By Dr. Deborah L. Boldt
This issue of NASET’s Classroom Management series was written by Dr. Deborah Bolt. A variety of different collaborative methods can be used by teachers. Collaboration enables teachers to share their experiences and innovative strategies, as well as participate in curriculum development and develop a variety of skills to support student learning. Successful collaboration takes into account how co-creation can impact teacher collaboration, as well as teacher learning and development. By implementing collaboration effectively, educators can build positive relationships within the classroom and foster a positive culture of professional growth. The use of teacher collaboration adds value to students’ learning experiences by allowing teachers to develop their knowledge and professional practices. Through the implementation of action research, co-creation opportunities were further enhanced by investigating the impact co- creation has on collaboration among teachers.
Abstract
A variety of different collaborative methods can be used by teachers. Collaboration enables teachers to share their experiences and innovative strategies, as well as participate in curriculum development and develop a variety of skills to support student learning. Successful collaboration takes into account how co-creation can impact teacher collaboration, as well as teacher learning and development. By implementing collaboration effectively, educators can build positive relationships within the classroom and foster a positive culture of professional growth. The use of teacher collaboration adds value to students’ learning experiences by allowing teachers to develop their knowledge and professional practices. Through the implementation of action research, co-creation opportunities were further enhanced by investigating the impact co- creation has on collaboration among teachers.
Keywords: action research, co-creation opportunities were further enhanced by investigating the impact co-creation has on collaboration among teachers.
Introduction
Heck and Hallinger (2010) noted that collaborative leadership has grown to be one of the most widely used forms of distributed leadership. Due to the diverse learning needs of students, the need for collaboration between general and special education teachers become more urgent to implement. Lack of collaboration in an organization creates challenges in collaborating effectively and communicating efficiently. Creating collaborative models, which are long-lasting, adaptable, and innovative, become opportunities for developing meaningful relationships within an organization. Establishing positive collaborative opportunities now leads to working on a shared goal, and working on difficult situations that may arise. There is limited research examining the impact of co-creating on collaboration between general education and special education teachers’ collaborative practices.
Statement of the Problem
Effective teams of teachers will work together as equal partners in collaboration, with both contributing in every aspect of planning, teaching, and assessment. A collaborative approach will involve understanding Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs), specialized design instruction, assessment, classroom management, and student behavior. However, a major obstacle has been the lack of skills around collaboration among the general and special education teachers (Able et al., 2015). The lack of collaboration undermines the importance of building effective teams within an organization and ultimately the success of inclusion education
(Mulholland & O’Connor, 2016). As a result, teams are not committed to achieving the same goal of change. The more school staff members engage in interactions that promote learning as a team and promote the work of the team, these interactions form a positive element in the school’s improvement efforts (Fullan, 2013). Lack of vision and growth mindset in developing positive collaboration is a factor in the role of leadership and education (Darbi, 2012). Collaboration is a significant part of leadership. Leading a team involves bringing others on as partners with a unified vision, hence it is necessary to have a growth mindset and understand how all stakeholders experience the vision. A leader may have a vision for the organization but the members may not fully understand the ultimate goal of the vision (Gurley, Peters, Collins, & Fifolt, 2015). Collaboration involves leading by example, supporting collaboration and making collaboration a core value of the
Organization.
Collaboration also includes ongoing communication among team members. Formal collaborative relationships require comprehensive planning and for well-defined communication channels to be operating on many levels (Mattessich et al., 2001). Lack of communication creates challenges in tolerance and respect for coworkers. Collaboration is the exchange of information, and ideas, without communication teachers, may employ undesirable ways to communicate and ways of dealing with conflict successfully among teams. Another challenge to collaboration among teams involves trust among team members. According to Lee (2004), once a sense of community is established in a collaborative learning environment, trust develops between team members. Building and maintaining trust among members will help increase team performance and productivity especially during collaboration. Cohesion is fostered by creating a collaborative learning environment centered on trust (Coogan & Graham, 2013). Developing trust is the confidence or assurance in another’s honesty, fairness, and consistency (Berry, 2011a).
Further research on the impact of co-creation collaboration between general and special education teachers would support the need for professional development and address gaps in the literature. Successful collaboration includes teachers as a model for students. Research shows that struggling teams have a harder time achieving a common goal of communicating and collaborating effectively. Often collaboration does not involve open communication between all team members leaving staff feeling unappreciated or valued. To create a productive workflow, collaboration relies on communication. This is especially true for student academic planning and implementing Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs).
Allowing co-creation between departments holds the potential to both empower all staff while increasing knowledge. Collaboration combined with co-creation also has the potential to generate new forms of impact in this district. Students need to witness educators collaborate effectively in order to discover what works for them successfully and create one’s own opportunity to employ in the future.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this qualitative action research was to explore the impact of co-creation on fostering interdepartmental collaboration between general and special education teams.The overarching research question guiding this study was: What is impact of co-creationon fostering interdepartmental collaboration between general and special education teams? This action research examined the experiences from general and special education teachers toward collaboration. The findings of this study provide insight to the collaborative process that is crucial to the positive outcomes for teachers. Goddard and Goddard (2010) study noted that teachers reported improved attitudes towards teaching, teacher efficacy, and understanding of student learning. The importance of collaboration among general and special education teachers allows the experience of two or more professionals to strengthen the knowledge and understanding of education to overall improve student success for individuals without or with disabilities (Hatch, 2002).
Conceptual Framework
Kotter’s Change Model was considered most appropriate to supplement this action research since teachers have an equal influence on the people and organizations in their environment. The failure of organizations can be attributed to many factors, including ineffective middle management leaders, poor teamwork, and a lack of trust. Kotter created the eight-step change model to address these obstacles, which focuses on improving quality and changing processes. In order to achieve success, you must identify the sense of urgency, assemble the guiding coalition, build the change vision, communicate it, empower broad-based action, create short-term wins, consolidate gains and produce more change, and anchor new approaches within the culture (Kotter, 1996, p. 23).
In this action research, Kotter’s process was utilized to energize others around a goal to use co-creation in collaboration. Having completed the first stage, the next step is to communicate and empower others in order to implement co-creating. Thus, once the need for change was established, empowering others during collaboration allowed the change to be built. Pollack and Pollack (2015) cites Kotter’s (1996) eight-step change model as a framework for leading emergent organizational change. In this action research Kotter’s components of by implementing co-creation within the change vision, communicate it, empower broad-based action, Change is not a quick or easy process, according to Kotter’s Change Model. By implementing the Kotter model. Cameron and Green (2015) noted that empowering employees is a key to a successful change effort.
The benefits of Kotter’s eight-step model include its procedural recommendations as well as its focus on cognitive, behavioral, and affective responses to change (Calegari, Sibley, & Turner, 2015). The data collected from this action research was to help understand the change and the impact it co-creation has on the staff working together. Additionally, analyzing data will help with managing and overseeing the change itself because of how it affects people. As such, Kotter recommended that to managers embarking on change initiatives, they should minimize change management and improve change leadership (Hughes, 2016). In essence, this action research could be the motivator for the change in their organizations versus focusing merely on the change itself.
Review of Literature
This literature review explores the areas of co-creation and collaboration among educational teams. When effectively collaborating, teachers become a part of improving student learning and school objectives. Teachers can use teacher collaboration as a tool to improve teaching practices and learning outcomes (Williams, 2010). The literature collected for this study showed how co-creation impacts collaboration while improving instructional practices, builds trust between teachers, and promotes an environment that encourages student achievement.
Defining Co-creation
The concept of co-creation is defined as collaborative knowledge generated by working alongside other teachers or stakeholders. The collaborative approach is often promoted casually as positive among students (Ling, 2000). Nonetheless, co-creating as educators benefits learning and teaching through partnerships, but many teachers struggle with the challenges as they move beyond and across traditional roles. Teachers encourage student engagement and provide the beginning stages of students developing meaningful partnerships (Kuh et al., 2010). Co-creation can be implemented across different disciplines, allowing a wide range of viewpoints to participate in the innovation process. Co-creation began as a resource integration approach in which individuals were not fully engaged in the process of a business (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000). This study seeks to provide a deeper understanding of what co-creation means in enhancing the collaborative practice at an elementary school.
Benefits of co-creation
Adding co-creation to a project can make it more receptive to outside input (Chesbrough, 2003). Increasingly, organizations are looking to others to collaborate with them in the idea and development processes for new innovations. In the field of education, co-creation benefits new and veteran teachers alike. Researchers have found that co-creation of new offerings with individual users leads to higher new product quality and the development of products that meet individuals’ unmet needs more closely. Teachers preparing for special education face challenges aligning their educator training with their classroom practice (Jones, 2009). Co-creation can be highly beneficial for organizations, as teachers’ expertise and insight can help develop services that fit the needs of students, resulting in greater academic success (Hoyer et al., 2010). By using co-creation among general and special education teachers, it brings opportunities for new voices and ideas into the discussion. The use of co-creation makes sense, especially in education and specifically among teachers. Organizations can create better educational services by involving users in the process, thus co-creating greater value together.
Collaboration
Students’ achievement and staff productivity are impacted by collaboration and instruction. Researchers have examined collaboration as a tool to boost work productivity across a variety of fields, including business and industry. In other words, collaboration involves interaction between two or more people who are engaged in labor can be considered collaboration. A similar focus has been placed on teacher collaboration. In fact, practitioners have long identified that there are varying degrees to the quality of teacher collaboration.
Defining Collaboration
According to Smith and Scott (1990), collaboration emphasized teamwork, collegiality, and continuous improvement. The school’s transformation from a traditional culture of teachers working in isolation to a collaborative one, where teachers worked together to improve practice, was also the result of role change. As a result now, teachers come together to share, to learn, or to solve a problem. Gajda (2004) noted that “collaboration appears to signify just about any relationship between two entities…” and that numerous terms have been used to indicate collaboration, including: “joint ventures, consolidations, networks, partnerships, coalitions, collaboratives, alliances, consortiums, associations, conglomerates, councils, task forces, and groups” (p.68). Moreover, teachers were responsible for and held accountable for achieving school goals and implementing them.
A collaboration is also an interaction involving verbal and nonverbal communications. Thayer-Bacon and Brown’s (1995) described collaboration as “the interaction that takes place between and among people who are in a changing relation with each other and are able to mutually communicate through a shared verbal and nonverbal language therefore, they are potentially able to influence each other (p. 7). The study of kinetics consists of the study of body language including gestures –movements of the limbs, postural shifts and movements of some parts of the body like hands, head or trunk (Argyle, 1988). All activity between two or more people can be driven by communication, whether it is verbal or nonverbal.
Benefits of Collaboration
Prior to collaboration, Powell (2020) emphasized that participation in networks and interorganizational connections, as well as continued communication and collaboration of different kinds, will be fundamental to collaborative success. According to Lake and Billingsley (2000) “there is much written about parent-school partnerships, but little is written about maintaining effective collaboration”; however, the same applies to collaboration among school personnel in daily instruction and the development of an IEP (p. 249). To achieve the greater goal of the collaborative group, each member brings and offers social, intellectual, and emotional support to the other members.
Collaboration has been shown to not only develop higher-level thinking skills in staff, but boost their confidence and self-esteem as well. Gregory and Kuzmich (2007) stated that there are several benefits to participating in a collaborative environment. Among the benefits may be reducing isolation, sharing responsibility, increasing collective responsibility, improving teaching strategies, and committing to significant change. Second, collaboration supports all students, including those with attention and learning difficulties. To meet the variability of learners, collaboration can bring teachers with different perspectives and different knowledge together.
Data Collection
This section outlines the methods that were utilized for this action research. Information on the qualitative approach to research focusing on the impact of co-creation on fostering collaboration between general and special education teams is provided in further detail that includes an overview of the action research and how this methodology was applied to this study. Additionally, this section describes how participants are selected and how data was analyzed.
Qualitative research action research focuses on the experiences of teachers who are currently active in teaching about the impact of collaboration on general and special education. According to Creswell (2013), using a qualitative approach allows the researcher to gain in-depth information that might not be as easily accessed through large data selection. This study aims to develop a greater understanding of teachers’ views of collaboration and how their comfort with collaboration impacts positive collaboration on instruction.
Research Setting
Data was collected in one school district that included general and special education teachers Although, Seidman (2006) posits the importance of allowing participants to select a location that is convenient and comfortable for them, the local school district was appreciative of the offer to be a part of this action research study.
Participants
An interview was the main method of collecting data for this action research. Six participants will participate in this study, two 3rd, two 4th grade level general education teachers and two special education teachers currently teaching during the 2022 school year. All participants will have no less than five years of service in education. According to Creswell (1998), “data collection offers one more instance in assessing research design” in qualitative inquiry (p.109). Implementing semi-structured interviews, observations, and document analysis was used in collecting data for this study. Moreover, according to Seidman (2006), “interviews should be convenient to the participant, private, yet if at all possible familiar to him or her” (p. 49). Therefore, when setting up interviews with participants, the participant-centered approach was taken into account.
Semi-Structured Interviews
In order to ensure that the general aspects of information obtained from each interviewees are the same, there was an interview guide (see Appendix A). The interview guide included questions reference to understanding how teachers understand co-creation and collaboration. In addition to understanding how staff understand collaboration, further questions were used to reflect on each participants experience around collaboration that will help reinforce further steps needed throughout this action research. In this action research, the interview guide ensured the interviews were structured and focused. The interview guide provided more focus than the conversational approach, but permit some degree of freedom and adaptability in obtaining information from the interviewee (Merriam, 2002; Patton, 1990). The use of follow-up questions were intended to facilitate further reflection, elaboration, or clarification of the responses to help make sense of the participants’ experience (Seidman, 2006).
Direct Observations
During collaborative time, observations were conducted to observe surroundings, activities, participants, and the perceived meaning by participants, in addition to identifying, categorizing and describing emerging findings and contextualizing interviews (Merriman, 2009; Patton, 2002). In this action research, I recorded how the teachers interacted as a team specifically noting factors impacting co-creation while collaborating. These factors were the focus of the observations and used to triangulate findings for the study.
Discussion of Findings
In order to find themes in the data, the researcher must have the ability to process a lot of information and reduce it to essential codes. In this action research, data were collected on defining what co-creation is, creating decisions around collaboration, and understanding the effects of re-developing collaboration strategies to eliminate the resistance to change.
Themes
Creswell (2013), noted “themes in qualitative research are broad units of information that consist of several codes aggregated to form a common idea” (p. 186). These themes provided support for a description that presents the essence of the phenomenon. Themes that emerged from this action research included: defining co-creation, decisions related to the collaboration process, and leadership traits needed for collaboration.
Defining Co-Creation. Since the action research did not provide the definition of teacher collaboration, the respondents were asked to define the term from their personal knowledge and experiences. The process of co-creation takes several different forms, depending on the discipline or institution. In this organization, defining co-creation was easy for all the participants; however, applying the practice in relation to special education was difficult. One participant noted that co-creation is defined as “working with others” (teachers or other stakeholders) to develop curriculum or learning to help the students to be academically successful. A follow-up discussion more specifically to special education led to responses focusing on learning how to encourage others to participate during collaboration. Hence, being being able to encourage our fellow educators to be involved actively will benefit the students. A good starting point is to build a relationship and to find a place of common ground. To build a collaborative process, the duo or more must have an invested interest in working together, and they must have an invested interest in seeing the other grow towards whatever goals or expectations have been set. Staff learn best when they are involved in new initiatives with opportunities of hands-on experience.
Decisions related to the collaboration process. Findings from this action research revealed that the decisions at this organization around the collaboration process were created by the principal and the instructional coach. Co-creation could be considered as a means to redistribute power between certain individuals and to provide a voice and opportunity to individuals based on their position or skill level. Informal conversations with staff revealed all stakeholders need an understanding of the problem and the targeted objectives to attain. Since all participants do not have the same background, including all stakeholders in the decision of the collaboration process helps to get a common plan following different viewpoints. Frost and Sullivan (2006) noted that increased high-quality collaboration can improve an organization’s performance.
Leadership traits needed for co-creation and collaboration. In terms of traits that make a facilitator successful in a change towards collaboration, conversations revealed that all individuals must be valued and others must be valued members of the team. The stakeholder group indicated that they do not believe there is a singular or group of traits that define the “best” leader in this space, but it is more the dynamic of partners that creates the possibility of collaboration. A good relationship requires a common goal, mutual respect, and a shared understanding of expectations between the partners.
Direct Observations
Observations through grade level Professional Learning Community (PLC) witnessed staff discussion around student needs. Data also revealed not all PLC groups included special education teachers and specialists (art, music, and PE). Depending on the student needs and schedules, PLC’s included just the grade level teachers. Lack of time due to scheduling was clearly evident. In addition, questions arising around student needs were not being answered due to the knowledge base of special education. In spite of the lack of critical perspectives from special education, a discussion of future ways of thinking and working included adopting new approaches and attitudes to assessment were witnessed
Discussion
Completing action research is a start to ongoing teacher education that helps to continue learning in order to better prepare staff that face everyday challenges in the classroom. The goals that I set for this action research were met and results suggest that teacher training is a start to one solution for teachers; however, working collaboratively with colleagues is a resource and an opportunity that teachers do not always see as important.
As a future administrator and leader, action research was implemented in the areas of collaborative planning, implementation, and evaluation of co-creation around student academic and behavior needs and in the development of Individualized Educational Plans (IEP’s). Based on educational experience, implementing co-creation within the collaborative processes can help sustain individual reflection and development by providing supportive learning environments for all stakeholders to facilitate resilience, inspiration, and success for teachers.
This action research reported the challenges found around collaboration; however, by implementing this research developed shared knowledge from staff willing to improve current practices established. By offering colleagues the opportunity to share information in return, a sense of community was formed. Despite the fact that the change is not complete, these findings demonstrate that successful change requires three things: the right people leading the change effort, a strong connection with the organization’s values, and a consistent process that allows for change to succeed. Personally, I am a constructivist or in other words, I create new knowledge from experience. Kotter (2012) explained the systematic method for completing and organizing a change journey which will achieve successful program change by considering the eight steps. As a constructivist, Kotter’s Change Model combined with action research may be another method of determining the impact of implementing change. Personally, I feel change can be difficult based on one’s direction. Although completing action research was exciting, I had to transition to scaling back on outlines of information needed for this type of research. Thus, completing this project for service learning for change, personally was necessary.
Recommendations
Through action research, various methods can be used to provide practical recommendations for public education. The findings of this research identified co-creation’s impact on communication and its effect on collaboration in a profound way. In order to overcome the challenges associated with the impact of co-creation on collaboration, the following recommendations may be helpful: reinventing the collaboration model, developing professional skills around co-creation, and providing adequate time for employees.
Reinvent the collaboration model. Leaders who are implementing changes, in general, have two ways that were attempted to gain support. There was the traditional approach, where teachers had no choice, and the second involved selling benefits to teachers. The stakeholders noted that the only way to fully implement a new scope to include co-creation is to allow time to pass with it being utilized, and to have a section of the staff invested enough in the change that they motivate the others to continue. In addition, administrative staff participation in the implementation of any cultural shift is necessary due to observing only pieces that the staff want them to see.
Professional development around co-creation. Data from the action research revealed reasons for unsuccessful collaboration among general and special education teachers. Successful collaborations include team members working together for the best of the students. Data revealed in the past that some of the reasons for collaboration being unsuccessful was due to the team members not being on the same page and being team players. A professionally developed approach to co-creation would help people develop background knowledge to enhance collaboration as opposed to seeing it as a chore due to the attitudes some people occasionally bring to the collaborative meetings.
Staff need adequate time. Educators could improve the way they were teaching students by implementing co-creation in collaboration between general and special education teachers. Staff must also be given time to form a partnership. Both teachers must come to a mutual agreement and make decisions as a team. The development of such a relationship can lead to a greater degree of success for students. By providing sufficient time for collaboration, all stakeholders can share what is happening in the classroom and what is working well for the students. During these conversations, the special education teachers have the opportunity to share what they were working on and what was working for them. In essence, teachers share ideas with each other and could use them to enhance each other’s own teaching methods.
Summary
The impact of co-creation on fostering collaboration between general and special education teams has not only benefits in supporting staff in developing quality Individualized Education Plans but providing the opportunity for building capacity in teachers around the world of special education. By allowing teachers to co-create and collaborate, instruction will not only improve but also support all learners without and with a disability. Lastly, co-creation allows general and special education teachers to develop relationships that may not have existed previously.
References
Able, H., Sreckovic, M. A., Schultz, T. R., Garwood, J. D., and Sherman, J. (2015). Views from the trenches. Teach. Edu. Spec. Edu. 38 (1), 44–57. doi:10.1177/0888406414558096 Argyle, M.: Bodily Communication. 2nd ed. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd, (1988)
Berry, G. R. (2011a). A cross-disciplinary literature review: Examining trust on virtual teams. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 24(3), 9-28. doi:10.1002/piq.20016
Bovill, C., and C. Woolmer. (2019). “How conceptualizations of curriculum in higher education influence student-staff co-creation in and of the curriculum.” Higher Education 78: 407–422. doi:10.1007/s10734-018-0349-8.
Calegari, M. F., Sibley, R. E., & Turner, M. E. (2015). A roadmap for using Kotter’s organizational change model to build faculty engagement in accreditation. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 19(3), 31-43. Retrieved from alliedacademies.org/academy-of-educational-leadership-journal/
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology: Harvard Business Press.
Coogan, T. A., & Graham, C. L. (2013). Creating the optimum classroom environment in counselor education using group leadership skills. In counselor education faculty publications. Paper 21. Available at: vc.bridgew.edu/couns_ed_fac/21
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, W.J. (2007). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall.
Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darbi, W. P. K. (2012). Of mission and vision statements and their potential impact on employee behavior and attitudes. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(14), 95–110. Retrieved from www.ijbssnet.com.
Englander, M. (2012). The interview: Data collection in descriptive phenomenological human scientific research. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 43(1), 13-35. doi:10.1163/156916212X632943.
Frost and Sullivan (2006): Meetings around the world: The impact of collaboration on business performance. Technical report, Frost and Sullivan, Verizon Business and Microsoft, www.frost.com, 2006.
Fullan, M. (2013). Motion leadership in action. Thousand Oak, CA: Corwin. Toronto, Ontario, Principals’ Council.
Gajda, R. (2004). Utilizing collaboration theory to evaluate strategic alliances. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(1), 65-77.
Goddard, Y. L., & Goddard, R. D. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teacher College Record, 109(4), pp. 877-896.
Gregory, G.H., & Kuzmich, L. (2007). Teacher teams that get results: 61 strategies for sustaining and renewing professional learning communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gurley, D. K., Peters, G. B., Collins, L., & Fifolt, M. (2015). Mission, vision, values, and goals: An exploration of key organizational statements and daily practice in schools. Journal of
Educational Change, 16(2), 217–242. doi.org/10.1007/s10833-014-9229-x
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Heck, R., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school Improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational
Research Journal, 46, 659–689. doi.org/10.3102/0002831209340042.
Hoyer, W.D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M. and Singh, S.S. (2010). Consumer co-creation in new product development. Journal of service research, 13(3), 283 – 296. Doi: 10.1177/1094670510375604.
Hughes, M. (2016). Leading changes: Why transformation explanations fail. Leadership, 12, 449-469. doi:10.1177/1742715015571393.
Jones, M. L. (2009). A study of novice special educators’ views of evidence-based practices. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32(2), 101-120. doi.org/10.1177/0888406409333777.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Shuh, J.H. & Whitt, E.J. (2010). Student success in college, creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Lee, D. (2004). Sense of co-accomplishment in collaborative work as a threshold in establishing a sense of community in an online course. The University of Texas at Austin.
Ling, T. (2000). Unpacking partnership: the case of health care. In J. Clarke, S. Gerwirtz & E.
McLaughin (Eds.), New managerialism, new welfare (pp. 82–101). London: Sage.
Manen, M. van. (1997). From meaning to method. Qualitative Health Research, 7(3), 345–369. doi.org/10.1177/104973239700700303
Mattessich, Paul W., Murray-Close, M., & Monsey, B. R. (2001). Collaboration: What makes it work (2nd ed). St.Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Mulholland, M., and O’Connor, U. (2016). Collaborative classroom practice for inclusion: perspectives of classroom teachers and learning support/resource teachers. Int. J. inclusive Educ. 20 (10), 1070–1083. doi:10.1080/13603116.2016.1145266
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pollack, J., & Pollack, R. (2015). Using Kotter’s eight stage process to manage an organizational change program: Presentation and practice. Systematic Practice and Action Research, 28(1), 51-66. doi:10.1007/s11213-014-9317-0
Powell, J. J. W. (2020) ‘Comparative education in an age of competition and collaboration’,
Comparative Education, 56/1: 57–78. DOI: 10.1080/03050 068.2019.1701248
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5-14.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research (3rd ed). New York: Teachers College Press.
Smith, S. C., & Scott, J. J. (1990). The collaborative school: A work environment for effective instruction. Eugene, OR: Clearinghouse on Educational Management, University of Oregon.
Thayer-Bacon, B., Brown, S. (1995). What “collaboration” means: Etho cultural diversity’s impact. American Secondary Education, 1-15.
Williams, M.L.(2010). Teacher collaboration as professional development in a large, suburban high school. College of Education and Human Sciences. Retrieved on December 17, 2014 from: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsdiss.
About the Author
Dr. Deborah Boldt is an Iowa-based researcher with 30 years of experience in educational leadership, disability, and special education services. To assist in improving mental health, Dr. Boldt has a strong background in autism and social emotional learning. She has published prior articles focusing on inclusion and least restrictive environments. Dr. Boldt earned her Ph.D. at Drake University in Des Moines and completed coursework in K-12 Educational Leadership in Cedar Falls, Iowa. Currently, Dr. Boldt is working on preliminary research into neurological disabilities that affect cognitive function and how each neurological disorder, depending on severity, impacts classroom learning. In addition to researching disabilities and social emotional learning, Dr. Boldt writes educational grants to support schools in obtaining additional funding in areas of most need.
