teaching experience from less than 1year to over 20 years.

Throughout the 2-year experience (October2003–June 2005), members met once or twicemonthly, either in the evenings or during ‘‘educa-tional leave days’’ granted by the school district todevelop implementation strategies and to assess theeffectiveness of those strategies in teaching theMiddle Years curriculum. Examples of members’implementations included the integration of villainsand heroes, and natural extremes (Egan, 1997) inthe teaching of Particle Theory and integers inGrade Seven and Eight Science and Mathematics.During this period, members also explored thebenefits and challenges of working collaboratively.Three methods of data collection were used in this2-year study. Through regularly submitted journalentries, three focus-group discussions, and indivi-

dual interviews, the teachers had an ongoingopportunity to reflect on their learning of thetheory, as well as demonstrate the group’s colla-borative efforts. Overall, the process requiredapproximately 300 h of each group member’s timeand resulted in approximately 500 pages of data.

The analysis began with a general reading of thedata to re-familiarize the first author with the issuesraised by group members, beginning with individualinterviews, focus-group discussions, and then mem-bers’ journal entries. Using a copy of the collecteddata that had already been coded for the subjects’identities and the method of data collection, thisauthor then noted how members’ impressions andissues related to Weick’s (1979) four stages ofcollaborative work. Afterwards, relevant data wereanalyzed and subsequently organized into thecorresponding stages (Weick, 1979) using thefollowing guiding questions: (1) What were mem-bers’ individual expectations regarding the group’sexperience? (2) How did members gauge whetherthere was enough ‘‘common ground’’ to initiallyparticipate in the process? (3) What actions did thegroup adopt in learning and implementing Egan’stheory? (4) What significant social dynamics shapedtheir practice? (5) Which actions indicated that thegroup began to prioritize its own survival? (6) Whattriggered this shift in the group’s focus? (7) How didthe group’s structure eventually change? and (8)What were members’ sentiments at the end of thegroup experience? Once the relevant data had beenorganized, common themes and divergent view-points were noted and sequenced to represent thegroup’s 2-year collaborative experience.

5. Findings

Weick (1979, p. 91) states that ‘‘partners in acollective structure share space, time, and energy,but they need not share visions, aspirations, orintentions.’’ Moreover, because Weick’s (1979)model of means convergence provides a broaderunderstanding of the ongoing tension between thesetwo perspectives in the collaborative process, thedata have been analyzed using the four develop-mental stages, namely diverse ends, common means,common ends, and diverse means.

5.1. Diverse ends

Members begin group work by establishingwhether there is enough shared interest to work


collaboratively, but what motivates them to join thegroup in the first place? For the teachers in thisstudy, the motivation began in 2003 when KieranEgan planned to conduct research on the imple-mentation of his theory of Imagination and Learn-ing and chose a large suburban Middle Years schoolin a Western Canadian city as one of his sites.Unfortunately, Egan was unable to include theschool in his study; nevertheless, seven teachersdecided to apply Egan’s theory to their teachingpractice. Although all the teachers expressed adesire to become more creative in their teachingpractice, they were also attracted to the project forother reasons: as a preparation for graduate studies,as an opportunity to ‘‘work through’’ priorfrustrating group experiences, or as an opportunityto achieve future goals as educational leaders.One member noted his professional responsibilityto others by saying: ‘‘If you’re asking peopleto y take a risk, you also have to take that risk.If you’re asking people to look at their practice, youshould be critically looking at your [own] practice.’’A number of members hoped that the groupexperience would help them develop a professionaland social ‘‘support system’’ within the school.But, as one member explained: ‘‘Iy also expectthat there would be some payoff in terms ofworkload for me—that I’m not reinventing everywheel.’’

How did members initially gauge whether theyshared enough common ground to participate in thegroup work? Most stated that they needed toestablish who the other participants were andwhether they liked them, and trusted them, beforethey committed themselves to the project. As oneteacher explained: ‘‘We genuinely like each other. IfI were in a group with [some people], thepersonalities would drive me crazy. I just couldn’tdo it.’’ Another member noted: ‘‘We are fortunatethat we are a personally compatible group for themost part. I’m noticing that even though we arebecoming more comfortable with each other, wemaintain a highly respectful and deferential tonewith each other.’’ Regardless, a few members wereconcerned with the principal’s role in the group. Onthis note, one teacher said:

I am entering this group with mixed emotions.Part of my objective is to become more comfor-table with sharing information.y While I hearthat we are not being officially evaluated, I can’thelp but feel otherwise. I want my opinions to

count, but [I] fear that I will seem ignorant of thesubject.

Another member noted: ‘‘I [feel] funnyy eventhough we’re friendsy. There could always be abacklash.’’ Another teacher added: ‘‘You have toremember to be mindfulythe things you say can beheard differently, interpreted differentlyy.’’

All the teachers believed that sharing groupactivities could only occur if they developed theirunique implementation of the theory to practice.Otherwise, the potential conflicts arising from themembers’ different work ethic, personal abilities,and quality of work would have frustrated thegroup’s collaborative efforts. As one colleagueelaborated: ‘‘[Not being responsible for a groupproject] takes a lot of tension out of the process.There would be an undercurrent of animosityinvolved with equal credit, shared workload, etcy.It is then that people get intolerant of others’weaknesses and limitations.’’ Another teacheradded:

I like the idea that we’ve been given an umbrellaexperience where wey want to focus ourexperience because we are all focusing ourpractice in different areas. I’ve focused [thetheory] in on an area that’s fascinating to me—it may not be fascinating to someone elsey butit’s my own individual area that I find strength in.

5.2. Common means

And so, the collaborative work began. Based onthe understanding that all members had an equalvoice in their learning and that everyone would besupported through the challenges, the group’s firstyear was mostly spent exploring difficult theoreticalconcepts, such as the nature of imagination andcreativity, and identifying strategies that wouldfoster group learning. All the participants agreedthat the group’s shared readings helped establishcommon ‘‘points of contact’’ during discussionsamong members with diverse teaching beliefs. Yet,when group members discussed any one concept indetail, significantly fewer ‘‘points of contact’’ inunderstanding existed. As one member noted: ‘‘Dowe need a common denominator? Yes and no.When you are working togethery you need [one]. Ithink that we need less of a shared understanding inthis group because we are freer to go our own waysand to do our own thing.’’ Another teacher addedthat ‘‘I think thaty we agree on the main ideas


where we ‘come together’ and also the issues wherewe don’ty. We agree to respect that.’’ Still anothernoted: ‘‘We become like a family and so to getalong, [we] need to let some things go.’’ But,occasionally the group became uncomfortable forsome members. Towards the end of the first year, acolleague described the group’s ‘‘coming together’’as a ‘‘strange cohesiveness’’ that risked going ‘‘toofar’’ and becoming ‘‘too utopian’’ and ‘‘tooinsular’’. Another teacher noted that the members’ideas aligned very quickly, describing them as‘‘entrenched’’ and ‘‘difficult to change’’.

Which strategies were most helpful to the group’slearning? Even though teachers’ opinions varied onthe effectiveness of the ‘‘rotating chair’’ wheredifferent people chaired meetings on a rotatingschedule, the strategy was essential because itallowed all members to take ownership of meetings.In the first year, meeting agendas depicted aconsistent structure: discussions of readings andthen exploration of ideas for implementation.Because some readings were intellectually challen-ging, one member volunteered to provide the groupwith brief outlines prior to discussions. A number ofteachers noted that the recorded ‘‘meeting minutes’’were helpful because ‘‘the information moves so fasty and so much is said that this [later] reviewing ofideas was very helpful.’’ Still, another added: ‘‘Itseems to make people more accountable when theyknow that what they say is going to be recorded.’’

In preparation for the group’s summer presenta-tion at an international conference on Imaginationand Education, members began using the ‘‘hot seat’’process, which was considered by all members to beone of the most effective learning strategiesadopted. This strategy required individual teachersto volunteer to present their most recent plans forimplementing the ideas and others to provide honestand constructive feedback. One teacher explained:‘‘We all want to do [the hotseat]. When I was athome doing the readings, I was thinking that I’mgoing to come back with these questionsy. I needthis group to figure it out.’’ Still, another membersaid that: ‘‘We’re not always saying that everythingis heavenly and perfect. If something isn’t right,we’re honest.’’

In the first year, what appeared evident was thatmembers found the social events, such as informaldinner parties, important in developing trustingrelationships, although many noted that it tookabout 6 months before they could risk beingforthright about their struggles in the learning

process. A teacher explained: ‘‘At first I was a bitreluctant, to be honest. But in time, I felt that Icould really share my thoughts and what I believeand that it would be respected.’’ Yet, after present-ing her plan for implementing the ideas, one teacherconfided that ‘‘My stint seemed so small comparedto everyone else’s. I felt much better after acolleague credited me. Why am I still so insecurewith this group? Nothing they say or do instigatesthis uneasiness. It’s me.’’

Although members relied on the sharing of eachother’s resources, most agreed that an ‘‘overridingvision’’ of the group’s learning was essential. As oneteacher explained: ‘‘As a group, we decide on theconcepts y to be explored, but it’s necessary tohave a few people, or even one person, to always bea few steps ahead in the process and thinking aboutwhere to go nexty.’’ For example, in preparationfor the conference, one teacher stated that she‘‘found it discouraging to hear [some members] notreally understanding [the theory] y [and] wasrelieved when [a member] just took control of thewhole thing and laid outy key points for the[members].’’ Furthermore, members found thedeveloping practices reassuring. As one teachernoted: ‘‘Having an assigned chair, a set agendaythey are ‘safe’ and convenient ways to remindpeople that the group has certain expectationsy.’’Nevertheless, when some members continued tochallenge the group’s structure in the second year,other members became anxious and agitated.

5.3. Common ends

In fact, anxiety within the learning communitysurfaced in the fall of the second year of the project.The first meeting after the conference on Imagina-tion and Education was considered by manymembers to be ‘‘too social’’ and ‘‘generally off-task’’. One teacher said: ‘‘We weren’t talking aboutwhat we were supposed to be talking abouty Iknow [that]y the mood might have been moresocialy. This is wrong, however, because y someof us still had a whole year to integrate [Egan’s]theory.’’ Still, another person added: ‘‘I thought [themeeting] was enjoyable, to be honest,y and I wasexpecting a social time because we hadn’t seen eachother since the beginning of summer. But it threwsome members off.’’ However, other factors were atplay. A member noted that ‘‘the conference was ahigh that could not be duplicated y. [There] was ageneral feeling going into the fall—some frustration,


some sense of a ‘letdown’.’’ Yet, another teachernoted: ‘‘That conference gave us a bouncey. I’mnot sure we would have gotten to the end of oursecond year as reasonably and as successfully as wedid otherwise.’’ Another added: ‘‘In the first year,there was all that preparation—merging the theoryand practice in preparation for the conferencey.’’In the second year, we’ve generated a greaterquantity of work, but not as high quality.’’

To make this even more interesting, a Vygotskianscholar from Simon Fraser University had beeninvited by the school district, following the con-ference on Imagination and Learning, to furtherdiscuss Egan’s (1992, 1997) theory with our learningcommunity. Although all members described this asa ‘‘high point’’ in the group experience, one membernoted that ‘‘people in the group were ‘thrown off’by her visit—they were nervous, anxious, and a bitscaredy. I think that it forced us to ‘tighten ouract’ a bity.’’ Another teacher said: ‘‘The readings[in preparation for the scholar’s visit] were verybeneficial y but stressful. I needed to meet with thegroup [because] the discussions helped me tounderstand the readings. I found that, at times,certain group members spoke too much and wedidn’t always have the opportunity to hear every-one’s voice.’’ And although most members agreedthat the scholar’s visit and the conference presenta-tion helped all the participants ‘‘to take stock’’ ofthe group’s generated work, several teachers won-dered if the expectations were spreading the group‘‘too thin’’.

Moreover, the group’s expectations changed inpreparation for the scholar’s visit; some participantswho had assumed greater responsibility in prepara-tion for the visit ultimately altered the group’sauthority relations. As a result, separate discussionswere taking place between specific members, such asthe principal, and key external people, such as thescholar and the district superintendents, leaving afew group members to participate ‘‘after the fact’’.At this time, one member, frustrated by the group’s‘‘subtle pressures’’, noted:

that we’ve become kind of this group monster yand I can think of a couple of different exampleswhere we’ve made decisions individually basedon what the group-what is perceived as the needby the group-and I think that that is danger-ousy to be quite honest.

Many teachers noted that one or two membersappeared to be struggling with the group’s expecta-

tions by ‘‘starting meetings a bit later’’ and‘‘wandering in and out of discussions’’. Forexample, one teacher noted: ‘‘The dynamics of thegroup changed after the [scholar’s] visit. I don’tknow why, but it was as though some members werestruggling for control of the group after thaty.Sometimes, [people] would try not to follow thechair.’’ Another teacher added: ‘‘The conflicts arisefrom the leadership roles and what people take on ina groupy where they think the process is going,what they expect from the process and themselves.’’Yet, another explained: ‘‘Middle Years teachers findit extremely difficult taking direction from eachother even when it’s obvious that they need it. Itmight be obvious, but no one calls one person‘leader’. They feel most comfortable working withinthis context, even if it’s not entirely accurate. Theyneed to believe it.’’ The evolving sense of frustrationwas exacerbated by the fact that some members’implementations had been largely completed in thefirst year while others were still struggling withunderstanding the theory in the second year. Acolleague noted that ‘‘when [your] application isover and you’re getting tired of hearing about thetheory, you don’t have the same motivation toparticipate.’’ Another echoed this point: ‘‘At thebeginning, it’s exciting. The deeper my understand-ing goes, the more difficult the applications gety.Everything gets more complicated. I’m seeing moredilemmas than answersy.’’

Why, then, were teachers so committed to‘‘working through’’ the group’s complex socialdynamics when they might have abandoned thegroup altogether? Members explained that they felt‘‘quite invested’’ in the lengthy group process, andthat they felt a personal commitment ‘‘to the group’’that had become ‘‘like a family’’, to ‘‘ongoingprofessional development’’, and to their ‘‘reputa-tion’’ within the school district. And as one membernoted: ‘‘[the Egan group] is going to be anexperience acknowledged by the superintendents.’’Another teacher added: ‘‘I will be honest, as timewent on, and it got demanding, I did feel like givingup! But, I thought I can’t let down the group, we area unit, and we need to keep as one.’’ In coping withthe group’s interpersonal tensions, members repeat-edly discussed the need to carefully ‘‘calculate’’whether reacting to some distracting, and at times,hostile behavior would enhance or hinder groupwork. As one teacher explained: ‘Each time situa-tions y present themselves y you have to decidewhether it’s going to interfere with the stability of


the group or if it’s worth it. Sometimes it is, andsometimes it isn’t.’’ Another member agreed, add-ing: ‘‘Maybe we should or could have addressedsome of [the challenges] in a way that was gentle,you know, not by attackingy.’’ However, ‘‘You’realways wondering if it’s going to shake up or wreckthe group. And then you have to wonder if dealingwith the issue [is] worth it.’’

As a consequence, several members began to relyon some of the more ‘‘outspoken’’ members to keepthe group on-task. All group members agreed,however, that the focus-group discussions helpedthe community move away from what a fewmembers described as the more formalized proce-dures of collegial interaction so that members couldeffectively ‘‘hash out’’ their differences and chal-lenge each other to be ‘‘more accountable’’. As oneteacher suggested: ‘‘The first focus-group was morecollegial, but once we started the second year, itbecame ‘Here are the issues, let’s put them on thetabley.’’’ A close colleague noted: ‘‘I think thatuntil the tension in the focus-group surfaced, directthought as to the group’s stability was neverraised.’’

5.4. Diverse means

Did members ever feel that too much wassacrificed to maintain the group’s stability? Onecolleague believed that it came close but, in herwords, ‘‘we’ve always made sure that we weregetting the work done.’’ Another teacher noted: ‘‘Idon’t see the time [dealing with issues] as asacrificey. It’s a way to move forward y. When[concerns] got ‘close to the line,’ we talked aboutthem y. I think that’s all you can doy.’’ Havingsaid that, another teacher confided: ‘‘We’re alltrying to y maintain friendships. It’s all part ofthe puzzle, [but] it can be very tough.’’ Althoughmembers perceived the ‘‘less comfortable’’ times asimportant for the group’s development, they werealso ‘‘weary’’ of the demands of the group, alongwith the competing demands of teaching. Mirroringthe sentiments of many others, one member said:‘‘It’s very difficult to get a group to a place wherethey can be openly [be] criticaly about practice,theory, [and] group dynamicsy. Often, it doesn’tget to that point. We got to that point. Still, people’sfeelings get hurt [and] things become personal.’’Another teacher added: ‘‘The whole group isaffected by the behaviour of individual members.You know, one bad seed can ruin it for the

othersy. It can also impede learning and y raiseuncertainty about their commitment to the group.’’

Therefore, in February of the second year, theteachers ‘‘broke off’’ into smaller groups to furtherdevelop their specific implementation projects withtheir teaching partners or with one or two trustedcolleagues. Although all of the members still met atthe end of educational leave days to briefly discussgroup plans, they were relieved that they wereworking in smaller groups, away from the largergroup’s complex social dynamics. A teacher ex-plains: ‘‘The last meeting was goody. But, I dobelieve we’ve said what we can say to each othery.We’ve read what we can read within this group. Itseemsy appropriate to ‘pair off’ and [to] focusony more individual interests.’’ Another colleaguenoted: ‘‘We are more separate now y It’s the samefeeling as when you sell your house. The neighboursstart treating you like you’re already gone. In a realsense, we’ve already started to say goodbye y.’’

In the end, what was created from the 2-yearlearning community’s experience? One teacher whohelped students to create a ‘‘dream island’’ whileintegrating features of human and physical geogra-phy, explained: ‘‘I have worked harder to familiar-ize myself with curricular objectivesy and I ammuch more concerned with quality over quantity. Ihave moved away from daily worksheetsy and[I’m] into longer term inquiry-based projects.’’Focusing on ‘‘extremes’’, two teachers planned ateaching unit on ‘‘Bears: feared and revered’’ withinthe context of literature and one teacher later helpedstudents design a new personal transportationvehicle when studying ‘‘structures’’ in Science. Asone member noted: ‘‘I didn’t find that I was makingwholesale changes in my practice. In fact, the outereffect for kids is mostly the same. The changes aremore in how y I’m framing it for myself as I goalong.’’ Another colleague who taught students howto create their own legends and myths whilestudying different story types, noted:

Well, in the past I said to my students [to] simplywrite. They did, but they didn’t understand theelements of a story. They just wrote. Now, Inoticed [that] the stories were more detailed and Itold them stories, too, throughout the unit.Doing this, they were able to be more imagina-tive.

One teacher who was integrating the binaryopposites of ‘‘life and death’’ to the study of watersystems noted that ‘‘I got typical responses [for the


most part], but one kid made a whole story out of it!On his own! It was beautiful.’’ And, finally, onemember who introduced the use of metaphors in theanalysis of individual staff teaching practices,concluded: ‘‘One of the hardest things that I’ve[learned]y is the whole issue of when does aprofessional relationship become a social relation-ship [in group work]y and the line between thetwoy. It sounds easy, but it can be toughy It’ssomething to keep in mind.’’

6. Discussion

Teachers can feel vulnerable for any number ofreasons. They might struggle with conflicting viewsof effective teaching practice, with vague interpreta-tions of educational goals, or with the uncertaintyassociated with their own professional knowledgebase (Kelchtermans, 1996). Although these issues,among others, seem to offer valuable opportunitiesfor in-depth educational discussions, teachers oftendeal with professional conflict by ‘‘avoiding inter-actions’’ and engaging in ‘‘superficial politeness’’(Hargreaves, 2001). Evidence suggests, of course,that teachers need to take professional dialogue‘‘out of the privacy of the classroom’’ and into aforum that allows for open and critical discussion(de Lima, 2001; Grossman et al., 2001; Little, 1990).However, this may very well be easier in theory thanin practice. Although members often enter into theexperience primarily expecting collegial support andfriendship, the collaborative process often proves tobe unexpectedly demanding and personally challen-ging (Mandzuk, 1999). In support of the collabora-tive process, teachers are often encouraged tointegrate a number of strategies, such as addressingconflict ‘‘respectfully and constructively’’, puttingtensions ‘‘aside’’ (Goulet et al., 2003), and decidingby consensus (Russo & Giblin, 2000). However,when cognitive and affective tensions (de Lima,2001; Jehn, 1997) surface, teachers often react byfeeling ‘‘confused’’ and ‘‘personally attacked’’, andthey often respond by distancing themselves fromtheir colleagues (Hargreaves, 2001). Clearly, thesereactions significantly limit the ability of teachers tobenefit professionally from collaborative workbecause, as Weick’s (1979) means-convergencemodel suggests, conflict is inherently embedded inthe collaborative process (de Lima, 2001; Jehn,1997; Westheimer, 1999).

Interestingly, the participating teachers in thisstudy found the open and forthright nature of the

focus-group discussions essential in realigningindividual behavior to the group’s goals; the candidconversations appeared to reassure members, espe-cially in the second year, that regardless of thetension the group remained committed to ‘‘gettingthe job done’’. In fact, the evidence suggests thatadopting ‘‘open conflict norms’’ (Jehn, 1995) thatdeal candidly with cognitive, task-related tensionsrelating to differences in viewpoints tends toenhance group work because it generates a vigorousexchange of diverse ideas (Amason & Schweiger,1997; Jehn, 1997). This should be done carefully,though, because when professional disagreementstrigger interpersonal, affective conflict, the ‘‘opensharing’’ of tension can actually complicate groupdynamics by increasing the frequency and intensityof feelings experienced by members (Jehn, 1995). Inshort, group ‘‘sharing’’ does not always fosterfeelings of ‘‘acceptance’’ and ‘‘forgiveness’’ amongmembers (Jehn, 1997). This highlights a centralchallenge in collaborative work: the need to balanceforthright and ‘‘open’’ discussions that reap thebenefits of cognitive conflict without simultaneouslyeliciting destructive, affective interpersonal tension(Amason & Schweiger, 1997). It is suggested, then,that strategies such as group problem-solving canhelp to prevent disagreements from being construedas ‘‘personal attacks’’ or ‘‘political manoeuvring’’,while strategies such as ‘‘avoiding’’ and ‘‘contend-ing’’ tend to elicit affective discord (Amason &Schweiger, 1997; Jehn, 1997).

In the first year of this learning community’sexperience, members focused on adopting strategiessuch as the ‘‘hot seat’’ process to further encouragecognitive conflict. In fact, it is suggested that thegradual adoption of ‘‘common means’’ (Weick,1979) into group practice slowly enables membersto adapt to ‘‘open norms of conflict’’ (Jehn, 1997); itlikely desensitizes members to some of the negativefeelings related to group tension (Amason &Schweiger, 1997). When affective conflict surfacedin the second year, members were more or less ableto sustain the group’s already established practicewhile scrambling to identify new ways to cope withthe added tension. This suggests, then, that takingthe time to gradually stimulate cognitive conflict inthe earlier and ‘‘friendlier’’ stages of collaborativework (Weick, 1979) might help members topersevere to ‘‘get the job done’’ when they are laterrequired to cope with intensified affective tension.

As proposed in Weick’s (1979) means-conver-gence model, people tend to be either ‘‘getting to


know’’ each other in the early stages of collabora-tion or trying to ‘‘get along’’ in the later periods ofthe process (Weick, 1995). In this study, teachersconsistently emphasized the importance of develop-ing and implementing their own theoretical applica-tion of Egan’s theory to their practice, believing thatone ‘‘group product’’ would have increased feelingsof animosity among members. On the other hand,though, would the creation of one final producthave helped to ‘‘level’’ the disparities amongindividual teachers and to challenge their will-ingness to stay focused, thereby reducing thegroup’s tension? This is a complex question thatrelates to the issue of ‘‘task interdependence’’ andthe degree to which members need each other’s helpto achieve the group’s goals (Jehn, 1995). Interest-ingly, when members realize that they need eachother to ‘‘get the job done’’, they tend to be moreaccepting of task-related disagreements becausethey know they need to come to an agreement oncontent (Jehn, 1997). However, because the challen-ging task also demands an increase in the frequencyand intensity of members’ interactions, there is agreater potential for interpersonal conflict to devel-op (de Lima, 2001; Little, 1990). Furthermore,members’ intensified interactions demand a level ofconformity that, in the latter stages of collabora-tion, induces idiosyncratic behavior in membersneeding to reassert their individuality (Weick, 1995).As such, when people work closely together andlearn to depend on each other, they are more likelyto be affected by interpersonal tension (Amason &Schweiger, 1997; Jehn, 1997). For this reason, thetheoretically challenging nature of Egan’s work thatdemanded a high degree of task-related interdepen-dence likely made this learning community’s mem-bers quite vulnerable to the effects of interpersonalconflict (Jehn, 1997). To further increase thefrequency and intensity of the teachers’ interdepen-dence with a single ‘‘group project’’ would likelyhave worsened the group’s tension, perhaps even tothe breaking point.

McLaughlin and Talbert (2006) highlight theunique learning opportunities available throughprofessional learning communities because theyare strategically positioned between the ‘‘macro’’policies of school districts and the ‘‘micro’’ realitiesof teachers’ school practices. Although the learninggenerated from collaborative work depends largelyon the ability of group members to establish apractice to achieve their common goals, they can besurprisingly difficult to identify. In the first stage

(Weick, 1979) of the learning community’s work,teachers deliberated on their potential involvementby considering each other’s strengths and weak-nesses, as well as workload expectations. Yet,because the group’s topic of interest relating toEgan’s theory was already established, the earlystage of this study appears quite purposeful anddirected; however, this is not always the case.Identifying a learning community’s focus of studythat fosters collaboration among educators can be aconvoluted and frustrating process that is furthercomplicated by members’ expectations of criticaland ‘‘hard-nosed’’ group deliberations (Little, 1990)or of a ‘‘collegial limbo-land’’ of support and like-mindedness (Hargreaves, 2001). For this reason,much more needs to be learned about the uniquechallenges associated with starting a professionallearning community.

Although significant theoretical work exists onthe ‘‘design principles’’ of learning communities,little is known about the changes that theyexperience as they develop (McLaughlin & Talbert,2006; Wilson & Berne, 1999). As such, educationalleaders are often unable to help teachers navigateeffectively through the inevitable tensions thatsurface in group work. This rather substantial gapin our understanding of collaborative work shouldbe examined by educators who are promotinginquiry-based learning communities in their schools.Weick’s (1979) model of means convergence ishelpful in this regard because it provides atheoretical framework from which to understandthe regularities, as well as the challenges, thatemerge in people’s dynamics as they collaborateover time (Kerckhoff, 1993; West et al., 2005). Byrecognizing the inherent tension between members(Jehn, 1997), the means-convergence model (Weick,1979) challenges our understanding of professionalgroup work to be more than feigned politeness and‘‘mutually affirming friendships’’ (Hargreaves,2001). In this respect, Wenger et al. (2002, p. 139)suggest that: ‘‘It is important not to romanticize[communities] or expect them to solve all problemswithout creating any. They are not a silver bullet.’’As such, a deeper understanding of what life is likein professional learning communities will challengeprofessional dialogue beyond the simple rhetoric toencompass more of the harsher realities of groupwork. This understanding will help educators whowish to become members of professional learningcommunities to respond more effectively to thechallenges associated with collaborative work and


to ultimately become more skilled at combiningcollegial support with the critical dialogue that isnecessary for meaningful professional growth (deLima, 2001; Hargreaves, 2001).

References

Amason, A. C., & Schweiger, D. M. (1997). The effects of conflict

on strategic decision making effectiveness and organizational

performance. In C. De Dreu, & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using

conflict in organizations (pp. 101–115). London, UK: Sage

Publications.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowl-

edge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of

Research in Education, 24, 249–305.

De Dreu, C., & Weingart, L. (2003). A contingency theory of task

conflict and performance in groups and organizational teams.

In M. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. Smith (Eds.), International

handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working

(pp. 151–166). West Sussex, UK: Wiley.

de Lima, J. A. (2001). Forgetting about friendship: Using conflict

in teacher communities as a catalyst for school change.

Journal of Educational Change, 2, 97–122.

Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning commu-

nities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achieve-

ment. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

Egan, K. (1992). Imagination in teaching and learning: The middle

school years. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Egan, K. (1997). The educated mind: How cognitive tools shape our

understanding. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Goulet, L., Krentz, C., & Christiansen, H. (2003). Collaboration

in education: The phenomenon and process of working

together. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research,

XLIX(4), 325–340.

Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Towards a

theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record,

103(6), 942–1012.

Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and

professional learning. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and

Practice, 6(2), 151–182.

Hargreaves, A. (2001). The emotional geographies of teachers’

relations with colleagues. International Journal of Educational

Research, 35(5), 503–527.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits

and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 40, 256–282.

Jehn, K. A. (1997). Performance through value-based intragroup

conflict. In C. De Dreu, & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using

conflict in organizations (pp. 87–100). London, UK: Sage

Publications.

Kelchtermans, G. (1996). Teacher vulnerability: Understanding

its moral and political roots. Cambridge Journal of Education,

26(3), 307–323.

Kerckhoff, A. C. (1993). Diverging pathways: Social structure

and career deflections. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and

initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College

Record, 91(4), 509–536.

Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of

practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of

everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8),

917–946.

Mandzuk, D. (1999). Obstacles encountered in group critical

reflection: Creating opportunities for developing social capital.

Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba, Faculty of Educa-

tion.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-

based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to

improve student achievement. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Rentsch, J., & Zelno, J. (2003). The role of cognition in managing

conflict to maximize team effectiveness: A team member

schema similarity approach. In M. West, D. Tjosvold, & K.

Smith (Eds.), International handbook of organizational team-

work and cooperative working (pp. 131–150). West Sussex,

UK: Wiley.

Russo, E., & Giblin, C. (2000). Communication norms for

collaborative groups. In P. J. Wald, & M. S. Castleberry

(Eds.), Educators as learners: Creating a professional learning

community in your school (pp. 92–102). Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Selznick, P. (1992). The moral commonwealth: Social theory and

the promise of community. Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press.

Tjosvold, D. (1997). Conflict within interdependence: Its value

for productivity and individuality. In C. De Dreu, & E. Van

de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 23–37).

London, UK: Sage Publications.

Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. London, UK:

Sage Publications.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning,

and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating

communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

West, M., Tjosvold, D., & Smith, K. (2005). The essentials of

teamworking: International perspectives. West Sussex, UK:

Wiley.

Westheimer, J. (1999). Communities and consequences: An

inquiry into ideology and practice in teachers’ professional

work. Education Administration Quarterly, 35(1), 71–105.

Wilson, S., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the

acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of

research on contemporary professional development. Review

of Research in Education, 24, 173–209.

stages of collaboration and the realities of professional learning communities

Documents