Collaborative learning necessitates interaction among groups of individuals. The potential of the interactions varies significantly, depending on the degree of interdependence among group members. Steven Covey (1989) defines interdependence as “the paradigm of we—we can do it, we can cooperate, we can combine our talents and abilities and create something greater together” (p. 49). He goes on to say, “Interdependence opens up worlds of possibilities for deep, rich, meaningful associations, for geometrically increased productivity, for serving, for contributing, for learning, for growing” (p. 187).

Developing interdependence within a group is a time-consuming process that is enhanced when each team member possesses a solid understanding of one's self (see box, “Questions for Self-Understanding”).

Questions for Self-Understanding

This self-knowledge is then combined with looking outward—noticing the gifts and talents of others, as well as valuing the diversity of thought and experience expressed by the group. Understanding ourselves and understanding others support collaborative learning teams in developing interdependence.

Understanding Self

Deeply held beliefs, values, and assumptions exert a powerful influence on our thoughts and actions (Caine & Caine, 1997) and form our personal worldview. Our worldview is rooted in life experiences that stretch back to our early years. These experiences create a lens through which we process new thoughts and experiences.

Our worldview or way of seeing influences our interpretation of the daily events in our lives. From the many stimuli that are constantly bombarding our senses, we pay attention to the stimuli we consider important. We select these stimuli because they are of interest to us. They may be compatible with our underlying assumptions and, therefore, affirming; or they may be incompatible, therefore creating a sense of disequilibrium. The following reflection by a teacher demonstrates the way the same stimuli can affirm two different sets of assumptions or worldviews:

Two teachers are watching the same children play. The first teacher sees the children exploring their world as they collect sticks, dig with them, test their trajectory, and hear the sounds they make. The other teacher sees the children out of control as they collect sticks, spear them into the ground, throw them blindly, and bang them on the playground equipment. The worldview of the first teacher is shaped by her belief that children learn through active exploration. The worldview of the second is based on the belief that young children with sticks are dangerous. Each teacher has processed the stimuli in a way that is congruent with her personal worldview and is likely to take action based on the meaning she has attributed to the situation—the first teacher might expand the child's thinking while the second might briskly outlaw the use of sticks.

Personal worldviews exist below the level of awareness, where they often remain unexamined and untested. Examining and talking about our personal worldviews is a difficult task, particularly as we mature and our perceptions become buried in years of collected experiences. An understanding of how our past shapes our current actions and decisions is key to understanding ourselves. By identifying the frame through which we routinely view an experience, we become more aware of the assumptions that shape our views, as another teacher observed:

I may perceive a colleague as difficult to deal with on the basis of past experiences. Because of that perception, I view many of her comments such as, “I don't understand your idea,” as negative, unsupportive, and challenging. Once I realize that I listen to her through a negative lens, I have a new freedom to choose how I interpret what she says—I am better able to really listen to what she is saying rather than reactivate my past feeling and experiences.

Similarly, our professional thinking is shaped by the pedagogical beliefs and assumptions that we have internalized. Take the concept “learning.” Here are two views of learning—behaviorist and constructivist—that are opposite in many ways:

• If your thinking about learning is heavily influenced by behavorist theory, you view learning as a stimulus-response process that is externally reinforced with a system of rewards and punishments. To behaviorists, terms like operant conditioning, reinforcement schedules, and antecedent events are central to the learning process.
• If you are a constructivist, learning is an internal process in which individuals construct their own views of reality by acting on and interacting with the world. To constructivists, terms like play, active learning, and mediation are central to learning.

Imagine how difficult it might be for teachers to collaborate if one teacher views learning through a behaviorist perspective, and the other through a constructivist perspective. One teacher believes that learning occurs best in a teacher-directed classroom where children accumulate knowledge and facts that are dispensed by the teacher; the other teacher believes that learning occurs best in a learner-centered, active classroom where the teacher poses problems, encourages interaction, and serves as a resource to facilitate learning.

Understanding ourselves requires us to identify and “own” the assumptions and beliefs that shape our worldview, whether it is our professional worldview or our personal worldview. In the process of making our worldview more visible to ourselves and others, we increase our capability to discuss and modify our assumptions, as well as let go of those assumptions that no longer serve us well.

Personal reflection heightens our awareness of the beliefs and assumptions that shape our worldview and guide our actions. In The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, Charlotte Roberts (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994, p. 396) suggests a few questions that might lead to reflective thinking about our motives for action (see box, “Questions for Examining Our Beliefs and Assumptions”).

Questions for Examining Our Beliefs and Assumptions

When we ask and answer questions like these, we may break up some of the biases and unquestioned assumptions that we bring to group discussions.

Understanding Others

To know one's self is wisdom, but to know one's neighbor is genius.

—Minna Antrim (1861–1950), American Epigrammist

No two individuals are exactly alike. When people have similar histories, experiences, or education, we often anticipate compatibility. When differences are apparent, we often expect struggle and contention. Yet we know the presence of different points of view within a group can actually lead to creative solutions.

A collaborative learning environment encourages people to voice different perspectives, yet an element of risk is present when we unveil our thinking to a group of colleagues. An essential ingredient in collaborative learning environments is an atmosphere of trust. Trust in this context refers to the safety level in the group. In a trusting environment, the group is willing to consider the diverse opinions of others. They respect, value, and appreciate the ideas and beliefs of their colleagues. Members are able to speak openly—to express their opinions and beliefs without loss of status or the fear of reprisal.

In a trusting environment, people are safe to say what's on their mind, seek the counsel of others, and experiment with new ideas. This environment offers a place where judgment about spoken communication and actions are suspended. Such an atmosphere invites participation. The following elements are present in environments characterized by high levels of trust:

• Openness—inviting all group members to participate by offering information, ideas, thoughts, feelings, and reactions.
• Sharing—offering materials and resources to help the group move toward its goal.
• Acceptance—communicating positive regard to other group members about their contributions to the work.
• Support—recognizing the strengths and capabilities of group members.
• Cooperative intention—expecting all members to function cooperatively and collaboratively to achieve the group purpose.

Developing a trusting atmosphere occurs little by little. The following activities encourage the building of trust by asking people to share information about themselves:

My Treasure Box. This team activity brings events that have shaped our lives to the forefront. Team members fill boxes or bags with objects and pictures that have significance to them and then share with the group their special items and the reasons they chose them. The explanation of choices begins to disclose the values and beliefs of the team members.

Similarities and Differences. Two people, paired together, are asked to name something about each other that is the same and something that is different. For example, the choice could be a physical attribute, a philosophy, a historical fact. This begins the connecting process by acknowledging sameness and difference and foreshadows how difficult it can be for group members to talk about themselves and about differences.

Self-disclosure (Sapon-Shevin, 1992, p. 30). The questions in this activity encourage risk taking and personal exposure by asking people to respond to more value-laden questions—questions that discuss individual strengths and weaknesses. In answering these questions, participants may find complementary skills and interests:

• What are three things I am really good at?
• What are three things I have trouble with?
• What are some ways I can help people?
• What are some things I need help with, and what kind of help would I like?

Embracing individual differences is another component of understanding others. Seeing differences as a contribution, not a detriment, brings a sense of value to the uniqueness of each person in the group. The presence of positive regard encourages members to share their passions and idiosyncrasies, and stimulates the creativity that arises from full engagement and self-expression. Learning increases—and seems to explode—when team members are free to contribute to and learn from the diverse perspectives in their group.

Creating a Team Sculpture. This activity emphasizes the contributions each person brings to the team and ties them together into a whole. Teams create a sculpture that represents their team's identity—its diversity, commonalities, and accomplishments. Here are examples of materials that teams can use in this activity: a sheet of foamcore or cardboard for each team, Styrofoam pieces, pipecleaners, clothespins, yarn, string, ribbon, markers, colored and textured papers, stickers, glue, toothpicks, and tape. Steps in the process are as follows:

• Each member shares a personal trait.
• Members discuss traits, looking for similarities and differences.
• Members translate their ideas into a sculpture that represents their team's identity.
• Members title their sculpture.
• Each team shares the sculpture with other teams.

Let's String Along (Scannell & Newstrom, 1991, p. 287). This activity brings to light the interdependent nature of our work and elucidates the importance of having a versatile, diverse group of coworkers. Each group has a ball of string or yarn, and group members stand in a circle. One group member holds the ball of string and ties the end to her wrist. She throws the ball of string to someone whom she is dependent on and states the nature of that dependency. The process continues as different people hold the string and throw the ball to other members of the group.

Developing a sense of interdependence requires that we come to know ourselves, our biases, and our assumptions; that we trust each other enough to share personal viewpoints, experience, and information; and that we come to embrace and celebrate our differences.

Communication Norms That Support Collaborative Learning

Clearly stated communication norms contribute to an atmosphere of trust when people are learning collaboratively. Communication norms are shared expectationsabout how group members will communicate with each other. They provide guidelines that support collaborative exploration, discovery, and reflection.

In many groups, members talk “at” one another. Communication consists of each member presenting his point of view and defending it with more thoughts when challenged. In this talking “at” model, the speaker's work is the skillful display of his ideas; the group's work is to choose the best of the ideas presented. Conversely, collaborative learning relies on the ability of team members to talk ‘with’ each other, working together to understand and mold the group's many ideas into a new whole.

Belenky and colleagues (1986) have named these two types of talk didactic talking and really talking. Didactic talking offers little or no attempt among group members to combine their thoughts and ideas to acquire new levels of understanding. The practice of really talking asks group members to share ideas in a way that ideas can grow. Really talking happens when members share from deep within their own experience and embrace the ideas and experiences of others. Collaborative learning flourishes in an environment filled with really talking. This section discusses five communication norms that facilitate really talking:

• Listen carefully.
• Share relevant information.
• Develop shared meaning.
• Make assumptions explicit.
• Decide by consensus.

We offer a word of warning before we discuss the specific communication norms: Communication norms cannot be imposed on a group. The group, as a group, draws forth norms that are meaningful for it. The norms are based on the values, expectations, and past experiences of the group members. Communication norms must be clear to all members. Once the group identifies norms, group members should practice the norms to ensure that everybody in the group can recognize and use them in conversation. Groups increase their ability to use the norms masterfully when they incorporate a time and method for group reflection and feedback into their team meetings. “Communication Norms for Collaborative Groups,” Tool 6 in Part III, “Tools for Learning,” can help groups explore effective communication norms.

Listen Carefully

ListenI do not know if you have ever examined how you listen,it doesn't matter to what, whether to abird, to the wind in the leaves,to the rushing waters, or how you listenin a dialogue with yourself,to your conversation in various relationships with your intimate friends,your wife or husband. . . .If we try to listen, we find it extraordinarily difficultbecause we are always projecting our opinions and ideas,our prejudices, our background, our inclinations, our impulses;when they dominate we hardly listen at all to what is being said. . .In that state there is no value at all.One listens and therefore learns, only in a state of attention, a state of silence, in which this whole background is in abeyance, is quiet; then, it seems to me, it is possible to communicate. . . .Real communication can only take place where there is silence.—Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895–1986), indian educator and philosopher

Listening carefully demonstrates respect for the ideas and thoughts of others. Senge and colleagues (1994) describe this intense listening as “the art of developing deeper silences in yourself, so you can slow your mind's hearing to your ears' natural speed and hear beneath the words to their meaning” (p. 377). Listening carefully requires the purposeful pursuit of meaning beneath the words—listening for the contribution in each other's speaking rather than for the assessment or judgment of what is being said. This deeper level of listening asks listeners to set their thoughts aside while they attempt to understand the message from the speaker's point of view. Here are some activities that can help groups examine their listening skills.

Say Something About It. This activity provides participants some insights into their listening. A leader brings an interesting object to the circle of participants. As the participants pass the object around the circle, each person says something about the object. Typically, the participants will be thinking about what they are going to say rather than listening to the comments of others. As the object continues to be passed, a shift often occurs when the comments begin building on one another. For example, if a pencil were going around the circle, initial comments might be “It's yellow,” “It's made of wood,” or “You write with it.” After a while, related comments begin to emerge, such as “I will write Emma a letter with the pencil,” and “I will address the envelope using the pencil.” This shift shows that the group is beginning to listen and think as a team rather than as individuals.

What's on My Mind? A leader divides the group into pairs and gives one person, the speaker, a topic to speak on. The speaker has five minutes to talk about the topic without deviating. The other person is the listener, but he is listening to the thoughts going through his head. The listener must say those thoughts out loud as the speaker is talking about the topic. This very noisy activity confirms for participants that a large percentage of their brain is not focused on listening but is busy having other thoughts.

Appreciative Partner Statements. This activity reaffirms the difficulty of listening, especially when the topic is you. It is done in pairs. One person makes an appreciative statement to the other person and then vice versa, moving back and forth for three to five minutes. No comments on the statements are permitted. Partners are inclined to comment on the statement with a defensive response: “Oh, I really didn't do that” or “It wasn't that much work.” The trick is to control your “automatic” responses so you can listen and receive the acknowledgment, yet not comment on it.

Instrumental in establishing a culture of respect and trust, careful listening sends a message that each idea from each individual brings value to the group conversation—that the group treats each idea with respect, regardless of agreement or disagreement. Senge and colleagues (1994), in The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, suggest some guidelines for listening carefully (see box, “Strategies for Listening Carefully”).

Strategies for Listening Carefully

Share Relevant Information

Information is the material of learning. Group members bring a depth and diversity of information to group conversations. Groups greatly benefit from this wealth of information, especially when the expectation is that all information relevant to the topic is publicly shared. Barriers exist to sharing information among team members. Feelings of inferiority or lack of status may create a reluctance to share information with the group. Members may be shy, reluctant to speak in public, or assume that everybody knows what they know. Others may refuse to make the effort to effectively share relevant information, or they may have controversial information that they are afraid to share (Lumsden & Lumsden, 1993; Weiss, 1994).

Sharing relevant information means offering ideas that contribute to the group discussion even when they do not support a personal idea or perspective. For example, a staff member may want to attend a professional development conference on the day her team has planned a field trip. If she shares this, the team may encourage her not to go to the conference. Sharing all relevant information means telling the team about the conflict, even though the information may reduce her chance of being able to go to the conference. The voicing of multiple perspectives is a good indicator that group members are sharing all relevant information.

Information is valuable only if all group members share and understand it. Information may be sabotaged if people use language such as, “I may be wrong but. . . .” In this example, the group's attention is likely to be diverted to evaluating the information, rather than listening to it. Feelings are also relevant information to share. Feelings may be about the topic under discussion or about the way a topic is being discussed.

Develop Shared Meaning

Shared meaning is really the cement that holds society together and you could say that the present society has some very poor quality cement. If you make a building with very low quality cement, it cracks and falls apart. We really need the right cement, the right glue . . . and that is shared meaning (Bohm, 1990, p. 17).

A lack of shared meaning is a primary reason for failed communication in groups. This lack of shared meaning can relate to words and ideas, as well as to the purpose and tasks of a group. The need to come to agreement on the meaning of words is an ongoing process in collaborative learning groups. Because we, as speakers, are perfectly clear about what our words and ideas mean, we often assume other group members have the same clarity. We forge ahead making our point rather than pausing for a moment to check for understanding. Unfortunately, the entire group does not necessarily have the same understandings.

For example, I might say I am interested in creating quality instructional programs. I have a clear image of what quality means, but the other group members might not share that image. Quality may look totally different to them. If we don't pause to explore what quality means to each person, we have no guarantee we are advocating for the same goal.

There are several ways to encourage creating shared meaning. One way is to slow down the conversation so individuals have time to explore meanings. Several strategies may help slow down the pace of a conversation (see box, “Strategies for Developing Shared Meaning”).

Strategies for Developing Shared Meaning

For example, when a group was discussing the idea of consensus, one team member offered this definition for the group to consider: “We are talking about making our decisions using ‘consensus.’ To me consensus means unanimous agreement and not majority agreement. Is that what it means to you?” (Schwarz, 1994)

Another way to create shared meaning is to use the four-step process adapted from the work of Russo and Giblin (1996, p. T-2).

Step 1. Each team member offers an interpretation of the task or concept.

Step 2. Team members question each other's ideas.

Step 3. Team members modify their ideas.

Step 4. Team members agree on a shared meaning of the task or concept.

Make Assumptions Explicit

A teacher approaches a colleague to talk about a student with a behavior problem. The colleague listens and then offers several suggestions. The teacher is quick with a response: “I've tried the first one before. It didn't work, and the other one is just not my style.” This response left the colleague feeling judged and cut off. What happened? The teacher described a problem. The colleague suggested solutions. The teacher rejected the solutions.

This conversation was solution driven: the participants were addressing a crisis or problem. The teachers gave their attention only to potential solutions, not to the assumptions associated with the problem. Conversations that are held at the “what-should-we-do” level tend to look like a ping-pong game, with answers being batted back and forth. What is missing in a solution-driven conversation is the opportunity to examine the thoughts or the assumptions that created the problem.

Every problem is based on a set of assumptions. Assumptions are ideas that are treated like “the truth,” but in reality they are merely ideas, created by people at some point in time. In our example, the student's behavior was a problem. The problem is based on a set of assumptions about appropriate ways to behave in school. A different teacher might embrace a different set of assumptions, and the student's behavior might not be a problem in that class. Once team members identify and state underlying assumptions, the team can more easily determine discrepancies in thinking among team members.

Making assumptions explicit is akin to the notion of “suspending assumptions” found in dialogue. Dialogue is a method of discourse “in which group members seek to understand one another's viewpoints and deeply held assumptions” (Garmston & Wellman, 1998, p. 31). As groups engage in dialogue, members are encouraged to identify and “suspend” their assumptions. In this context, suspenddoes not mean to hold back or temporarily dismiss assumptions, but rather it means to hold them out in front, like an object, so all can see them clearly. Senge (1990) suggests that individuals have their assumptions “‘hanging in front,’ constantly accessible to questioning and observation” (p. 243).

When people are engaged in collaborative learning, examining the thinking behind their ideas can help illuminate underlying assumptions (see box, “Strategies for Making Assumptions Explicit”).

Inquiring into the thinking of others can also illuminate assumptions. When inquiring, the listener asks for clarification to more fully understand the speaker's thoughts. In collaborative learning, a clear understanding of the speaker's point of view should precede the voicing of agreement, disagreement, or another point of view. This idea resonates with Covey's (1989) thinking in The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, “Seek first to understand . . . then to be understood” (p. 235). Tool 7, “Left-Hand Column,” in Part III, “Tools for Learning,” is designed to help individuals and groups identify and discuss underlying assumptions and beliefs.

Strategies for Making Assumptions Explicit

Decide by Consensus

In this book, we focus on creating a space and process in which teams are free to engage in collaborative learning—free to explore, inquire, expand, and experiment. Although most of these words are open-ended, ignoring the need for teams to make decisions, reach agreement, and take action would be foolish. Every team needs an agreed-on decision-making process. We propose consensus as the optimal decision-making process for collaborative learning teams.

Making decisions by consensus means that

everyone in the group freely agrees with the decision and will support it. If even one person cannot agree with a proposed decision, the group does not have a consensus. Consensus ensures that team members' choices will be free . . . and that they will be internally committed to the choices (Schwarz, 1994, p. 84).

When a teams uses the consensus process, the group more fully owns the final decision, thereby fostering a more accepting atmosphere for the change.

Power among group members is equalized when consensus is used as a decision-making process because all members must speak their concerns and express their support for a decision. In a group situation it often takes courage to state one's views and inquire more deeply into the thoughts of others. The effective use of the other communication norms such as listening carefully, sharing relevant information, developing shared understanding, and making assumptions explicit increases the likelihood that a group will reach consensus amicably and in a timely manner.

Testing for consensus is often necessary to determine if a group is nearing consensus. Judy Olson-Ness (1994) suggests several ways to determine this point (see box, “Strategies to Test for Consensus”).

Strategies to Test for Consensus

Optimal times to test for consensus are as follows:

• The discussion has gone on for a long time.
• Ideas are being repeated.
• Confusion exists about the direction of the discussion.
• Time is running out.
• Options need to be eliminated.

Schwarz (1994) offers a procedure for reaching consensus:

When a group thinks it is close to reaching consensus, one member should state the decision under consideration, and then each member should say whether he or she agrees. This avoids the mistake of assuming that silence means agreement (p. 84).

Tool 8, “The Pyramid,” in Part III, “Tools for Learning,” is a method to help groups find common ground and reach consensus—first by pairs, then in groups of 4, then 8, then 16, and so on until the group reaches consensus.

Group Practices That Support Collaborative Learning

Establish Ground Rules

Ground rules are specific and concrete rules and procedures that guide the way collaborative learning groups function. Ground rules provide parameters for team meeting functions, such as scheduling, attendance, agenda development, and members' roles and responsibilities. Ground rules may specify behavioral expectations, such as respecting individual contributions and full participation of all team members. They may delineate procedures for group processes, such as brainstorming, decision making, or recruiting new members.

Having teams generate their own ground rules provides the opportunity to discuss and make explicit the expectations members have for one another. Stress often builds among team members around interpersonal behaviors or “pet peeves,” such as the person who is constantly late, the member who dominates the conversation, or the phone calls that continually interrupt the flow of conversation. When teams clearly articulate their ground rules and give responsibility to the group members to enforce them, team members find they function with less stress and greater productivity. “Ground Rules,” Tool 9 in Part III, “Tools for Learning,” offers a process for groups to discuss and identify relevant and meaningful ground rules (see also Figure 6.1).

Figure 6.1. Sample Ground Rules for Meetings

Some group processes, such as brainstorming, problem solving, or decision making, also need ground rules or procedures that everyone can agree on. Figure 6.2 shows a sample of brainstorming ground rules.

Figure 6.2. Sample Ground Rules for Brainstorming

Explore Trust and Task Roles

We began this chapter by emphasizing the importance of trust within a group. Trust is half of what it takes to be an effective and efficient group. The other half is the ability to accomplish the task. Researchers have identified roles that enhance the levels of trust and task completion in a group. For example, summarizing is a task role that is responsible for clearly restating what the group has discussed, and gatekeeping is a trust role that makes sure all group members have an opportunity to share their ideas. Figures 6.3 and 6.4 delineate some task and trust roles, respectively (Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Olson-Ness, 1994).

Figure 6.3. Task Roles That Support Group Functioning

Figure 6.4. Trust Roles That Support Group Functioning

Having team members focus on both trust and task roles has several benefits. Two obvious benefits are a higher level of trust and performance among group members. A less obvious benefit is a leveling of the hierarchical structure inherent in the roles of parent, teacher, administrator, and assistant teacher. This hierarchy is often unconsciously transferred to the collaborative learning situation. By assigning members the roles of summarizer, gatekeeper, or recorder, a message is sent that all members are equally important to the group's functioning. When a group is first “trying on” trust and task roles, members may decide to blindly choose the roles at the beginning of a meeting, or they may select roles that represent their personal style and comfort level.

Document Information

Groups that generate information need to document it. Meeting agendas and meeting notes (1) provide a record of topics addressed, decisions made, and assigned responsibilities; and (2) serve as an information dissemination mechanism for people who could not attend the meeting.

There are many methods of keeping meeting notes. One is to keep a running record of the discussions and decisions and then type and distribute the information. Having a laptop computer at the meeting has made this approach more efficient. A more succinct method is to record only group decisions, individual responsibilities, and due dates. During the meeting, it is helpful if decisions are recorded on chart paper so all members can see the decisions and review them before the meeting is adjourned. A “recorder” can then type the chart paper notes and distribute them to each member after the meeting (see Figure 6.5 for a form that makes it easy to take notes on a meeting's agenda items).

Figure 6.5. Sample Meeting Agenda Notes

Reflect on Group Process

Learning how to learn together is essential to the work of collaborative learning groups. Often, teams pay too much attention to whatgroup members are doing, rather than to how they are doing it. As stated earlier in this chapter, the balance between trust and task, between focusing on relationships and on accomplishments, is key to successful group functioning. The probability that a team will work on the same task again is minimal. The probability that the team will work collaboratively again is much greater. Therefore, teams must continually evaluate and refine how they communicate, how they run meetings, how they share information—how they function as a team.

Group reflection is a means for group members to examine what they are doing well and what needs to be improved, and to set priorities for enhancing their collaborative learning.

Groups can improve their ability to function as a group by setting aside time at each meeting to critique their behavior. Schwarz (1994) suggests several questions for group members to ask themselves (see box, “Questions for Group Reflection”).

Questions for Group Reflection

A similar inquiry can be made into the group's use of communication norms. “Communication Patterns,” Tool 10 in Part III, “Tools for Learning,” is a way to record and share group communication patterns during team meetings. An observer diagrams the communication patterns that occur over time and presents the data to the group. Discussion about the flow of communication within the group can significantly contribute to positive team functioning.

Another method of ascertaining the members' level of satisfaction with team functioning is through the “Team Functioning Scale” (Figure 6.6), a simple tabulation procedure. The “Why?” column offers information about the forces that are supporting or inhibiting the group's performance. The recorder can include team comments in the meeting notes, and the team can review the comments at the beginning of the next meeting to reinforce the group learning process.

Figure 6.6. Team Functioning Scale

* * *

In this book, we are asking a lot of educators. In urging staff members to choose collaborative learning as a vehicle for school improvement, we ask them to take a giant step away from business as usual. We are asking that they devote time and energy to understand their own beliefs and the beliefs of those around them. We are asking that they engage in meaningful learning as a team. We are asking that they recognize and address the complexities that accompany working collaboratively. These are not simple requests. They involve time, study, and a commitment to improving the way adults relate to each other in a school.

Yet it is becoming more and more apparent that professional collaboration plays a significant role in quality schools. For that reason, we must persist in exploring new and improved ways for professionals in our schools to grow and learn together. Now is the time to pave the way for “best practice” in collaborative learning. In the next generation of schools, we must be as attentive to the process of learning together as we are to the content of our professional learning.