论文部分内容阅读
This study examined the level of collaboration between Francophone and Anglophone language teachers of 13- and 16- year-old Canadian students (N = 4,494) using data from the 2002 SAIP (School Achievement Indicators Program) of the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada. Among 32 factors, logistic regression identified six predictors of teacher collaboration, five of which were related to the school and one to the teacher. Results were discussed in light of a theoretical model designed to assess teacher collaboration.
Keywords: collegiality, teacher collaboration, academic achievement, writing achievement, interpersonal competence
Introduction
Socio-constructivist approaches have led teachers to explore new concepts that take the social dimension of learning into consideration (Tschannen-Moran, Uline, Woolfolk, & Mackley, 2000). This aspect is no longer limited to students, but also concerns others, such as teachers, who are increasingly encouraged to collaborate with their colleagues. In order to implement successful education programs, school reforms are now addressing this collaboration which occurs on many levels (Howden & Kopiec, 2002; Inger, 1993a). Which factors determine collaboration between teachers in Canada? This study addressed this question using the 2002 SAIP(School Achievement Indicators Program, Writing III) of the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada.
The Context
Less effective school reforms have been shown to be those limited only to the system’s structure without considering the human and social elements, such as culture, school climate and human relations (Kruse, Seashore,& Bryk, 1994; Newmann & Welhage, 1995). Today, school reform most often includes the aspect of in-school collaboration (Howden & Kopiec, 2002; Inger, 1993a) by promoting professional learning communities. In this regard, school principals are increasingly encouraged to facilitate collaboration among their staff (Bouchamma, 2006), as it constitutes the basis of these communities (Eaker, Richard Dufour, & Rebecca Dufour, 2004).
Teacher collaboration is often linked to effective schools and academic achievement (Cook & Friend, 1993; Eaker et al., 2004; Howden & Kopiec, 2002; Maguire, 1993; McTier, 1999; Reed, 2003; Reyes & Fuller, 1995; Williams, 1995) as well as teacher morale (Bouchamma, 2006), although this collaboration remains
teachers collaborate, which would have provided a better understanding of how teachers perceive as well as experience this collaboration. Nevertheless, the collaboration referred to in the 2002 SAIP Writing III data regards group lesson planning, which is one form of teacher collaboration.
In addition, these data did not enable us to determine the type of group involved (small group, from a particular department or the school as a whole), whether other forms of collaboration existed within the school, whether this collaboration was voluntary or not, who were the participating members (teachers of the same subject/level or not), whether the time allowed for collaborative activities was during school hours, whether the group had an opportunity for self-evaluation, or the purpose of the collaboration, among others. Needless to say, the 2002 SAIP teacher questionnaire was not designed for this specific purpose. Thus, several points may be of interest for future research:
(1) Leadership practices of school principals, particularly transformational leadership which is closely related to the level of collaboration among teachers;
(2) Incentive factors that help schools encourage and maintain collaborative practices among their teaching staff;
(3) Direct collaboration and the predictors of other forms of collaboration, such as co-teaching methods, mentoring, etc.;
(4) Collaboration among different parties within the system (principals, different schools, schools, and their school board, etc.);
(5) Impact of having a policy that generates awareness of teacher collaboration and its benefits;
(6) Collaboration among teachers of different subjects or those assigned to groups of different ages, as we know that collaboration has been shown to be more challenging among high school teachers (Inger, 1993a; Newmann, 1994; Reyes & Fuller, 1995).
References
Al-Bataineh, A., & Nur-Awaleh, M. (2000). Keeping teaching fresh. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED453215)
Aminot, I., & Damon, M. N. (2002). Logistic regression: Interest in the analysis of data on medical practices. Medical Review of Health Insurance, 33(2), 137-143.
Beeken, L. A., Shmidt, B. J., & Beaver D. A. (1992). Ideas for teacher collaboration. What happens when teachers collaborate? Berkeley, C. A.: National Center for Research in Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED348535)
Bergman, D., Calzada, L., LaPointe, N., Lee, A., & Sullivan, L. (1998). Vertical alignment and collaboration. Texas, T. X.: A & M University, Corpus Christi/Kingsville Joint Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED421472)
Boss, S. (2002). Winning their hearts: Nathan Hale High School creates a more personal place for kids. Northwest Education, 8(1), 10-15. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ658069)
Bouchamma, Y. (2006). The impact of management practices on teacher collaboration and the impact of teacher collaboration on organizational climate across Canada. Scientific Annals of the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University Alexandru Ioan Cuza Iasi, Romania, 10, 139-158.
Brown, E. T., & Thomas, J. A. (1999). Expecting the best: Producing success. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(3-4), 224-235.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ600418)
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1993). Educational leadership for teacher collaboration. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED372540)
Coombs-Richardson, R., & Rivers, E. S. (1998, March). Collaborating for change: Building partnerships among teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. San Antonio, T. X.. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED460938)
Stevens, F. I. (1997). Opportunity to learn science: Connecting research knowledge to classroom practices. Philadelphia, P. A.: Mid-Atlantic Lab For Student Success and the National Research Center on Education in the Inner Cities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED419861)
St-Germain, M. (2002). Constructivist leadership: A solution to the paradox of individuality and standardization. In L. Langlois & C. Lapointe (Eds.), Leadership in education: Many regards, the same passion (pp. 113-138). Montréal, Canada: Chenelière/McGraw-Hill.
Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2006). Building effective learning communities: Strategies for leadership, learning and collaboration. Thousand Oaks, C. A.: Corwin Press.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2000). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Uline, C., Woolfolk, H., & Mackley, T. (2000). Creating smarter schools through collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(3), 247-271.
Van Wessum, L. (1999, April). Collaboration and teachers’ perception of professionality in schools for secondary education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montréal, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED433343)
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249-294.
Wasley, P. A., Fine, M., Gladden, M., Holland, N. E., King, S. P., Mosak, E., & Powell, L. C. (2000). Small schools: Great strides. A study of new small schools in Chicago. New York: Bank Street Coll. of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED465474)
Williams, M. T. (1995, August). The school as center of inquiry: An action research project. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. Williamsburg, V. A. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED389070)
Keywords: collegiality, teacher collaboration, academic achievement, writing achievement, interpersonal competence
Introduction
Socio-constructivist approaches have led teachers to explore new concepts that take the social dimension of learning into consideration (Tschannen-Moran, Uline, Woolfolk, & Mackley, 2000). This aspect is no longer limited to students, but also concerns others, such as teachers, who are increasingly encouraged to collaborate with their colleagues. In order to implement successful education programs, school reforms are now addressing this collaboration which occurs on many levels (Howden & Kopiec, 2002; Inger, 1993a). Which factors determine collaboration between teachers in Canada? This study addressed this question using the 2002 SAIP(School Achievement Indicators Program, Writing III) of the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada.
The Context
Less effective school reforms have been shown to be those limited only to the system’s structure without considering the human and social elements, such as culture, school climate and human relations (Kruse, Seashore,& Bryk, 1994; Newmann & Welhage, 1995). Today, school reform most often includes the aspect of in-school collaboration (Howden & Kopiec, 2002; Inger, 1993a) by promoting professional learning communities. In this regard, school principals are increasingly encouraged to facilitate collaboration among their staff (Bouchamma, 2006), as it constitutes the basis of these communities (Eaker, Richard Dufour, & Rebecca Dufour, 2004).
Teacher collaboration is often linked to effective schools and academic achievement (Cook & Friend, 1993; Eaker et al., 2004; Howden & Kopiec, 2002; Maguire, 1993; McTier, 1999; Reed, 2003; Reyes & Fuller, 1995; Williams, 1995) as well as teacher morale (Bouchamma, 2006), although this collaboration remains
teachers collaborate, which would have provided a better understanding of how teachers perceive as well as experience this collaboration. Nevertheless, the collaboration referred to in the 2002 SAIP Writing III data regards group lesson planning, which is one form of teacher collaboration.
In addition, these data did not enable us to determine the type of group involved (small group, from a particular department or the school as a whole), whether other forms of collaboration existed within the school, whether this collaboration was voluntary or not, who were the participating members (teachers of the same subject/level or not), whether the time allowed for collaborative activities was during school hours, whether the group had an opportunity for self-evaluation, or the purpose of the collaboration, among others. Needless to say, the 2002 SAIP teacher questionnaire was not designed for this specific purpose. Thus, several points may be of interest for future research:
(1) Leadership practices of school principals, particularly transformational leadership which is closely related to the level of collaboration among teachers;
(2) Incentive factors that help schools encourage and maintain collaborative practices among their teaching staff;
(3) Direct collaboration and the predictors of other forms of collaboration, such as co-teaching methods, mentoring, etc.;
(4) Collaboration among different parties within the system (principals, different schools, schools, and their school board, etc.);
(5) Impact of having a policy that generates awareness of teacher collaboration and its benefits;
(6) Collaboration among teachers of different subjects or those assigned to groups of different ages, as we know that collaboration has been shown to be more challenging among high school teachers (Inger, 1993a; Newmann, 1994; Reyes & Fuller, 1995).
References
Al-Bataineh, A., & Nur-Awaleh, M. (2000). Keeping teaching fresh. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED453215)
Aminot, I., & Damon, M. N. (2002). Logistic regression: Interest in the analysis of data on medical practices. Medical Review of Health Insurance, 33(2), 137-143.
Beeken, L. A., Shmidt, B. J., & Beaver D. A. (1992). Ideas for teacher collaboration. What happens when teachers collaborate? Berkeley, C. A.: National Center for Research in Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED348535)
Bergman, D., Calzada, L., LaPointe, N., Lee, A., & Sullivan, L. (1998). Vertical alignment and collaboration. Texas, T. X.: A & M University, Corpus Christi/Kingsville Joint Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED421472)
Boss, S. (2002). Winning their hearts: Nathan Hale High School creates a more personal place for kids. Northwest Education, 8(1), 10-15. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ658069)
Bouchamma, Y. (2006). The impact of management practices on teacher collaboration and the impact of teacher collaboration on organizational climate across Canada. Scientific Annals of the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University Alexandru Ioan Cuza Iasi, Romania, 10, 139-158.
Brown, E. T., & Thomas, J. A. (1999). Expecting the best: Producing success. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(3-4), 224-235.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ600418)
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1993). Educational leadership for teacher collaboration. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED372540)
Coombs-Richardson, R., & Rivers, E. S. (1998, March). Collaborating for change: Building partnerships among teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. San Antonio, T. X.. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED460938)
Stevens, F. I. (1997). Opportunity to learn science: Connecting research knowledge to classroom practices. Philadelphia, P. A.: Mid-Atlantic Lab For Student Success and the National Research Center on Education in the Inner Cities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED419861)
St-Germain, M. (2002). Constructivist leadership: A solution to the paradox of individuality and standardization. In L. Langlois & C. Lapointe (Eds.), Leadership in education: Many regards, the same passion (pp. 113-138). Montréal, Canada: Chenelière/McGraw-Hill.
Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2006). Building effective learning communities: Strategies for leadership, learning and collaboration. Thousand Oaks, C. A.: Corwin Press.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2000). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Uline, C., Woolfolk, H., & Mackley, T. (2000). Creating smarter schools through collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(3), 247-271.
Van Wessum, L. (1999, April). Collaboration and teachers’ perception of professionality in schools for secondary education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montréal, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED433343)
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249-294.
Wasley, P. A., Fine, M., Gladden, M., Holland, N. E., King, S. P., Mosak, E., & Powell, L. C. (2000). Small schools: Great strides. A study of new small schools in Chicago. New York: Bank Street Coll. of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED465474)
Williams, M. T. (1995, August). The school as center of inquiry: An action research project. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. Williamsburg, V. A. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED389070)