MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF COLLABORATION by Mike Petersen Bachelor of Education, University of the Fraser Valley, 2017 Bachelor of Arts, University of the Fraser Valley, 2015 MAJOR PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION (EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND MENTORSHIP) In the Teacher Education Department © Mike Petersen 2023 UNIVERSITY OF THE FRASER VALLEY 2023 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. ii Approval Name: Mike Petersen Degree: Master of Education (Educational Leadership and Mentorship) Title: Middle School Teachers’ Perception of Collaboration Examining Committee: Name: Dr. Joanne Robertson MEd Chair or Designate, Teacher Education Department ____________________________________________________________ Name: Dr. Sheryl MacMath Senior Supervisor Department Head, Teacher Education Department ____________________________________________________________ Name: Dr. Chris Campbell Second Reader University of the Fraser Valley ____________________________________________________________ Date Defended/Approved: June 13, 2023 iii Abstract This research seeks to understand middle school teachers’ perceptions of a prescribed collaboration implemented by a school district. Teacher Team Time (TTT) was five years into implementation, providing middle school teachers with mandated collaboration time twice a week, using teams of teachers to support diverse learners’ needs. This study uses phenomenology to interview four participants at the same school about their experiences with TTT. Transcripts from interviews were analyzed using a descriptive coding process and these conversations revealed that there were limited collaborative opportunities prior to TTT, with many teachers collaborating on their own time. This research suggests that teachers view prescribed collaboration in a positive light with an understanding of what makes collaborative conversations successful. Four key considerations to guide prescribed collaboration are discussed: time, compatibility, trust, and autonomy. Recommendations include making sure: (a) school leaders ensure time is carved out for teachers to collaborate, (b) there is a balance of direction from administration and teacher autonomy, (c) connection-building time is recognized as vital to building trust within a group, and (d) administrators and lead teachers have the potential to make connections between collaborative groups at various school sites. Keywords: teacher collaboration, teacher team time, prescribed collaboration, phenomenology iv Acknowledgments I was not alone on this journey, and I owe thanks to the many people that have supported me along the way. I am grateful for my supervisor, Sheryl MacMath. Your guidance made this project doable and helped guide me to see myself as a researcher. I appreciate your expertise and feedback as I navigated challenges and successes. I would like to express thanks to other MEd students in our cohort. The feeling of togetherness and community made this program truly special. Specifically, I appreciate my ‘Car Pool Party’ group. Not only for the depth of our conversations while commuting but for our ability to find humor when most needed. This research would not have been possible without participants. I thank you for giving up time from your busy schedules and your vulnerability in reflecting upon your experiences. I hope that your contributions help push forward collaborative conversations and that colleagues can build on the great collaborative practices that you shared. To my friends, I appreciate you for being understanding through this process. I look forward to many tee times and ice sessions in the near future. Finally, I am thankful for the love and support from my family. Jessica, you have heard me ramble on about this project more than anyone. Thank you for always listening and encouraging me. Mom and Dad, you have always pushed me to reach for my goals and provided the tools to be successful. I feel very fortunate to be surrounded by so many positive influences. v Dedication I would like to dedicate this project to my mom. You have impacted countless students during your teaching career and actively advocated for all learners. Your passion and commitment to the field of education inspires me to be the best educator I can be. I look up to you as a role model and hope I can follow in your footsteps as a leader of positive change. While I am largely known as Shawna’s son in district introductions, I hope one day colleagues may recognize you as Mike’s mom. vi Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................. iii Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................ iv Dedication .......................................................................................................................... v List of Figures ................................................................................................................... ix Acronyms ........................................................................................................................... x Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Research Inquiry ....................................................................................................................... 3 Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 4 Defining Teacher Collaboration ............................................................................................... 4 Benefits of Teacher Collaboration ........................................................................................... 5 Creating the Conditions for Teacher Collaboration .............................................................. 7 Time ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Collaborative Relationships .................................................................................................... 8 Teacher Driven Collaboration ............................................................................................... 10 Gaps in Research ..................................................................................................................... 11 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 12 Method ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Bracketing ............................................................................................................................. 14 Data Sources.......................................................................................................................... 15 Data Tools ............................................................................................................................. 16 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 17 Managing Bias ...................................................................................................................... 18 vii Strength of Study................................................................................................................... 19 Results .............................................................................................................................. 19 Defining Collaboration ............................................................................................................ 21 Pre-TTT .................................................................................................................................... 21 Challenging Collaborative Experiences ................................................................................ 22 Effective Collaborative Experiences ..................................................................................... 23 Experience of TTT ................................................................................................................... 24 Time ...................................................................................................................................... 25 Vision .................................................................................................................................... 25 Group Size............................................................................................................................. 27 Compatibility......................................................................................................................... 28 Potential of TTT ...................................................................................................................... 28 Structures to Keep ................................................................................................................. 29 Structures to Change ............................................................................................................. 30 New Opportunities ................................................................................................................ 30 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 31 Four Pillars of Prescribed Teacher Collaboration ............................................................... 32 Time ...................................................................................................................................... 32 Compatibility......................................................................................................................... 33 Trust ...................................................................................................................................... 34 Teacher Autonomy ................................................................................................................ 35 Recommendations.................................................................................................................... 36 Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 38 My Takeaway .................................................................................................................. 39 viii References ........................................................................................................................ 41 Appendix A ...................................................................................................................... 44 Appendix B ...................................................................................................................... 45 ix List of Figures i. Identified Themes and Codes p.20 x Acronyms i. TTT: Teacher Team Time ii. CI: Collaborative Inquiry 1 Introduction Teaching runs in my family. My mom worked as a teacher and principal for over 30 years, while my dad had been involved in mentorship programs for BC Hydro and trained lineman apprentices around the province. From my earliest memories of school, I remember sitting in my mom’s classroom after students had left and overheard conversations between teachers. To a younger me, these informal conversations seemed to drone on, yet to my mom and her colleagues, it made them feel connected in what could be a lonely profession. Not surprisingly, I too entered the field of education. The passion for aiding others to reach their full potential was passed to me. In my sixth year of teaching, the notion that I could make a positive difference in the lives of others had ignited a fire in me. On my educational journey, one mentor’s words shaped my view towards learning by stating: “If I am not having fun, the students are not having fun. If the students are not having fun, they are not engaged. If the students are not engaged, they are not learning.” Each day I strove towards making learning fun. This kept me connected to my students and always pushed me towards improving my teaching practice. On those days when not much fun was happening within the four walls of the classroom, an experience all educators have felt, I looked towards colleagues. Much like the conversations I once listened to while playing Lego in my mom’s classroom, these now helped me on those challenging days. Hallway chats with colleagues provided humour, support, and encouragement on my journey as a teacher. I had taught sixth grade in three different buildings and had been fortunate to have hallway chats with a variety of colleagues. While early in my career, I quickly jumped at leadership opportunities. At the middle school level, I served as a team leader for three unique 2 teams of teachers. At the district level, I served a one-year secondment as a curriculum-helping teacher. These experiences shifted my perspective past the walls of my classroom and into the larger picture of our education system. Of the many learnings that had stretched my thoughts, a key takeaway had been about time. Teachers lacked time: time to plan, time to research, time to assess, time to implement, time to reflect, and time to share with colleagues. Purpose My school district, located in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, realigned grades in 2018. They sought to restructure the middle school model by moving grade six up to middle school and moving grade nine up to high school. As part of the new model, the school district identified four key pillars to support young adolescent learners: Teaming, Exploratory, Advisory, and Collaboration. To achieve goals for teaming and collaborating, Teacher Team Time (TTT) was built into the timetable, setting aside two hours a week for teachers to meet in teaching teams and grade-wide teaching groups. Prior to the shift towards a new model, dedicated collaboration occurred in varying degrees. Time was a finite resource for all educators. With the increasing demands of the classroom, conversing with colleagues had often been stifled. From my work with the school district, I could see pockets of greatness and ideas worth sharing. Unfortunately, many educators seemed to have privatized their teaching practice. Teachers worked hard to create well-thoughtout curriculum but were not in the position to share their greatness with colleagues. From my varied experiences, I saw the value of building a collaborative culture amongst school staff and the benefits it had on students, teachers, and the institution. The introduction of TTT sought to solve the problem of sporadic collaboration and had potential to create meaningful dialogue among teachers. 3 Each school site in the district chose how to implement TTT. The administration at my school chose to structure one TTT session during the week with a grade-wide grouping and one TTT session working with a teaching partner. This aimed to balance the pillars of teaming and collaboration. Administration identified discussion norms and purpose for TTT but gave teachers autonomy on the specifics on using this collaboration time. Teachers met the TTT structure with mixed reactions that seemed to result in varying degrees of collaboration. This school was operating in its first year and teachers carried with them different perceptions of TTT. Some colleagues were moving down from a high school setting with no built-in collaboration time, while others had been teaching at different middle school sites with differing collaborative experiences. I wondered about this mixed reaction. Research Inquiry As someone who had benefited from routinely checking in with the teacher next door on my own time, I was curious how structured time, set up by the school district, had affected teachers. TTT provided middle school teachers with the opportunity to tackle problems of practice, develop curriculum, transfer good teaching practices, and give space to connect with different colleagues. In this study, I decided to interview middle school teachers to gain insight into their perceptions of TTT. Five years into the implementation of this collaborative structure, was it receiving a passing grade? In order to investigate TTT, I first review relevant research and then provide a detailed overview of how I conducted my inquiry. I then report what I heard from colleagues, followed by a discussion of how these results connect to the field and my own actions as a middle school educator. 4 Literature Review Teacher collaboration is a well-researched topic in the field of education. As Hargraves and O’Connor (2018) point out, there is a broad consensus on the benefits of collaboration such that “the big questions are no longer about whether teachers should collaborate… but rather how and how well” (p. 3-4) teachers collaborate. The literature reviewed outlines how to define collaboration; the benefits of teacher collaboration for students, teachers, and schools; and the conditions required for meaningful collaborative conversations. Defining Teacher Collaboration Teacher collaboration can be defined as two or more individuals working and learning together to achieve common goals (Adams et al., 2019; Patrick, 2022; Tallman, 2021). It is a process that enables teachers to work together to analyze and improve their practice (Tallman, 2021). Furthermore, Hargraves and O’Connor (2018) suggest that collaboration offers teachers the “implementation of innovation and change” (p. 3). DuFour (2004) cautions against heavy usage of the term collaboration as it has been used to “describe every imaginable combination of individuals with an interest in education” (p. 4). In a literature review of 82 sources, Vangrieken et al. (2015) attempts to provide an overview of the terminology used to describe collaboration. They report that "various, often ill-defined, terms were used. It was often unclear whether different terms referred to different or the same kinds of collaboration and they were often used interchangeably" (p. 21). Their refined definition states that collaboration is a “joint interaction in the group in all activities that are needed to perform a shared task” (p. 23). The specificity of this definition is helpful for the context of this paper as it connects to the TTT structure. Under the umbrella of this term, Vangrieken et al. recognize that there are changeable collaborative concepts that vary in depth. Some of the models used to 5 describe this phenomenon are: “Teacher teams, teacher collaboration, professional (learning) communities, (teacher) learning communities, (teacher) learning teams, etc.” (p. 23). Kuh (2016) states that this is due to districts, schools, and teachers complying with government policy initiatives on collaboration. Despite the differences in defining collaboration, much of the literature overlaps in identifying benefits. Benefits of Teacher Collaboration A core benefit of collaboration identified in the literature is the positive impact it can have on student learning (Goddard et al., 2015; Kuh, 2016; Szcsesiul and Huizenga, 2014; Vangrieken et al., 2015). When teachers join in a conversation about their students, they engage in an ongoing cycle of questioning, analyzing, and improving their teaching practice (DuFour, 2004). DuFour points to many schools that are stuck in “Data Rich, Information Poor (DRIP)” (p. 10) environments: teachers do not lack data on their students but are unsure of strategies for addressing student needs. Collaboration can enable teachers to develop targeted strategies based on their students' data (Goddard et al., 2015; Vangrieken et al., 2015). By bringing together different voices during collaboration, teachers can move beyond areas of their own expertise and be exposed to diverse teaching strategies (Tallman, 2021). As a result, this can lead “to higher levels of student achievement” (p. 9). Vangrieken et al. (2015) argue that there are many benefits to collaboration beyond student achievement, stating that “teachers profit the most from collaboration” (p. 35). One perceived benefit is the direct impact of collaboration on improving teaching practice (DeLuca et al. 2017; Goddard et al., 2015; Kelly & Cherkowski, 2015; Tallman, 2021). DeLuca et al. (2017) examine teachers’ perspectives using a Collaborative Inquiry (CI) model. Participants in the study share that CI, “provoked teacher reflection leading to new understandings and responsive 6 classroom actions” (p. 67). Tallman (2021) echoes these thoughts in her study of teachers at a Jewish private school stating, “collaborative group learning is the most powerful form of professional development” (p. 220). Feelings of self-efficacy in both studies appears boosted when student achievement scores increased (Tallman, 2021). Seeing the hard work payoff can be reaffirming for teachers, who become more committed to the collaborative culture. Not only does teaching practice potentially improve with increased collaboration, but teachers may also perceive a benefit on a personal level. In a career that can be incredibly isolating, collaboration can bond teachers together (Adams et al., 2019; Kelly & Cherkowski, 2015; Kuh, 2016; Tallman, 2021; Vangrieken, 2015). Tallman (2021) reports that collaboration appears to break down feelings of isolation and build community for school staff. This can lead to positive reports on job satisfaction and decreased teacher burnout. Vangrieken et al. (2020) discuss similar results, identifying benefits as increased motivation, decreased workload, increased morale, greater efficacy, increased communication, improved technology skills, and reduced isolation. The health of schools and school districts may also be impacted by collaboration. A collaborative culture has the potential to strengthen the school as a whole, building morale amongst teachers and principals (DuFour, 2004; Tallman, 2021). Through their literature review of 82 empirical studies on collaboration, Vangrieken et al. (2015) summarize that when schools underwent collaborative changes, the school climate could become more receptive of innovation, equity, inquiry, and a greater focus on meeting the needs of students (see Table 4 on p. 28 for specific studies). Much has been written about how students, teachers, and schools as a system can benefit from collaboration. Vangrieken et al. (2015) goes as far to say that, “there is a definite need for 7 teachers to collaborate; not collaborating is no longer an option” (p. 36). As Hargraves and O’Connor (2018) see the benefits of collaboration as “irrefutable” (p. 3), this begs the question: what conditions are impactful for effective teacher collaboration? Creating the Conditions for Teacher Collaboration Katz et al. (2018) believe that “together is better” is an oversimplification of collaborative practices. Putting people together is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for the benefits of collaboration to be present. Collaborative structures are needed to promote “analysis, debate, and challenge” (p. 74) to push teachers into areas of deeper understanding for improvement. Time, collaborative relationships, and teacher-driven collaboration are areas that stood out in the literature surveyed. Time The need to create time for collaboration has been widely identified in the literature as critical (DeLuca et al., 2017; Kelly & Cherkowski, 2015; Kuh, 2016; Patrick, 2022; Szczesiul and Huizenga, 2014; Vangrieken et al., 2015). In a quantitative study, DeLuca et al. (2017) collected data from 292 elementary teachers in Ontario. For five years, the province systematically supported CI as a professional learning model and teachers were asked to share about the impact and functionality of it. The study reports that release time to collaborate with peers was one of the most helpful structures and “it is evident that there is value in continuing to pursue Collaborative Inquiry” (p. 77). The use of time can give teachers the “time and space to try out new things in the classroom and constantly adapt their practices to meet the everchanging needs of their students” (Kelly & Cherkowksi, 2015, p. 16). Unfortunately for many teachers, there is a lack of time dedicated to collaboration (Kelly & Cherkowski, 2015; Kuh, 2016; Szczesiul & Huizenga, 2014; Vangrieken et al., 2015). 8 In a statewide study of teachers across Tennessee, Patrick (2022) surveyed teachers to report on collaborative learning opportunities and “how these opportunities are distributed across and within schools” (p. 638). This quantitative study shared that one-third of teachers reported, “insufficient collaborative planning time in their school” (p. 666). Patrick connected planning time with the frequency teachers reported engaging in collaboration. Similarly, Vangrieken et al. (2015) determined that one of “the most hindering structural characteristics are a lack of time” (p. 33). Patrick (2022) suggests that leaders play a vital role in creating time for their staff. They express that leaders “may need additional staff to cover the other responsibilities (e.g., lunch duty, recess, enrichment activities) so that teachers can engage in collaborative learning opportunities” (p. 666). Literature highlights the importance of administrators giving time for their staff to collaborate regularly (DeLuca et al., 2017; Katz et al., 2017; Patrick, 2022; Szczesiul & Huizenga, 2014; Vangrieken et al., 2015). While there may be a: “desire for quick results, administrators and participating teachers themselves need to be prepared to invest the time” (DeLuca et al., 2017, p. 72). However, giving time to collaborate, "this alone does not guarantee that their efforts will result in instructional improvements" (Szczesiul and Huizenga, 2014, p. 177). A healthy relationship with colleagues also plays a role in collaboration. Collaborative Relationships If collaborative conversations strive to move into a space of “analysis, debate, and challenge” (Katz et al., 2018, p. 74), researchers believe trust and safety must be developed by a group (Adams et al., 2019; DeLuca et al., 2017; Hargraves & O’Connor, 2018; Kelly & Cherkowski, 2015; Kuh, 2016; Tallman, 2021; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Through interviews with four elementary school teachers, Kuh (2016) examined the experiences of a Critical Friend 9 Group. In the study, teachers reported how the group became an emotional support system. Conversations reached a personal level with one participant sharing, “I look at them not just as colleagues, but as friends. They want me to be successful – that confidence they have in me, I need that” (p. 301). Hargraves and O’Connor (2018) comment on this unique relationship between colleagues: Families are known. Birthdays are remembered. Sickness and 'off days' are excused. Sometimes teachers socialize together. They also share ideas, narratives, and problems. Collaborative professionalism goes further than this though. Talk is also the work. Difficult conversations can be had and are actively instigated where they are justified. Feedback is honest. You can tell somebody when they have goofed up. Discussion develops the back-and-forth quality of genuine dialogue, of valued differences of opinion about ideas, the merit of different curriculum materials, or the meaning of students’ challenging behaviour. (p. 114) This friendship between colleagues can build a base of trust and may enable conversations to reach new territories (Adams et al., 2019; DeLuca et al., 2017; Hargraves & O’Connor, 2018; Kelly & Cherkowski, 2015; Kuh, 2016; Tallman, 2021; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Tallman (2021) speaks to the importance of teachers feeling included in a group. Through an interpretative, phenomenological analysis, Tallman asks five eighth-grade teachers to share about their experiences in an instructional collaborative. Participants in the study share that trust is a key ingredient to feelings of inclusion. This “opened up space for vulnerability and risktaking which in turn developed a sense of trust which led to feelings of inclusion” (p. 215). While collaborative relationships can occur organically, over time, literature also discusses the role administration has in boosting closeness amongst a staff (Kelly & Cherkowski, 10 2015; Kuh, 2016; Patrick, 2022; Szczesiul & Huizenga, 2014). Leaders have the potential to create relational trust with and amongst a staff by “demonstrating competence (e.g., being visible and actively engaged in classrooms), emphasizing respect, and maintaining consistent expectations” (Patrick, 2022, p. 666). It is not simply enough to create the time for teachers to meet but assist in making connections between staff. Kuh (2016) mentions that administrationled “team-building activities, especially for newly formed groups, may be used to bond participants and foster trust” (p. 295). An additional way for administrators to positively influence collaborative connections is the sharing of responsibility with their staff. Teacher Driven Collaboration Top-down, hierarchical approaches to teacher collaboration have been critiqued widely in literature (Adams et al., 2019; DeLuca et al., 2017; Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2019; Patrick, 2022; Szczesiul & Huizenga, 2014; Tallman, 2021; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Patrick (2022) warns that collaborative time can “become oriented towards logistics, compliance, or routines divorced from teachers’ instructional needs” (p. 641). In a survey of teachers across Tennessee, Patrick reported that 41% of activities during the collaborative time were directed by school and district leaders. Teachers shared that this “compliance-oriented” collaboration was significantly less helpful than peers in schools where teachers have greater autonomy over their collaboration (p. 666). Accordingly, much of the literature points to the importance of teacher-driven collaboration to engage in meaningful discussion (Adams et al., 2019; DeLuca et al., 2017; Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2019; Patrick, 2022; Szczesiul & Huizenga, 2014; Tallman, 2021; Vangrieken et al., 2015). In schools with distributed leadership approaches, where “teachers are actively involved in school decision-making and work with leaders to develop shared goals for 11 collaboration, this may be one way to combat overly bureaucratic collaborative structures” (Patrick, 2022, p. 667). Tallman (2021) interviewed teachers who experienced a collaborative group with no lead teacher and no supervisory roles. The participants in the study shared feelings of empowerment, increased feelings of success, and satisfaction with the collaboration. In another study, DeLuca et al. (2017) also reports that teachers who have agency in their CI group reported feeling more useful. Despite these reported benefits of teacher-driven collaboration, Szczesiul and Huizenga (2014) discuss the role administration has to fulfill when working with teachers in developing a collaborative vision. When interviewing a group of teachers from two different schools, Szczesiul and Huizenga reported that all of their participants had a desire “for principals to establish much-needed direction for teacher collaboration” (p. 181). Principals in this study did minimal work to define goals and expectations for collaboration, so many teachers felt isolated in their collaborative teams. In order to create the conditions for teachers to lead informally, Szczesiul and Huizenga encourage “principals to take more initiative in establishing a vision, purpose, and goals for their teachers’ collaborative work” (p. 188). School leaders need to balance supporting collaborative teams without imposing top-down directives on how collaborative time is used. Gaps in Research As Hargraves and O’Connor (2019) states, “how and how well” (p. 4) is an area to which collaborative studies are shifting their focus. Evidence of the benefits of teacher collaboration is expansive (DuFour, 2004; Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2019). In more recent works, leading scholars have started studying the implementation of different models of collaboration (e.g., Professional Learning Communities); however, many of these models are isolated to a group of 12 teachers or an individual school and literature is limited when these models are implemented across many schools or district wide. In their systematic review on collaboration, Vangrieken et al. (2015) states that many articles are unclear in “the degree certain preconditions should be met in order to facilitate teacher collaboration” (p. 36). Conditions of effective teacher collaboration appears context dependent. In addition, Tallman (2021) asserts that there is “much research on teacher collaboration and the impact of collaborative learning on student learning, but there is little current research on how it benefits the teachers as individuals” (p. 211). I aim to explore the experiences of teachers with a district-wide collaborative structure, five years into implementation. I now focus on how I went about investigating my research question. Methodology In order to better understand teachers’ experiences of TTT, I approached my inquiry through a constructivist paradigm. Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) describe a constructivist paradigm as an “understanding or meaning of a phenomenon, formed through participants and their subjective views” (p. 22). A constructivist worldview believes in multiple realities. I approached my research using a bottom-up perspective, beginning with participants speaking of their experiences and then identifying patterns that led to themes. Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) state that “research is shaped from the bottom-up, from individual perspectives to broad patterns and, ultimately, to theory” (p. 22). In my experience of working closely with teachers, I saw a wide range of how colleagues approached changes to educational structures. Given this wide range of experiences, I used a qualitative lens to reflect teacher experiences of collaboration. Yilmaz (2013) defines qualitative research as an “emergent inductive, interpretive and naturalistic approach to the study of people, 13 cases, phenomena, social situations and processes in their natural settings in order to reveal in descriptive terms the meanings that people attach to their experiences of the world” (p. 312). Denzin and Lincoln (2000) have a more straightforward definition of qualitative research, stating that it “is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world” (p. 3). I hoped to make the phenomenon around me visible. I saw the complexity of this social phenomena and recognized that experiences could not be reduced to isolated variables (Yilmaz, 2013). I understood that there were multiple realities of how teachers experienced changes to the middle school structure. This ontological view was reflected in the research by valuing the exploration of different perspectives of participants in the study. This involved me connecting with multiple participants to learn their stories. Yilmaz (2013) identifies quotes and themes in the words of participants as evidence of different perspectives. It was important for me to bridge a connection between researcher and participant to gain insight into their experiences. To support this, I relied on fostering a relationship with participants so they would open themselves and share how collaboration had impacted their teaching practice. Creswell and Poth (2017) describe the importance of having the researcher remain close with participants to enable greater trust. When there is trust between participants and researcher, it is hoped that participants will be more willing to share their honest perceptions and experiences. Method To conduct my qualitative research, I used a phenomenological study. This method of research gathers insight “from several individuals of their lived experience of a concept or phenomenon” (Creswell & Poth, 2017, p. 75). Creswell and Poth describe phenomenology as the inquirer collecting data from the persons who have experienced the phenomenon to determine the essence of the experience for all individuals. In this study, I met with teachers who had lived 14 experience with the TTT. Using a phenomenological study, I was not attempting to find the answers. Rather, I hoped to learn what participants experienced with TTT and understand how they experienced levels of collaboration. To raise participant voices, I needed to be aware of my own biases. Bracketing Approaching my axiology through a constructivist lens, I assumed that researchers carry their own values and bias (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Yilmaz, 2013). I recognized that I had a bias that I carried about my own experiences with teacher collaboration. Previously, I had worked in a district-level position where I experienced varying degrees of teacher engagement with collaboration. Some school settings had an engrained culture of collaboration, with classroom doors open to the transfer of knowledge. I had been a part of TTT sessions that mapped out cross-curricular units and fostered the transfer of good teaching practice. Unfortunately, other sites had school staff intimidated by the de-privatization of teaching practice and resistant to any top-down collaborative experiences. I had participated in directionless TTT sessions. Teachers filled their time with complaints about who had it worse with little focus on potential solutions. While I believed the minutes carved out for TTT by the school district had been a step in the right direction, it had been a far under-utilized chunk of time. I believed that TTT had the potential to be extremely beneficial for the teachers involved. As I conducted this phenomenological study, bracketing was an essential step to curb my own bias (Creswell & Poth, 2017). Creswell and Poth suggest that the researcher brackets themselves out of the study so that the researcher can focus on the experience of the participants. While bracketing would not completely remove my own bias, it did help me approach this study with a fresh lens, so as to keep the stories of participants, the main data source, at the forefront. 15 Data Sources This research took place in a school district that had experienced rapid population growth. As a result, the school district built new schools and expanded the current number of buildings. Research for this study occurred at a school that opened in the Fall of 2022. As a new building, experienced teachers from around the district jumped at the opportunity to work where there were opportunities to establish a strong school culture from the ground up. Teachers, therefore, brought with them varying experiences of teacher collaboration. While I initially wanted to interview teachers from across the district, I found that teachers at this school site each brought with them unique experiences with TTT. I took ethical considerations when I selected my school site as a host for research. Due to the limited sample size, there was a slight possibility that teacher identity could be exposed. Also, there was a possibility that the sharing of negative collaborative experiences could cause some discomfort. Both concerns were outlined to participants in a letter of informed consent prior to the study. The benefit of conducting this study at my school site was my close relationships with the participants. Relationships, a key facet of a phenomenological study (Creswell & Poth, 2017), created an environment where participants could be vulnerable and open to sharing their experiences. To gather participants for the study, I was granted permission from the local school board and consent from the University of the Fraser Valley’s Human Research Ethics Board (see Appendix A). Creswell and Poth (2017) suggest using purposeful sampling by intentionally selecting a group of people “that can best inform the researcher about the research problem under examination” (p. 257). Participants were intentionally selected using the following criteria: (a) currently working at this specific middle school, and (b) having at least two years of experience 16 with TTT. I extended an invitation email to colleagues at my middle school site. The first four colleagues that responded to this emailed invitation and met the criteria were selected to be in the study. Prior to the interview, participants provided informed consent via email and in person. I chose not to disclose the teaching assignments and details of the participants. Due to the limited sample size, anonymity concerns had to be prioritized by not sharing the grade level of each participant and having each participant choose a pseudonym. It was important to maintain as much anonymity as possible to honour participants’ willingness to share. Data Tools Recognizing that a phenomenological study “typically involves interviewing individuals who have experienced the phenomenon,” (Creswell & Poth, 2017, p. 77). I connected with middle school colleagues to collect the varying experiences of teachers. Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) state that “to develop a deep understanding of the phenomenon, the researcher collects extensive data from only a few individuals because more individuals participating in a study means the researcher will obtain less depth from each participant” (p. 30). It was important for me to elevate a few individual voices of their experience with TTT. Prior to the interview, participants were given a choice of conducting the conversation on or off the school site. A copy of the questions (see Appendix B) was emailed to participants before the interview so they could reflect on their collaborative experiences. Conversations were recorded digitally through my personal cell phone, using the application Otter.ai. Following the interview, I downloaded the written transcription of the conversation to Microsoft Word and deleted the file from the Otter.ai application. I checked the transcript for accuracy, added pseudonyms, and cleaned the transcript of “umms” and “ahhs.” The participants were then emailed the transcripts and given one week to alter, add, or change any of their responses. The 17 transcripts were then finalized, and all previous data was destroyed. I then moved into identifying codes and establishing themes from the data sources. Data Analysis Saldana (2011) speaks to the importance of analyzing data throughout qualitative research: “You reflect on and analyze the data as you gather them and proceed through the project” (p. 90). To help me organize my thoughts during the interview process, I recorded notes, questions, and wonders in a research journal. I made this process transparent to participants and explained the research journal to ease any worries about the writing of notes. My research journal served as a reminder of my initial thoughts as I worked to develop my codes later in the process. I was mindful of prematurely clustering ideas and attempted to check myself for potential bias. By reading and re-reading the transcripts, I sought to become intimately familiar with the data. I shared my initial findings with my supervisor to gain her insight and check my own bias. Coding is a process in qualitative research that makes meaning from transcript data. Saldana (2011) defines coding as, “a word or short phrase that symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute for a portion of language-based or visual data” (p. 95-96). The coding process I followed involved two cycles. In my first cycle, I used descriptive coding. Descriptive codes “are primarily nouns that simply summarize the topic of datum” (Saldana, 2011, p. 104). Saldana describes this type of coding as useful when using interview transcripts as it sets up researchers for further analytic work. I used an Excel spreadsheet to help organize my coding. The spreadsheet was organized into participants, page numbers, quotes, and codes. Excel was very helpful during my analysis as I could easily sort my data. Using the codes I organized into my spreadsheet, I completed the 18 second cycle of coding by grouping the codes into themes. A theme is defined as “extended phrases that symbolically represent the manifest (apparent) and latent (underlying) meanings of data” (Saldana, 2011, p. 108). I identified four different themes from my coding. As a new researcher, I relied on my supervisor for feedback on my data and codes before I wrote my findings for the study. This was one aspect related to my management of bias. Managing Bias To keep my own bias in check, bracketing occurred during data collection and data analysis. I took color-coded notes of assumptions or biases I held in my field journal. Prior to the interview process, I made intentions clear to participants through the informed letter of consent. I sent the interview questions ahead of time to be transparent with participants and gave time for thoughtful responses. During the interview, I kept to my questions to help keep the conversation from wandering or leading participants in a certain direction (Miles et al., 2014). Following the interview, participants gave feedback by reviewing the transcripts, so they felt their meaning and intent were clearly communicated. I additionally kept my own bias in check by asking participants to review the codes and themes. Miles et al. (2014) speak to the importance of sharing field notes with a colleague, as other researchers are quick “to see where and how you are being misled or co-opted” (p. 298). My supervisor and second reader assisted in keeping my biases in check. Both reviewed and gave feedback on my interpretations of coding and themes. My supervisor was extremely helpful during the coding process as I had limited experience in identifying codes and themes from a conversation. I must also recognize the limitations of the small scale of this study. The themes that emerged were not reflective of the views and attitudes of all teachers toward TTT. Teachers that 19 engaged as participants in this research were not reflective of the diversity in the field of education. While I sought to minimize elite bias (Miles et al., 2014), the pool of participants was largely a homogenized group. While I recognize not all teachers had the same outlook toward collaboration, I felt it was important to elevate the stories of those who had experience with TTT. Strength of Study Under the umbrella of a qualitative study, issues of “validity, reliability, and objectivity can be blurred” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 19). Denzin and Lincoln recognize a “triple crisis” (p. 19) model of representation, legitimization, and praxis. The crisis of representation means that I needed to accurately represent my participants’ voices (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). As a phenomenological study, I wanted participants to be part of the research process and I created space for their experiences with the TTT phenomenon. As mentioned previously, participants had the opportunity to check the transcripts and coding to make sure their voices were accurately shared. The crisis of legitimization “involves a serious rethinking of such terms as validity, generalizability, and reliability” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 19). Finally, the crisis of praxis challenges the study to be action-oriented. I hoped that by amplifying the voices of teachers who had experienced TTT, the school district could reflect on the effectiveness of the new middle school model leading to improvements in the administration of TTT. Having reviewed how this study was conducted, I turn my attention to the results that emerged during my analysis. Results The purpose of this phenomenological study was to gain an understanding of teachers’ perceptions of prescribed collaboration implemented by a school district. I was curious about teachers’ collaborative experiences prior to middle school realignment and how prescribed TTT 20 had influenced collaborative conversations. Through textural, “what participants in the study experienced with the phenomenon,” and structural, “descriptions of how the experience happened,” (Saldana, 2011, p. 330) codes, I learned that teachers in this study had a positive view towards TTT and saw potential in this structure moving forward. This section is organized into how participants defined collaboration, their involvement in collaboration prior to TTT, their experience of the TTT structure, and the potential of TTT. Figure 1 Identified Themes and Codes Pre TTT Experience of TTT Potential of TTT •Challenging Collaborative Experiences •collaborating on own time, isolation •Effective Collaborative Experiences •collaborating out of necessity, compatibility, trust •Time •Vision •balance of administration-directed and autonomous collaboration, agenda •Group Size •teaching partner as an effective use of time, larger group meetings were more difficult, value of meeting as a larger group •Compatibility •Structures to Keep •value in time, autonomy •Structures to Change •reallocation when TTT occured, longer amount of time but less frequently 21 Defining Collaboration To develop a shared understanding of collaboration, each participant was asked to define collaboration at the start of the interview. Consistent in each response, participants stated that collaboration was a group getting together and sharing ideas. Lisa and Sharon both spoke about the importance of working with colleagues to support the learners in their classrooms. In his definition, Jon commented on how the collaborative conversation had a direction and worked towards a common goal. Sharon defined collaboration as: Being able to set time for us to sit and chat and share. I share my ideas, share lesson plans, share what is working, share what’s not working, share new ideas, and do book studies. It’s got such a variety of things you can do in there that’s going to help enhance your teaching practice and address the needs of specific students. It is being able to work with other teachers to help with your management. Pre-TTT Teachers in this study discussed their collaborative experiences prior to middle school realignment and the introduction of a prescribed collaboration, TTT. While some examples of effective collaborative experiences were shared, it was largely in pockets and inconsistent in schools. Easily the most discussed item among all four participants prior to TTT was the lack of time. Two themes emerged from participants’ descriptions of collaboration before TTT: challenging collaborative experiences (coded as collaborating on own time and isolation) and effective collaborative experiences (coded as collaborating out of necessity, compatibility, and trust). 22 Challenging Collaborative Experiences Prior to TTT, the structures for collaboration were limited depending on school sites. Not all of the participants had a shared prep block, and many were required to collaborate on their own time, outside of school hours. Jon described potential collaboration time as “before school, after school, lunch times, whatever it happens to be, but it’s definitely on your own time.” Sharon echoed the same response: “All of that was done on our own time; we all stuck around after school for an hour or two.” Due to collaboration occurring on hours outside of the school day, Jon discussed that many teachers were unavailable and missed out: “You’re only going to get the people that have that ability because sometimes it’s not even the people’s choice. It’s the ability they can’t make it, they’ve got commitments outside of school time. They can’t make it work.” Even for teachers willing to collaborate on their own time, finding colleagues to collaborate with was another barrier. Participants spoke to teachers in their building being isolated from colleagues. Lisa expressed the difficulty of new teachers finding colleagues to collaborate with: You needed to kind of know someone in the building. So as a new teacher, if there were friendly people in the building who are willing to collaborate with you, then you were lucky. And I was lucky, I had some that will come across the hallway and say, “we’re working on this, why don’t you come and join us?” But if you didn’t have those people, you’re often by yourself those first couple of years. Amy had connections with colleagues but stuck to collaborating with her friends. Like other participants, she also had observed teachers working isolated in silos. 23 Before the middle school model shift, I don’t think people necessarily collaborated quite as often. I just personally did with friends who were teachers, who I enjoyed. I like to bounce ideas off someone else and come up with something together. But I know that there are a lot of people that just felt like they worked independently and came up with their own lesson plans. Lisa shared that, “at the first middle school, I had a common prep with teachers who had different subject areas but had the same group of students.” Lisa and her teaching partner would use that time to collaborate on the needs of their students but “there wasn’t a lot of crosscurricular collaboration.” Teachers with like subject areas were required to take the initiative on their own time if they wanted to collaborate on planning. Amy felt isolated and that “everyone was in pockets.” While she had the time with her teaching partner, Amy was not able to collaborate in like subject areas. Amy taught all the blocks of one grade level but was not able to connect with teachers of that subject at a different grade level, leaving her feeling isolated from colleagues: “We didn’t collaborate enough to do vertical integration or anything… I did feel like I was a little bit more on my own.” Not all the experiences prior to TTT were negative for the teachers in this study. Many could draw on positive examples of collaborative interactions before prescribed collaboration was introduced to middle school. Effective Collaborative Experiences Of the four participants, Sharon had the most positive experience before TTT. She found herself in a unique situation with a team of teachers willing to collaborate, “we really taught as a team, it was a real team.” Collaborating out of necessity brought the team together: “We looked at the students and we looked at the needs and said this is not good.” Sharon shared that the team 24 worked together to platoon students between teachers to ensure instruction was at their readiness level. “Looking back,” she commented, “those four years were probably my most effective four years of teaching kids.” Compatibility made this group special. We had all been teaching for 10 years and up, and none of us were fresh out of the gate. We all had some experience, with similar management styles. That’s a really huge thing. We also had similar expectations. To help facilitate this, the administration provided small chunks of release time: “We got a lot of support from the administration.” Ultimately, Sharon commented that this was all an investment of their own time and their similar teaching philosophy made it work. In sharing her collaborative success, Lisa also found that compatibility was an important base to have: “We had similar teaching styles, so we knew going into collaboration we were on a similar page.” Jon shared similar sentiments: “You definitely had to be on the same page to make it work.” To further the collaborative relationship, trust between colleagues was vital to reaching deeper conversation. Jon spoke to the importance of being vulnerable around colleagues: “You have to invite people into your world and how you teach. You can’t be insecure about it and you can’t be not willing to do it.” Jon spoke about the cyclical nature of trust and being vulnerable. While participants commented on compatibility and trust, it was isolation and lack of time that hamstrung collaboration. TTT was a structure to give teachers that desired time and break down isolation. Experience of TTT Much of the conversation with participants flowed around their experiences with TTT. Each teacher had varying degrees of positivity towards TTT, and all identified areas that had 25 been challenging with the new structure. Time, group size, vision, and compatibility were the key areas that developed from interviews with participants. Time Time was a stand-alone code. At this middle school, all teachers were required to follow a similar structure for their built-in collaboration time: “The focus of Monday is the whole middle school team time and then you can go to your individual teams or grade alike teams on Tuesday morning” (Jon). Amy and Sharon had previously worked at the middle school level and experienced all five years with TTT. Amy recalled TTT as a space where it encouraged collaboration: “Having that built-in time, it forces people to collaborate.” Jon and Lisa both moved down from high school in the past few years and had less experience with TTT. They approached the additional collaboration time with much more enthusiasm. “It’s been an absolute gift because you get the built-in time that you’re committed to a common goal,” Jon shared. Unanimously, all the participants expressed they did not want the collaboration time taken away. Vision The theme of vision included two codes: balance of administration-directed and autonomous collaboration, and agenda. With an after-school and a before-school session each week, teachers were largely autonomous in how they chose to use their time. As each participant was located at the same school site, they agreed that there had been the right balance of administration-directed and autonomous collaboration. “I appreciated the fact our current administration lets us use that time effectively as we want,” Sharon shared. Jon also appreciated the balanced approach: “I think our administration has done a fantastic job of that compromise between here is some direction, but we are not going to micromanage how you use it.” Amy contributed, “I feel like we have a lot of 26 autonomy, which I appreciate.” Previously at a different school, Sharon experienced frustration in the past with the lack of trust the administration had in its teachers: When it first started, the administration gave us the sheets about recording the meeting and you have to do this…… and, well now you've just loaded another thing onto my workload. I get the accountability piece, but there's only so much you can hold us accountable for. Most of us were just fine. How the administration approached TTT was a structural code, meaning rather than simply describing the phenomenon of TTT, it was a factor that affected collaboration. Some participants shared how it set their collaboration time up for success, while another teacher spoke about how it hindered collaborative conversation; finding the right balance appeared critical to collaborative success. As teachers had the bulk of the say in how they wanted to use the collaboration time at this school, participants expressed the importance of an agenda or direction. Amy found that, “we typically have an agenda and so when you have that, that you’re following minutes, you’re more efficient.” Jon shared about his team mapping out the rest of the term with main topics: “We’ve got frameworks now and that common purpose, which is awesome now that you’ve got a much clearer path.” Because these teachers were at a new school, Lisa expressed some challenges with how the groups wanted to be formed: “One of the challenges right now is knowing whether we should be meeting all together as a multigrade group or just as one grade group, or should we be having a meeting by the subject area that we specialize in.” With the teachers active in the process of how they want to use TTT, participants found they were much more engaged with the time. Part of the school administration directive was how large collaboration group sizes were. 27 Group Size There were three codes identified under the theme of group size: (a) teaching partner as an effective use of time, (b) the challenges of larger group meetings, and (c) the value of meeting as a larger group. Participants shared that the size of the group influenced productivity. Most pointed to the morning session with only their teaching partner as an effective use of time. “I find the morning collaboration time really beneficial with my teaching partner” (Lisa). Amy said that the fewer voices helped them accomplish tasks: “I think that it is more productive when it’s just the two of us.” Sharon found that time with her partner was more applicable to the happenings in her classroom: “The time with your teaching partner is probably more effective. They’re more relative to what you are doing. They are just more meaty. It’s the other ones that are a little bit more global, general discussion.” Each participant found that the larger group meetings were more difficult and less constructive. Jon stated, “more bodies, more opinions, and more thoughts. It can be less productive. Totally takes away from what your intended target is.” Lisa discussed the challenge of trying to reach goals with a large group: The afterschool TTT when we try and do it together as a group is really difficult because everybody has their own agenda of what they want to do and sometimes, when we get together it is just a big conversation. We don't actually achieve many of the goals we have. Some of the participants did see the value of meeting as a larger group and being more purposeful with the time. Amy spoke on the value a larger group meeting could have: “I still think it's important to meet as a bigger group so that you can develop relationships with the other teachers.” Five months into the new school opening, Jon noticed needing direction during larger 28 group meetings: “With different bodies that come in and the larger the group, it's even more important to kind of have a game plan as to what your targets are for the day.” Therefore, group size was another structural code that acted upon the potential success of TTT. Within the size of the group, compatibility was also vital to this rich discussion. Compatibility Compatibility was another stand alone code that many of the participants attributed to their success when collaborating with their teaching partner. Working at a new school, each participant was working with a new colleague, some of whom they had just met that school year. Amy expressed gratitude, acknowledging that both she and her partner had different skills they were bringing to the table: “I like our collaboration together. I think it has been really effective.” Amy talked about her partner’s strengths around technology, an area that she was not as experienced in. Jon also found a connection with his new partner: “Compatibility is a huge part. Both you and your partner have to be in a mindset where you can get together and have a common goal.” Sharon was the only participant who expressed some negative feelings towards the group she was working with: “It’s really hard to have a group of people forced together to collaborate.” Overall, participants identified time, vision, group size, and compatibility as the pillars of the TTT structure. Participants also discussed the potential that TTT had. Potential of TTT At the end of the interview, participants were asked about any alterations they would recommend for TTT. Each teacher identified structures to keep (coded as value in the time and autonomy) and structures to change (coded as reallocation when TTT occurred and longer amount of time, but less frequently). 29 Structures to Keep Participants were united in the idea that they saw value in the time created by the TTT structure. No one made comments about reducing time. Sharon was the only participant to speak on the fear of losing time and how the school district viewed the current structure: “I wouldn’t want it taken away. I hope they are not thinking of taking it away or anything. It is interesting to know how they see it, like people wasting time or do they see it as effective.” Lisa also shared the importance of having collaborative time set aside, “especially with the current model [TTT], I think it is so important and I don’t see it as a bad thing.” Jon went a step further and expressed gratitude towards collaboration time: “I’m coming from more of a high school model, I think it’s fantastic.” Lisa did share that not all teachers felt as optimistic, and some veteran teachers were exasperated with TTT: “I'm still pretty optimistic because I'm fairly new to having that collaboration time, where some people who have had it for a few years are getting really frustrated. I am not as jaded perhaps.” Keeping the level of teacher autonomy during TTT was also highlighted by participants. Sharon spoke about the diversity of teachers and the different needs each group had: “I think it’s important for us to have some autonomy in collaboration. What works for you may not work for another teacher.” To reiterate the importance of autonomous groups, Amy believed that the administration was not as in touch with what each group needed to be working on: They don't know what we need to be working on, in my opinion. We know what we need to focus on and talk about and so I don't think it makes sense for them to be administrators to be letting us know what they should be doing. Participants made it clear that they did not want to lose the prescribed time created by TTT and how important it was to maintain a voice in how that time was used. There were some 30 suggestions from the interview conversations that recommended how the structure of TTT could be changed. Structures to Change Some of the participants thought that TTT could be improved with a reallocation of when TTT occurred. Lisa suggested that the two, one-hour sessions each week made her feel like, “we just get started and then we are done.” She proposed meeting less frequently but increasing the amount of time during a session: “I would love to see our group stay together for a longer amount of time, but less frequently.” Lisa believed that the longer time could be used for training sessions and inviting different guest speakers from the district to share with teachers. Sharon found that TTT interfered with extra-curricular time: “If you’re a coach, then it’s always in the way of that.” Two sessions each week got in the way of potential games and practices. In her solution, Sharon talked about reshaping the school day: I think another school district had collaboration every Wednesday afternoon. Every Wednesday afternoon, the kids went home. The teachers then had collaboration time. They probably went longer each day. They went a little bit longer each day, but they had Wednesday afternoon off and that’s when they did their collaboration. While there were structures to keep and structures to change, participants also viewed TTT with hope for new opportunities. New Opportunities This sample of middle school teachers believed that TTT had the potential for greater use: “I think it has great potential, but it is not being utilized the way it could be” (Lisa). One of the suggestions for improving the structure was to have a better variety of teachers connecting. “I like the idea of meeting with elective teachers,” Amy identified in using the time differently. “I 31 like that we’re going to be meeting with our PHE specialists.” Amy found that there were many untapped resources at her school site that she would like to work with in the future: I think we don’t do a lot of mixed grades. I think that if we were to meet with the grade sevens and eights a little bit more with subject areas, I think that would be effective. So far we haven’t really done that at all. But to lay out the expectations, for say, grade six English and how they are progressing into grades seven and eight. Lisa expressed the desire to meet with teachers outside of her school building and, “have the chance for different teachers from across the district to collaborate.” She showed interest in grouping with teachers at the same grade level to discuss specifics in subject areas. “Maybe get all the grade seven teachers that are interested in doing book clubs as well,” spreading ideas that are effective in one classroom to others around the district. Lisa suggested that TTT could be a “good time for teachers to discuss strategies together as a group and target that.” In my interviews, all participants recognized that TTT had increased the time for collaborative conversations. Prior to TTT, teachers in this study viewed collaboration as occurring in pockets and many educators felt isolated. Through experiences with the new TTT structure, participants gave insight into what did and did not work under a prescribed collaboration. With opportunities for future collaboration, teachers in this study could help outline a framework for successful collaboration. Discussion Working as a teacher in the school district since middle-grade realignment and the introduction of TTT, I had my own assumptions regarding how teachers felt about prescribed collaboration. TTT was not an initiative from teachers. I felt a sense of resentment and reluctance 32 from colleagues about using collaboration time. However, through the interviews during this study, I learned that participants were much more optimistic in their stance towards this mandated collaboration, seeing it as a positive shift from the previous model. Questioning in the interviews directed teachers to share what was working prior to and from TTT experiences. Participants also spoke about how TTT could be improved to extend the richness of the collaborative conversation. Using the responses from teachers’ experiences with TTT and the literature surveyed, I have identified four pillars to gain the most out of prescribed teacher collaboration. Four Pillars of Prescribed Teacher Collaboration The attributes identified in this study that supported teacher collaboration were time, compatibility, trust, and teacher autonomy. In the following sections, I explain how each is supported by existing literature and could positively impact TTT. Time Time is an asset in the field of education. In my own hallway conversations, a lack of time was a common complaint amongst colleagues. Not surprisingly, teachers in this study shared that time was a hindering factor for collaboration prior to the TTT model. Participants shared that collaboration occurred on personal time, sporadically, and as a result, collaboration was almost non-existent for new educators isolated without connections to other teachers. These feelings were not restricted to teachers in this study but were consistent with the literature on how teachers feel about their lack of time to collaborate (Kelly & Cherkowski, 2015; Kuh, 2016; Patrick, 2022; Szczesiul & Huizenga, 2014; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Patrick (2022) states: “Given the time constraints facing many teachers, collaboration can often take the form of brief and irregular meetings that limit opportunities for ongoing and meaningful conversations about 33 teaching” (p. 642). With limited time during a school day for teachers to collaborate, it requires educators to give up their own time to engage in collaborative dialogue with peers. For participants in this study, it was after the introduction of TTT that teachers had time to collaborate consistently with colleagues. Each participant spoke fondly of the structure, even Jon going so far as to call TTT a “gift.” Time gave teachers the opportunity to meaningfully engage in rich conversation. Szczesiul and Huizenga (2014) report, “that giving teachers regularly scheduled time to meet is critical to their collaboration.” If a school district or an administration team wants to build a culture of collaboration, it appears vital to carve out time for teachers to consistently meet during the regular work week. Time can give teachers the space to establish collaborative relationships. Compatibility While setting aside time is important to foster dialogue between colleagues, compatibility pushes the collaborative relationship forward. Each of the participants spoke about the value of getting along and being on the same page with their peers. A shared purpose connected colleagues together. Sharon fondly recalled her “most impactful years of teaching,” when a group of intermediate teachers bonded over shared challenges at their school site. Similar teaching experiences and pedagogical views further connected the group. Kelly and Cherkowski (2015) explain that similar or shared challenges push teachers to “work together to solve or support one another” (p. 18). Teachers in their study “all spoke about the overwhelming support they felt in the group” (p. 20). This echoed the experience of Sharon’s collaborative team and how she felt supported by each member by regularly working through problems together. Tallman (2021) suggests that teachers engaged in the listening and exchange of ideas, can develop a mutual respect between colleagues where they, “became less likely to see themselves 34 as inferior to others, and rather, as equals” (p. 218). Sharon saw her group as a team of equals. Feelings of mutual respect and support from other teachers created a culture conducive to collaboration. A key component to becoming compatible was a feeling of trust. Trust As an educator, I had been in environments where there were little prior relationships with colleagues and conversations were mostly surface level. Trust had not been established and the boundaries to dialogue seemed capped. When collaborating with peers I clicked with personally, the safe space enabled the discussion to flow freely and reach greater depth. Participants validated the idea of trust when describing ideal collaborative relationships. Prior to TTT, Amy recalled seeking out collaborative opportunities with friends from the staff room. Preexisting relationships allowed Amy to feel comfortable sharing difficult conversations with her colleagues. Hargraves and O’Connor (2018) speak to the value of teachers socializing together. The personal connection “develops the back-and-forth quality of genuine dialogue, of valued differences of opinion about ideas” (p. 114). Opening up with colleagues requires teachers to be vulnerable. Jon shared about the intimacy of “inviting people into your world and how you teach.” A willingness and buy-in from colleagues to be vulnerable was an important factor in his experience of positive collaborative relationships. Tallman (2021) reports that vulnerability and risk-taking are part of the process of building trust between colleagues. I saw this as a cyclical nature: vulnerability and building trust. In collaborative environments where teachers are new to working together, Kuh (2016) reports on how participants came to see each other “not just as colleagues, but as friends” (p. 301). In their study, participants designated time to share with each other about their day, feelings, and lives. In combination with team-building activities, personal connections created a space “to 35 sustain engagement and set the stage for conversations about teaching and school” (p. 301). Vulnerability is not limited to pre-existing relationships, but can be built given purposeful time to connect on a regular basis. With compatibility and trust identified as facets of an effective collaborative relationship, giving teachers a voice in the direction of the conversation was important to the buy-in of the collaborative process. Teacher Autonomy When students feel ownership of their learning, they are more invested. Teachers are not dissimilar to their students. When teachers feel like they can influence the work they are doing, they are more committed to a goal. Autonomy is incredibly valuable to the buy-in process for teachers in collaborative conversations (Adams et al., 2019; DeLuca et al., 2017; Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2019; Patrick, 2022; Szczesiul & Huizenga, 2014; Tallman, 2021; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Each participant in this study highlighted the importance of having an influence over topics for conversations during TTT sessions. Both Jon and Amy spoke about how their teams worked together to co-construct an agenda at the beginning of each term for areas of focus. Differing groups of teachers were unique in their needs and areas of interest. Sharon identified that what works for one team, may not work for another team. This runs parallel to the findings of DeLuca et al. (2017): “Teachers also identified that when they directed the inquiry focus the resultant learning was more likely to be useful” (p. 72). Current literature suggests that when teachers feel like the collaborative conversation is being directed by others or an administration team, there is less buy-in (Adams et al., 2019; DeLuca et al., 2017; Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2019; Patrick, 2022; Szczesiul & Huizenga 2014; Tallman, 2021; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Sharon spoke about a negative experience at a previous school, when an administration team did not trust teachers and micromanaged TTT sessions. 36 Mistrust made Sharon feel frustrated and that it was more like checking off boxes as opposed to a collaborative learning conversation. Amy shared, “we know what we need to focus on and talk about and so I don't think it makes sense for administrators to be letting us know what we should be doing.” Hargraves and O’Connor (2018) believe that it is important for leaders not to micromanage collaboration, but instead teachers be held accountable by each other. Teacher-directed collaboration does not mean it is a hands-off process for administrators. Szczesiul & Huizenga (2014) share the importance of principals working with their staff to define goals and expectations of collaborative conversations. When teachers felt a lack of vision, it “undermined the teachers’ confidence and motivation to work together on problems related to instruction and student learning” (p. 181). The findings of this study encouraged principals “to take more initiative in establishing vision, purpose, and goals for their teachers’ collaborative work” (p. 188). With all four participants in this study being from the same school, they felt that the administrative team had done an effective job of balancing the providing of direction with autonomy for TTT sessions. There was trust in teachers that they would hold colleagues accountable while making clear expectations under a distributed leadership model. Next, I suggest recommendations for school districts and leaders to promote prescribed collaboration. Recommendations As previously suggested by Hargraves and O’Connor (2018), “the big questions are no longer about whether teachers should collaborate” (p. 3). Vangrieken et al. (2015) state that a collaborative work environment is becoming the norm for every organization, within and outside of education. They claim that “there is a definite need for teachers to collaborate; not collaborating is no longer an option” (p. 36). District and school leaders have the ability to 37 harness the benefits of collaboration and promote a collaborative culture for members of the organization. The school district in this study had taken the first step in its commitment towards collaboration. My first recommendation for this school district is to keep TTT. Participants in this study viewed the time carved out in their schedule as a positive change, some even viewed TTT as a gift. As I outlined in the literature review, time is an essential facet of collaboration. For administrators outside this school district, efforts should be prioritized to create time for teachers to consistently meet. My next recommendation to maximize the use of the TTT structure is the blend of direction from administration and the autonomy of teachers. It can be incredibly difficult to balance, however, having a voice in the direction of TTT is vital to the buy-in process for teachers. School districts may want to consider training sessions for administrators on how to support collaborative environments for their staff. This can avoid feelings of top-down influences on teachers or the completely hands-off approach. When participants spoke fondly of their collaborative experiences, a strong connection with their colleagues was present. Compatibility within a group is built on a foundation of trust. I push school administrators to foster an environment that promotes positive relationships among the staff. Time on a staff meeting agenda is a valuable resource, but creating space for colleagues to connect on a personal level has immense long-term value. As suggested by participants, TTT has the potential to extend collaborative connections. I recommend initiating collaborative links across subject areas and schools. Most schools in this district follow the same TTT schedule, and this offers the opportunity for like-minded educators to connect from various school sites. Advancements in communication technology can make this 38 possible without having to transport from school site to school site. I see administrators and lead teachers as leaders who can make connections between teachers and initiate collaborative groups. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to creating a collaborative culture. However, as demonstrated through this study, administrators can take steps toward promoting collaboration among their staff. TTT is an example of how school leaders can use time to promote dialogue. Stemming from the four pillars of prescribed collaboration (time, compatibility, trust, and autonomy), TTT has areas for improvement and the potential to make the structure more effective. Limitations As with many studies, these findings are subject to limitations. First, the small scale of this study was limited to four participants at one school site. These participants did not reflect the voices of all middle-year teachers in this school district. Due to all participants being at one school site, the influence of administration teams would vary in other buildings. Further research would benefit from a larger sample size and a diversity of voices. Next, this study’s time constraints were limited, as it was tied to a MEd program. Completing the study within a given timeframe reduced the length of interviews and the number of voices that were shared. A future study on collaborative efforts could include multiple or more in-depth interviews. Finally, I acknowledge that I carried my own bias as a middle school teacher. I attempted to maintain a stance of curiosity, but I have my own experiences, both positive and negative, related to TTT. A researcher outside of the district where I reside might carry a different set of biases not having 39 experienced TTT. The limitations outlined should be considered when evaluating the perceptions of teachers’ experience connected to TTT. My Takeaway A key takeaway for my own practice is valuing relationships with my colleagues. Working in the silo of my classroom is easier because it takes time and a willingness to put oneself out there to connect with colleagues. Instead of working through lunch, it could be as simple as spending time in the staff room and engaging peers in personal conversations. These interactions may prove extremely beneficial in establishing trust and comfort to collaborate. I want to continue to evolve and push my own teaching practice forward, with collaboration offering an exposure of new ideas to do so. There are brilliant minds and untapped resources within the school walls that I want to continue to pursue. By building positive relationships with my peers, I believe that it will allow me to continue to grow as an educator. Reflecting on my leadership role and the potential of leadership opportunities moving forward, I want to ensure that curating relationships remains the center of my core beliefs. I think setting time aside to build these relationships, not only between myself and others, but from colleague to colleague, will be extremely beneficial. As learned though this study, a strong relationship built on compatibility and trust is important for collaboration. Likewise, the balance of teacher autonomy and administrative directive is important to the buy-in of conversations. A good relationship between the administration and teachers can enable honest conversations, including difficult conversations around teacher autonomy. As my mentor mentioned in my first year of teaching: “If I am not having fun, the students are not having fun. If the students are not having fun, they are not engaged. If the 40 students are not engaged, they are not learning.” This quote can be easily adjusted to working with peers. Colleagues can make the workplace fun, engaging, and filled with learning. 41 References Adams, P., Mombourquette, C., & Townsend, D. (2019). Leadership in education: The power of generative dialogue. Canadian Scholars. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 3rd ed., 1-42. Sage. DeLuca, C., Bolden, B., & Chan, J. (2017). Systemic professional learning through collaborative inquiry: Examining teachers’ perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 67-78. https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=35&sid=f81b6833-46ca-4b98-88f408415455b4b8%40redis&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPXNzbyZzaXRlPWVkcy1saXZl#AN= S0742051X17308508&db=edselp DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “Professional learning community?” Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6-11. https://eds-p-ebscohostcom.proxy.ufv.ca:2443/eds/detail/detail?vid=11&sid=711ba023-9d26-4acd-8a11a2584bda99af%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=0002213112000 02&db=edswss Goddard, R., Goddard, Y., Sook Kim, E., & Miller, R. (2015). A theoretical and empirical anaylsis of the roles of instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and collective efficacy beliefs in support of student learning. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 42 501-530. https://eds-p-ebscohostcom.proxy.ufv.ca:2443/eds/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=711ba023-9d26-4acd-8a11a2584bda99af%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=edsjsr.10.1086.6819 25&db=edsjsr Hargraves, A., & O’Connor, M.T. (2018). Collaborative professionalism: When teaching together means learning for all. Corwin. Katz, S., Dack, L., & Malloy, J. (2017). The intelligent, responsive leader. Corwin. Kelly, J., & Cherkowski, S. (2015). Collaboration, collegiality, and collective reflection: A case study of professional development for teachers. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy 169, 1-27. https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=33&sid=f81b6833-46ca-4b98-88f408415455b4b8%40redis&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPXNzbyZzaXRlPWVkcy1saXZl#AN= EJ1063374&db=eric Kuh, L. (2016). Teachers talking about teaching and school: Collaboration and reflective practice via critical friends group. Teachers and Teaching, 22(3), 293-314. https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=31&sid=f81b6833-46ca-4b98-88f408415455b4b8%40redis&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPXNzbyZzaXRlPWVkcy1saXZl#AN= 000370662100003&db=edswss Miles, M. B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldana, J. (2014) Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage. Patrick, S. (2022). Organizing schools for collaborative learning: School leadership and teachers’ engagement in collaboration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 58(4), 638-673. https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=29&sid=f81b6833-46ca-4b98-88f4- 43 08415455b4b8%40redis&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPXNzbyZzaXRlPWVkcy1saXZl#AN= EJ1350279&db=eric Saldana, S. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. Oxford University Press Szczesiul, S., & Huizenga, J. (2014). The burden of leadership: Exploring the principal’s role in teacher collaboration. Improving Schools, 17(2), 176-191. https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=27&sid=f81b6833-46ca-4b98-88f408415455b4b8%40redis&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPXNzbyZzaXRlPWVkcy1saXZl#AN= EJ1039872&db=eric Tallman, T. (2021). How teachers experience collaboration. Journal of Education, 201(3), 210224. https://eds-p-ebscohostcom.proxy.ufv.ca:2443/eds/detail/detail?vid=9&sid=711ba0239d264acd8a11a2584bda99af%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=EJ1317199 &db=eric Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Education Research Review 15, 17-40. https://eds-p-ebscohostcom.proxy.ufv.ca:2443/eds/detail/detail?vid=7&sid=711ba023-9d26-4acd-8a11a2584bda99af%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=S1747938X1500 024X&db=edselp Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of Education, 48(2), 311-325. 44 Appendix A Ethics Approval Research, Engagement, & Graduate Studies 33844 King Rd Abbotsford BC V2S 7M8 Tel: (604) 557-4011 Research.Ethics@ufv.ca Website: www.ufv.ca/research-ethics Human Research Ethics Board - Certificate of Ethical Approval HREB Protocol No: 101173 Principal Investigator: Mr. Mike Petersen Team Members: Mr. Mike Petersen (Principal Investigator) Dr. Sheryl MacMath (Supervisor) Title: MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF COLLABORATION Department: Faculty of Education, Community & Human Development\Teacher Education Effective: November 17, 2022 Expiry: November 16, 2023 The Human Research Ethics Board (HREB) has reviewed and approved the ethics of the above research. The HREB is constituted and operated in accordance with the requirements of the UFV Policy on Human Research Ethics and the current Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS2). The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is granted only for the research and purposes described in the application. 2. Approval is for one year. A Request for Renewal must be submitted 2-3 weeks before the above expiry date. 3. Modifications to the approved research or research team must be submitted as an Amendment to be reviewed and approved by the HREB before the changes can be implemented. If the changes are substantial, a new request for approval must be sought. *An exception can be made where the change is necessary to eliminate an immediate risk to participant(s) (TPCS2 Article 6.15). Such changes may be implemented but must be reported to the HREB within 5 business days. 4. If an adverse incident occurs, an Adverse Incident Event form must be completed and submitted. 5. During the project period, the HREB must be notified of any issues that may have ethical implications. 6. A Final Report Event Form must be submitted to the HREB when the research is complete or terminated. *Please note a Research Continuity Plan is no longer required. Thank you, and all the best with your research. UFV Human Research Ethics Board 45 Appendix B Interview protocol Questions to Establish Context • • • How long have you taught in the school district? What is your history of teaching at the middle school level? What do you think of when I say collaboration? Deeper Questions • • • Share an experience of an effective collaboration session. o Extension – what factors made it effective (ex. time, compatibility with colleagues, structure)? What were your collaborative experiences before middle school realignment? o Extension – how would you describe the culture of collaboration? o Extension – did you have collaboration built into your schedule? o Extension – was there direction from administrators or a lead teacher? What have been your collaborative experiences with Teacher Team Time (TTT) after middle school realignment? o Extension – do you find there is enough time set aside? o Extension – does the structure help or hinder meaningful conversation? o Extension – if you could make any alterations to this time, what would you change?