2 0 f a c t o r s for changes: the way we think about structuring the curriculum, the way we think about assessing kids, the way we’ve learned to pick up techniques, ideas, attitudes from each other. All of that is possible when you’re in the room together and you’re thinking about the same group of kids because you’re spending so much time talking about [the work].” It isn’t easy, and they’ll share their disagreements. “Especially if you’re going to do it for the long haul,” says Baker, “the closest analogy is a marriage. You’re constantly finding ways to negotiate, accommodate, and see how together you can build something that’s significantly greater than what each person would put together by themselves.” Henry frames their differences: “I’m a big fan of particularity,” he says, “and Bernie wants them to see an arc.” But planning classes and assignments hasn’t meant simply finding time for both of these approaches; it has meant integrating them. Over time, Henry and Baker have found a shared intellectual space—a course trajectory that incorporates both of their visions. “It’s constant— and by design—built-in professional development,” says Baker. The result has been new ways of understanding the material and new ways of teaching. “We have, over the years, slowly developed more coherence,” Baker says. And Henry adds, “That coherence, that consistency of approach. . . is also one of those compounding effects of two being more than two.” They describe a course in which the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. This kind of collaboration in the classroom is spreading in classes such as Global H2O and other interdisciplinary capstones that are emerging in Deerfield’s curriculum. Different voices are working together not only to bring niche expertise to particular problems, but also to achieve a synthesis of understanding—and of teaching practice. True collaboration like this stimulates growth. It isn’t simply a group of people working in concert towards a common goal. It’s a collective broadening of thinking, an interchange of perspective, an arrival at an unforeseen destination.
effective collaboration
In 1992, researchers at the Wilder Research Center assembled a literature review of factors influencing successful collaboration. Their work culled fields as diverse as health, social science, education, and more. By their update of the review in 2000, with rigorous standards for reliability and relevance, they had whittled 414 studies down to 42. From these 42, 20 factors for effective collaboration emerged:
PURPOSE: -Concrete, attainable goals and objectives -Shared vision -Unique purpose
MEMBERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS : -Mutual respect, understanding, and trust -Appropriate cross section of members -Members see collaboration as in their self-interest -Ability to compromise
PROCESS AND STRUCTURE: -Members share a stake in both process and outcome -Multiple layers of participation -Flexibility -Development of clear roles and policy guidelines -Adaptability -Appropriate pace of development
COMMUNICATION: -Open and frequent communication -Established informal relationship and communication links
ENVIRONMENT: -History of collaboration in the community -Collaborative group seen as a legitimate leader in the community -Favorable political and social climate
RESOURCES: -Sufficient funds, staff, materials, and time -Skilled leadership (from Mattessich, Murray-Close, & Monsey, Collaboration: What Makes It Work. Fieldstone Alliance, St. Paul, 2001)
deerfield.edu
13