Collaboration Among Professionals, Students, Families, and Communities

Effective Teaming for Student Learning

Stephen B. Richards, Catherine Lawless Frank, Mary-Kate Sableski, Jackie M. Arnold

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9781317502036
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Collaboration Among Professionals, Students, Families, and Communities provides a foundation for understanding concepts of collaborative learning along with strategies for the application of collaborative skills in teaching. The book moves logically from issues of macro-collaboration (district and school) to micro-collaboration (individual student focus and co-teaching) in K-12 environments before concluding with strategies for family and community collaboration. Significant emphasis is placed on knowledge, skills, and teaching models for pre-service and in-service teachers in general education, special education, and of diverse students including English Learners.

Each chapter includes meaningful pedagogical features such as:

• Learning objectives
• A case study illustrating the implementation of information presented
• A case study challenging the reader to apply the information learned in the chapter
• Study questions for readers in Comprehension Checks at key points in the chapter
• Highlights of major points in a chapter summary for aid in studying content
• University, school, and community-based application activities

A companion website features additional resources, including PowerPoint presentations, practice tests, suggested video and Internet resources, and advanced application activities.

1

Collaboration Principles and Practices

Stephen B. Richards

Chapter Objectives

Following reading the chapter, students should:

1. Identify similarities and differences in collaboration, teaming, and consultation
2. Explain the principles and practices for collaboration
3. Cite examples of positive and negative collaboration
4. Identify pragmatic issues that present barriers to collaboration

Collaboration, Teaming, and Consultation

Collaboration is not new to K–12 schools. For years, teachers, students, families, and community members have worked together to improve the learning environment and learning outcomes of students. However, in our experience, individuals use different terms to refer to collaborative processes that may be quite different. Three terms used in reference to collaborative processes are collaboration, teaming, and consultation. Collaboration is a process concerning, and an approach to, human interactions and the goals of those interactions. Teaming is also an approach but often occurs in more specific groups in schools, such as committees. Consultation is a process and approach but is less collaborative than teaming. Ultimately, collaboration is an orientation toward working with others to generate improvements in education for an individual or group of individuals (students, families, community members, and/or professionals). Each of these terms will be used in this text as appropriate, but it is important for the reader to understand the distinction between such terms may be blurred in any particular scholarly work or works.

Collaboration

Hord (1981) made distinctions between cooperation and collaboration. This author suggested that collaboration involves joint planning, implementation, and evaluation among collaborators. Hord (1981) also stressed that mutual goals are critical to collaboration. Individuals or organizations may cooperate, but if there is not shared planning, implementation, and evaluation toward one or more common goals, then collaboration will not occur (Hord, 1981). Also, definitions of and concepts about collaboration may differ among general and special educators (Robinson & Buly, 2007). Wood and Gray (1991) identified at least six definitions of collaboration appearing in applied behavioral science literature. These authors stated that “Collaboration occurs when a group of autonomous stakeholders of a problem domain engage in an interactive process, using shared rules, norms, and structure, to act or decide on issues related to that domain” (p. 146). For our purposes, each of these earlier authors contributes to an understanding of collaboration as differentiated from teaming and consultation. We define collaboration as follows:

Collaboration is a goal-oriented, mutually beneficial process used to address problems, promote strengths, resolve differences, and educate involved individuals through shared responsibility for the outcomes of the collaborative process.

Our definition draws upon earlier concepts provided by other authors as well (Friend & Cook, 2000; Welch, 2000). Perhaps most important in any definition of collaboration is an emphasis on shared goals and shared responsibility for meeting those goals. Collaboration frequently occurs through teaming.

Teaming

Teams in individual schools and school districts are usually formed as ongoing entities or on an as-needed basis. Teams may, in fact, be collaborative; typically, teams have a specific agenda. For example, Buck, Polloway, Smith-Thomas, and Cook (2003) stated that teaming is:

• A preventive process that aims at anticipating and resolving issues (explore a problem or present a solution)
• Determining steps that must be taken to resolve a problem (complete a specified task)

An example of a team that might explore a problem would be a high school team considering block scheduling. An example of a team presenting a solution would be a school-based team focused on establishing positive school-wide supports to prevent or lessen discipline problems. An example of a team completing a specified task would be an Individualized Education Program (IEP) team. In each of these examples, the members would likely be different individuals, including students, family members, community members, and professionals.

Buck et al. (2003) also stated that teams can be focused on action research methods such as evaluating effectiveness of policies or on evaluating interventions aimed at student or professional success. Examples of these types of teams are a team focused on whether new teacher evaluation policies were resulting in increased student achievement or a team working in a Response to Intervention program, respectively.

Teams may have a particular philosophy to which they subscribe. In the example of the positive school-wide behavioral supports team, members may need to agree on a largely behavior analytic approach to their endeavors. A team focused on Response to Intervention may be concerned with developmental theories that explain how young learners respond to their environment and the activities in that environment. A team focused on writing an IEP may need to have a holistic approach to human development such that goals are social, communicative, behavioral, and academic for the learner. Certainly, team members may subscribe to different or even competing philosophies or approaches so long as they engage in the collaborative process as fully vested and responsible team members.

Historically, educational teams, particularly those concerned with Individualized Education Programs for students with disabilities have been distinguished as multi-, inter-, or transdisciplinary. Multidisciplinary teams come together to share information, but much of the work of individual team members is done with little or no collaboration or consultation with other team members. Interdisciplinary teams ensure members are better informed about the practices and activities of other team members. They may seek ways in which they can reinforce one another’s efforts. For example, a general education teacher may use strategies suggested by the speech and language pathologist to encourage language development in a child. A special education teacher might use adaptive equipment in her classroom provided by an occupational therapist for a child with physical disabilities. Transdisciplinary teams work to ensure each member is informed of the others’ efforts, but team members also share expertise, train other team members in using strategies to assist students, and often work together in the same setting to provide services (e.g., general and special education teachers in a co-teaching setting). For our purposes, we will discuss teams in a transdisciplinary model, as this is the preferred option for many if not most professionals.

Consultation

Worrell (2007) pointed out that some authors and researchers use the terms consultation and collaboration interchangeably. Indeed, consultation is a collaborative process. Consultation typically involves a consultant and a person who is receiving the consultation. An example of this would be a mentor teacher consulting with a newer teacher on how to improve her lesson plans. Sometimes, consultation may focus on a third party, such as a speech and language pathologist consulting with a special educator as to how to improve the articulation issues of a student with a speech disorder. In either example, a key is that the consultant possesses knowledge and/or skills that benefit the consultee directly or someone who the consultee is charged with assisting. Consultation is clearly a collaborative process but may have a hierarchical element because of the consultant’s expertise and role, which reduces the equality of the relationship among those involved.

Meyers, Meyers, Graybill, Proctor, and Huddleston (2012) described three types of consultation. First, there is consultation that is focused on a teacher in a direct effort to change variables in the classroom that affect children and their learning. Second, there is consultation focused on a student to identify and implement interventions to improve the educational, behavioral, social, communication, etc., outcomes for a student. Third, there is organizational consultation aimed at educational systems changes that affect many individuals in educational programs and settings.

Consultation is a collaborative process but may be less so in certain respects than is teaming. In teaming and consultation, there are certain principles and practices that are associated with successful outcomes.

Comprehension Check

1. What is a definition of collaboration? Can you put this in your own words?
2. What is a definition of consultation? Can you put this in your own words?
3. Are you able to distinguish between collaboration and consultation?

Collaboration Principles and Practices

From our definition of collaboration, we identify two early sources that are useful today. Friend and Cook (2000), Welch (2000), and Taylor, Smiley, and Richards (2015) identified several principles and practices that impact collaborative processes. Collaboration involves:

• Two or more parties working together.
• Considers the collaborating individuals as equal partners.
• A choice of those involved and is voluntary.
• Sharing responsibility among those involved for outcomes, positive or negative.
• Identifying and working toward a common goal.
• The influence of factors (such as school climate, resources) other than the individuals involved.
• A planned, formal process or a more spontaneous and more informal process.
• Sharing of resources, knowledge, and skills.
• Developing a community.
• At times, uneven amounts and levels of work among those involved.
• At times, a process where the parties working together change.

In the following paragraphs, we offer examples and explanations of each of these principles and practices. These examples are not the only possibilities but serve as illustrations for the reader. We also include non-examples to further illustrate the principles and practices.

Working Together

As noted earlier, teaming and consultation should be collaborative processes. Each involves individuals working together. While this may seem an obvious principle, it may be violated rather easily. For example, two individuals on a team could work at cross-purposes. They disagree on what is the role of the team. They may also disagree as to the goals of the team. They may, in fact, work against one another trying to win allies for their individual purposes. In consultation, a related services individual (e.g., a speech and language pathologist) could make suggestions to a teacher on how to work with a student in addressing speech problems. The teacher may resent the consultant and decide she will ignore or modify some of the suggestions without informing the related services staff member.

Equal Partners

On a team, it is possible for a single member or small group of individuals to dominate the process. For example, when working at a high school, one of our authors was involved with a team that was investigating the lunch schedules to make recommendations for changes. When the team was deep into its work, the principal announced he did not like the decisions he perceived that the team was moving toward and summarily decided what the new lunch schedule would be. In a consultation, the consultant may dictate to a teacher what she must or must not do without concern for the teacher’s classroom, curriculum, learning activities, etc.

On another team, all members agree that they must work as a unit, sharing their thoughts, feelings, concerns, strengths, and weaknesses in order to achieve their goals. They elect their own facilitator, recorder, and timekeeper. They form a cohesive group sharing their knowledge and skills for the common good. Similarly, in consultation, a speech and language pathologist spends time in the classroom of a student she serves. The pathologist observes the classroom routines, activities, curriculum, and the teaching and learning styles in the classroom. After her observations, the pathologist works with the teacher to make suggestions as to how the teacher might help the student during the typical daily learning activities of the class. The pathologist asks the teacher about her concerns and if the teacher has any suggestions that she feels would be of benefit to the student. In this example, the pathologist possesses special knowledge and skills but is working together with the teacher to ensure better outcomes for the student.

A Choice

On some teams or in some consultations, one or more members may be “ordered” to participate. This, in turn, can lead to resentment and a failure to work together or as equal partners. For a non-example, a teacher who feels she has success in managing her classroom routines and students’ behaviors is nevertheless ordered by the principal to serve on a team to develop new short-cycle assessment strategies. Because the teacher has not chosen to participate, she may be less committed and involved. She may also be unconcerned with the team’s goals or the outcomes of the team. In a consultation non-example, a related services individual is ordered to work with a large number of students in an itinerary role (i.e., traveling from school to school and providing consulting services for a larger number of students). She prefers working with students individually or in small groups. Because she has been ordered to provide services only through consultation, she may lack the enthusiasm (and possibly time and knowledge of students’ issues) to truly provide quality consultant input.

A positive example would be a teacher who is interested in the results of statewide achievement tests administered to her students. She volunteers to serve on a school-wide committee to analyze the results and make recommendations for curriculum and instructional improvements. An example in consultation services would be a first grade teacher who approaches an occupational therapist (OT). The teacher has a student who has difficulty with his handwriting. Although the student has not been identified for occupational therapy services, the therapist observes the student and makes recommendations to the teacher on how to provide a pencil with a built up handle to make handwriting easier. The teacher follows through and later reports to the OT that her suggestion worked. They touch base occasionally on other issues related to the same student and others.

Sharing Responsibility

For successful collaboration, members of the team (at least two or more persons) must share responsibility for the outcomes of the process. The outcomes may be positive or negative but regardless, team members accept that collectively and independently they are answerable for whatever is derived from the collaboration. A negative example might be a team of several teachers who are charged with planning school-wide activities for the first day of school. However, for various reasons, the first day goes poorly due to what appears to be inadequate planning. Team members begin “finger-pointing” and blaming each other for any activity that is not working on the first day, while claiming credit for those that do succeed. In a consultation, a speech and language pathologist could outline some procedures for a general education teacher to assist a child with a stuttering disorder. After several weeks, the child’s parents take note that their child’s stuttering actually seems to be getting worse. The speech and language pathologist blames the teacher for not following through on the provided guidelines, while the teacher blames the pathologist for not explaining the guidelines and not spending more time in the actual classroom with the child. In each of these examples, it is quite possible team or consultation members will harbor hard feelings toward one another and find that future collaboration or consultation is strained at best.

In a more positive example, team members could have planned the first day of school and the activities still could have not gone well. The team members report to their principal and peers the next day why they think things did not go as well as hoped and make suggestions for how the first day activities could be improved the next year. If given the opportunity, all team members pledge to make the first day of school the following year the best one ever. No team members engage in finger-pointing or...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Chapter 1 Collaboration Principles and Practices
• Chapter 2 Effective Collaboration at the School and District Levels
• Chapter 3 Pre-referral Assessment and Intervention: RTI Tiers One and Two
• Chapter 4 Referral and Identification for Special Education: RTI Tier Three
• Chapter 5 Students with Disabilities
• Chapter 6 Effective Strategies for Collaboration across Grade Levels
• Chapter 7 Overcoming Barriers to Collaboration
• Chapter 8 Co-teaching Models
• Chapter 9 Other Models of Collaboration
• Chapter 10 Related Service Providers
• Chapter 11 Student Collaboration
• Chapter 12 Effective Interpersonal Interactions
• Chapter 13 When Things Go Awry: Managing Conflict
• Chapter 14 Understanding Families
• Chapter 15 Strategies for Effective Family Communication and Collaboration
• Chapter 16 Collaborating with Diverse Families and Learners
• Chapter 17 Strategies for Identifying Community Resources and Working with Community Partners
• Index