Team based collaboration in higher education learning and teaching a review of the literature cather

Page 1


Team Based Collaboration in Higher Education Learning and Teaching A Review of

the Literature Catherine Newell

Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/team-based-collaboration-in-higher-education-learnin g-and-teaching-a-review-of-the-literature-catherine-newell/

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...

Teaching Information Literacy in Higher Education. Effective Teaching and Active Learning Mariann Lokse

https://textbookfull.com/product/teaching-information-literacyin-higher-education-effective-teaching-and-active-learningmariann-lokse/

Teaching Learning and New Technologies in Higher Education N. V. Varghese

https://textbookfull.com/product/teaching-learning-and-newtechnologies-in-higher-education-n-v-varghese/

Transforming Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: A Chronicle of Research and Development in a Singaporean Context Seng Chee Tan

https://textbookfull.com/product/transforming-teaching-andlearning-in-higher-education-a-chronicle-of-research-anddevelopment-in-a-singaporean-context-seng-chee-tan/

Foreign Language Teaching in Romanian Higher Education Teaching Methods Learning Outcomes Lucia-Mihaela GrosuR■dulescu

https://textbookfull.com/product/foreign-language-teaching-inromanian-higher-education-teaching-methods-learning-outcomeslucia-mihaela-grosu-radulescu/

Teaching

and

Learning

for

Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education: Foundations Laura Parson

https://textbookfull.com/product/teaching-and-learning-forsocial-justice-and-equity-in-higher-education-foundations-lauraparson/

Multiculturalism, Higher Education and Intercultural Communication: Developing Strengths-Based Narratives for Teaching and Learning 1st Edition Damian Spiteri (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/multiculturalism-highereducation-and-intercultural-communication-developing-strengthsbased-narratives-for-teaching-and-learning-1st-edition-damianspiteri-auth/

So, You Have to Write a Literature Review 1st Edition

https://textbookfull.com/product/so-you-have-to-write-aliterature-review-1st-edition-catherine-berdanier/

Transforming Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Towards a Socially Just Pedagogy in a Global

1st Edition Ruksana Osman

Context

https://textbookfull.com/product/transforming-teaching-andlearning-in-higher-education-towards-a-socially-just-pedagogy-ina-global-context-1st-edition-ruksana-osman/

Competency based Language Teaching in Higher Education 1st Edition María Luisa Pérez Cañado (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/competency-based-languageteaching-in-higher-education-1st-edition-maria-luisa-perezcanado-auth/

Team-Based Collaboration in Higher Education Learning and Teaching A Review of the Literature

SpringerBriefsinEducation

WearedelightedtoannounceSpringerBriefsinEducation,aninnovativeproduct typethatcombineselementsofbothjournalsandbooks.Briefspresentconcise summariesofcutting-edgeresearchandpracticalapplicationsineducation. Featuringcompactvolumesof50to125pages,theSpringerBriefsinEducation allowauthorstopresenttheirideasandreaderstoabsorbthemwithaminimaltime investment.BriefsarepublishedaspartofSpringer ’seBookCollection.In addition,Briefsareavailableforindividualprintandelectronicpurchase.

SpringerBriefsinEducationcoverabroadrangeofeducational fieldssuchas: ScienceEducation,HigherEducation,EducationalPsychology,Assessment& Evaluation,LanguageEducation,MathematicsEducation,Educational Technology,MedicalEducationandEducationalPolicy.

SpringerBriefstypicallyofferanoutletfor:

• Anintroductiontoa(sub)fieldineducationsummarizingandgivinganoverviewoftheories,issues,coreconceptsand/orkeyliteratureinaparticular field

• Atimelyreportofstate-of-theartanalyticaltechniquesandinstrumentsinthe fieldofeducationalresearch

• Apresentationofcoreeducationalconcepts

• Anoverviewofatestingandevaluationmethod

• Asnapshotofahotoremergingtopicorpolicychange

• Anin-depthcasestudy

• Aliteraturereview

• Areport/reviewstudyofasurvey

• Anelaboratedthesis

Bothsolicitedandunsolicitedmanuscriptsareconsideredforpublicationinthe SpringerBriefsinEducationseries.Potentialauthorsarewarmlyinvitedtocomplete andsubmittheBriefsAuthorProposalform.Allprojectswillbesubmittedto editorialreviewbyeditorialadvisors.

SpringerBriefsarecharacterizedbyexpeditedproductionscheduleswiththeaim forpublication8to12weeksafteracceptanceandfast,globalelectronic disseminationthroughouronlineplatformSpringerLink.Thestandardconcise authorcontractsguaranteethat:

• anindividualISBNisassignedtoeachmanuscript

• eachmanuscriptiscopyrightedinthenameoftheauthor

• theauthorretainstherighttopostthepre-publicationversiononhis/herwebsite orthatofhis/herinstitution

Moreinformationaboutthisseriesathttp://www.springer.com/series/8914

CatherineNewell • AlanBain

Team-BasedCollaboration inHigherEducationLearning andTeaching

AReviewoftheLiterature

ISSN2211-1921ISSN2211-193X(electronic) SpringerBriefsinEducation

ISBN978-981-13-1854-2ISBN978-981-13-1855-9(eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1855-9

LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018950195

© TheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNatureSingaporePteLtd.2018

Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart ofthematerialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations, recitation,broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmission orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.

Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthis publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.

Thepublisher,theauthors,andtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthis bookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernorthe authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor foranyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregardto jurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.

ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSingaporePteLtd. Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:152BeachRoad,#21-01/04GatewayEast,Singapore189721, Singapore

Preface

Collaborationamonghighereducationfacultymembershasbeenwidelyclaimedas anecessaryprerequisitetoachievegreaterqualityandcoherenceinthedesignand implementationoflearningandteachingprograms.However,therearearangeof understandingsoftheconceptandpracticeofcollaborationandlimitedresearchon whatmakesitsuccessful.Thisreviewexamineswhatcollaborationmeansin practiceandthefactorsthatenableeffectiveteamcollaborationinlearningand teachinginhighereducation.

Keywords Collaboration Highereducation Programdesign Curriculumreform Collaborativeteacherlearning Collaborativeproblem-solving Teamcognition Teachers Leadership

Bathurst,AustraliaCatherineNewell

AlanBain

Chapter1 Introduction

1.1TheNeedforCollaborationinHigherEducation CurriculumDesign

Contemporarypolicyandpracticeinhighereducationisplacingaheightenedemphasisontheprogramordegreeastheunitofanalysiswhendeterminingtheoverall qualityoflearningandteachinginhighereducation.Highereducationstandards agencies(TEQSA, 2015;QAA, 2015;NCATE, 2014)emphasisetheneedtomeet standardsacrosswholeprogrammswithafocusongraduateoutcomes.Giventhe stressonwholeofprogramquality,itisnolongerpossibleforindividualacademicsto focusontheirownteachingandacademicdisciplineinisolation.Thesenewexternal driversmeanacademicscannotmeetthesedemandsalone.

Reviewsofhighereducation(HE)practicehaveidentifiedanumberoftensions emergingfromtheneedtoviewthenormalworkofHEdifferently(Bradley,Noonan,Nugent,&Scales, 2008;Kezar&Holcombe, 2018).Henkel(2005)describes “pressuresonacademiccommunitiesandinstitutionstonotonlychangetheirculturesandstructures…butalsotoreviewtheirassumptionsaboutroles,relationships andboundariesinthatenvironment”(p.159).Zundans-Fraser(2014)foundfour keytensionsinHEprogramsrelatedtochangeinpractice;“relevance,lackofcollaborationandcourse[program]cohesioninbothcontentanddelivery,aswellas fundamentaldifficultiesinmakingdemonstrablechangesinpractice”(p.21).What emergesfromthesetensionsisamorecomplexpictureofwhatlearningandteaching inhighereducationmeans.Tounderstandthatpicturerequiresmoresophisticated andcoherentconceptualframeworksandmultilinkedcollaborativeapproachesto learningandteaching(Friend&Cook, 2014;Bain, 2007;Hoban, 2005).Bentley andCazaly(2015)indicatethat“effectivelysupportingcollaborationforthepurpose ofstudentlearningistheoverwhelmingstrategicpriorityforeducationpolicyand management”(p.7).Thereisaneedforuniversitiestobebetterlearningorganisations(Zundans-Fraser&Bain, 2016;Fullan, 2016),agoalthatrequiresuniversities toreadythemselvesforandcapturethebenefitsofcollaboration.

©TheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNatureSingaporePteLtd.2018 C.NewellandA.Bain, Team-BasedCollaborationinHigherEducation LearningandTeaching,SpringerBriefsinEducation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1855-9_1

1.2TheGapbetweenAspirationandPractice

Needsandaspirationswithrespecttochangeinlearningandteachingpracticeare well-documentedintheHEliterature.Forexample,inattemptingtomeetthechallengeofcollaboration,universitiesconfrontnormsthatengenderahighdegreeof autonomousisolatedpractice(Burrell,Cavanagh,Young&Carter, 2015;Levine &Marcus, 2010;Kezar&Lester, 2009;Bain, 2007;Zundans-Fraser, 2014),resistancetochangeandgapsinprofessionalknowledge(Hattie, 2009, 2015;Bain, 2007; Smethurst, 1997)thatfragmentstudentexperienceandpreventscalingreforms(Bain &Zundans-Fraser, 2017;Fullan, 2016;Goddard,Goddard&Tschannen-Moran, 2007;Hattie, 2009;Bain 2007).

Thechallengeofchangeisexacerbatedbecauseofalackofmodelsthatprovideguidanceandatrajectoryfortranslatingaspirationaboutcollaborationintothe normalworkofHEpractice.Whileweknowtheexistenceofacollaborativeprofessionalcommunitycorrelateswithimprovedpedagogyandstudentachievement (Levine&Marcus, 2010;Goddard,Goddard&Tschannen-Moran, 2007),thereare fewwell-foundmodelsofpracticetoguideuniversitiestobecomemorecollaborativeenterprises.TheGrattanReport(Norton,Sonnemann,&Cherastidtham, 2013) highlightsthelackofresearchinHEongoodmodels,andtheneedtolooktothe compulsoryschooleducationsector.Researchsincethe1980shasfocussedonthe research-basedcharacteristicsofhigh-performingschoolsandtheireffectonstudent learning,andwherecollaborationisacriticalelement(Jorgensen,McSheehan,& Sonnenmeier, 2009;Shannon&Bylsma, 2007;Dettmer,Thurston&Dyck, 2005). TheGrattanReport(Nortonetal., 2013)alsoidentifiestheneedfor:leadershipat alllevelsofHEinstitutions;collaborationondirection,commonschemaandgoals; understandingofeffectiveteaching;andastudentoutcomesfocus.Giventhegapsin theliterature,thisreviewwillemployresearchacrosseducationalsectorsinorderto identifyanddescribeimplicationsforteam-basedcollaborationinHElearningand teaching.

Theneedforresearchintocollaborationanditssuccessfactorsiswellestablished (Winitzkyetal., 1995;Wood&Gray, 1991).Jones,Harvey,LefoeandRyland(2012), inaconsolidatedprojectundertakenacrossfourHEinstitutions,identifiedtheneed for:“acomplexinterplayofparticipationbetweenformalandinformalleadersat alllevelsandfunctionsacrosstheinstitution”(p.70);andaneedforresearchinto howweengage“staffinaninclusiveparticipativeapproachbuiltoncollaboration” (p.73).ExaminingresearchinHE,teachereducationandinclusiveeducation(IE), Zundans-Fraser(2014)identifiedcollaborationasacriticalcomponentforsuccessful programdesignandreviewinHEinclusiveeducationteacherpreparation.

Collaborationislinkedtothesystemicuseofthoseresearch-basedteachingpracticesshowntoexertthegreatestimpactonstudentandteacherlearning(Hattie, 2009, 2015;Levine&Marcus, 2010;Bain, 2007),andrepresentsthecommonthreadin manyreforminitiatives(Nortonetal., 2013;Jones,etal., 2012;Friend&Cook, 2014; Shroyer,Yahnke,Bennett,&Dunn, 2007;Bain 2007).Researchhasalsoshownthat forreformtobeeffectiveithastobemeasurableinclassrooms,instudentachieve-

1.2TheGapbetweenAspirationandPractice3

ment(Schleicher, 2011;Fullan, 2016;Bain, 2007;Meiers&Ingvarson, 2005).Hattie (2015),fromastudyof1200meta-analyses,concludesthattoreachlearningand teachinggoalsandtoofferacoherentexperienceforstudentsinclassrooms,teachersneedtocollaborate.Collaborativeteachingpracticeisnecessaryto:makevisible studentlearningoutcomes;establishthemagnitudeofimpactteacherscanhaveon thatlearning;recogniseexcellenceinteachersratherthanvaluingautonomy;and workouthowtocollaboratecollectivelyandsafelytoensureallteachershavean impact.

TheOrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment(OECD)(2017) identifiescollaborationandcommunicationascrucialtwenty-firstcenturyskillsfor bothstudentsandteachers.Collaborationisseenasaneffectivewaytoworktogether toachievesharedgoalsinacomplex,challengingenvironment(OECD, 2017;Friend &Cook, 2014;Bain 2007;Blue–Banning,Summers,Frankland,LordNelsonand Beegle, 2004;Olsen, 2003).Collaborationbecomesnecessaryasstudentpopulations becomediverseandsociety’seducationalexpectationsincrease.Thereisagrowing recognitionthattheresolutionofeducationalproblemsfrequentlycallsformorethan individualexpertise,requiringcollaborationamongprofessionals,sectors,parents andthecommunity(Fullan, 2016;Bentley&Cazaly, 2015;Burrelletal., 2015; Kezar&Lester, 2009;Shroyeretal., 2007;Chapman&Fullan, 2007;Friend& Cook, 2014;Magolda, 2001;Winitzky,Sheridan,Crow,Welch&Kennedy, 1995). HEstudies,whileacknowledgingthevalueofandneedforcollaborationinlearningandteaching(Thies, 2016;Burrelletal., 2015;Oliver&Hyun, 2011),also highlighttherangeanddiversityofunderstandingsandwidespreaduseoftheterm. Thetermcollaboration,likecurriculum,isusedtomeanmanythings(Friendand Cook,2010;Kezar&Lester, 2009;Briggs, 2007;Lawson, 2004).Whilethereis alonghistoryofusingcollaborationtosolveproblemsandmeetstudentneedsin inclusiveeducation(Shannon&Bylsma, 2007;Dettmeretal. 2005;Friend&Cook, 2014),empiricalresearchoncollaborationislimited,particularlyinHE(Kezar& Lester, 2009;Fullan, 2011;Chapman&Fullan, 2007).Notably,thereisanabsenceof longitudinalstudiesexaminingsustainedcollaborativepracticesincapacitybuilding andreforminallsectorsofeducation(Bain, 2007;Bain,Walker,&Chan, 2011). Becausecollaborationisgenerallyunderstoodtobeaboutpeopleworking togethertowardsacommongoal,definitions,perspectivesandresearchcome frommanydisciplinesandprofessions.Thosedefinitionsreflectthedifferent theoreticalbackgrounds,perspectivesandapproachesassociatedwiththecontextsfromwhichtheyarederived.Thismakesunderstandingcollaborationa challengeforteachersandacademics(Zundans-Fraser, 2014;Levine&Marcus, 2010;Shroyeretal., 2007;Magolda, 2001).Collaborationcanbeviewedfrom theperspectiveofrelationshipsandinteractions,socialandcognitiveprocesses andcapacities,organisationalprocess,andlearning.Itisacomplexconceptand involvesmanyrelatedphenomenaorvariables,suchastheintersectionofattitudesanddispositions;interpersonalcommunicationskills;individualandteam cognition;team,task,knowledgeandparticipantawareness;individualinternalised andgroupexternalisedknowledgebuilding;andsharedmentalmodels.Giventhe identifiedimportanceofcollaborationinlearningandteaching,andgapsinthe

researchandunderstandingofwhatcollaborationmeans,thisliteraturereview examinesthedefinitionofcollaboration;whatmakesteamcollaborationsuccessfulinlearningandteachingcontexts;andhowtoachievesuccessfulregularteam collaborationinthosesettings.

1.3TheLiteratureReviewMethod

Thissectionoutlinestheliteraturereviewmethod;keysearchterms,descriptorsand thesearchresults.Giventhebroadunderstandingofcollaborationintheliteraturean exploratoryprocesswasusedinsearchingforsources.Studiesandliteraturerelevant tothereviewwerelocatedthroughdatabasesearchesofEBSCOhost,ERIC,AcademicSearchComplete,EducationResearchComplete,Taylor&Francis,ProQuest andtheUniversity’ssearchsystem,andreferencesfrompublications.Aninitial searchfocussedoncollaborationinhighereducationaroundcurriculumdesignand renewalandthepracticesofacademicsinthisregard(Collaborat*,HigherEducat*, Communit*,Practic*,Academ*,Curricul*,design,reform,autonomy).Multiple subsequentsearchesrefinedthesearchwithalternativeterms(university,colleges, collaboratives,inter/transdisciplinary,partnerships)andrelatedsectors(school, teaching,inclusion,specialeducation,K-12,K-16,communityandorganisation). Thetermswerebroadened,narrowedandrecombinedbasedonresults(collaborative problem-solving,problem-solving,teams,cognition,interdependence,collaborative teacherlearning,highperforming,efficient).Specificjournalsweresearched,such astheJournalofHigherEducation,andTeachingandTeacherEducation.

Responsestoasimplesearchacrossfivedatabasesusingcollaborat*andhigher educationfoundover1600articlesusingthetermcollaborationinthetitleandabstract inrecentyearsandreflectingamultiplicityofdefinitionsandperspectives.Fewof thesourceswerebasedonempiricalfindings.Thetermcollaborationwasfrequently usedwithanimpliedmeaningrelatingtotwoormorepeoplecomingtogetherinan activityoraroundatask.Collaborationwasalsoconflatedwithotherterms,suchas co/teamteaching,consultation,cooperation,cooperativelearning,workingtogether, communitiesofpractice,self-studygroupsandteam/groupwork.Alimitednumber ofthesesourcesrelatedspecificallytocollaborationinhighereducationcurriculum orprogram/coursedesign.Thisnecessitatedaninitialnarrowingofsourcesto108 usingtheabovesearchtermsfoundinthetitleandabstract.Readingacrossthe articlesidentifiedthosewhosekeysubjectmatterwasinfactcollaborationorteam problem-solvinginaneducationorcommunitysector.Thisresultedinaselection of9commentary(non-empirical)and32empiricalstudiesondefiningcollaboration (Table 2.1)andaddressingfactorsforteamcollaboration(Table 2.2).Sourcesfor thereviewwereselectedbasedontheneedorvalueofcollaborationincurriculum orprogramdesignorlearningandteaching,whethertheyexaminedcollaboration asdistinctfromrelatedorconflatedterms,and/oraddressedfactorsordimensions thatcontributetoeffectivecollaborationingroupsorteams.Inaddition,threeof thestudiesincludedwerefromsocial/community,businessandpilotstudies,where

theyofferedempiricalevidenceonthemeaningofandkeyfactorsassociatedwith effectivecollaboration.

Theliteraturereviewisdividedintothefollowingchaptersbasedondefining collaborationandthekeyfactorsforeffectivecollaboration:

1.Introduction

2.Definingcollaborationandpreviewingsuccessfactorsforeffectivecollaboration

3.Developingindividualattitudes,dispositionsandinterpersonalskillsfor collaboration

4.Team-basedstructures,protocolsandproblem-solvingskillsforeffective collaboration

5.Buildingsharedmentalmodels

6.Leadership,teamnormsandsupportsforcollaboration

7.Theeffectofcollaborationonlearningandpractice

8.Discussionandconclusion.

ThechapterstructureandoverallorganisationofthebriefarederivedfromthefindingsdescribedinChap. 2,wherecollaborationisdefinedandthosefactorsassociated withsuccessfulcollaborationareidentified.Assuch,thechaptersaredesignedto capturethescopeanddepthofcontemporaryunderstandingsofcollaborationin team-basedlearningandteachingwithinaHEcontext.

References

Bain,A.(2007). Theself-organisingschool:Next-generationcomprehensiveschoolreforms.Lanham,MD:Rowman&LittlefieldEducation.

Bain,A.,Walker,A.,&Chan,A.(2011).Self-organisationandcapacitybuilding:Sustainingthe change. JournalofEducationalAdministration,49 (6),701–719. https://doi.org/10.1108/095782 31111174839

Bain,A.,&Zundans-Fraser,Z.(2017). Theself-organisinguniversity:Designingthehighereducationorganizationforqualitylearningandteaching.Singapore:Springer. Bentley,T.,&Cazaly,C.(2015). Thesharedworkoflearning:Liftingeducationalachievement throughcollaboration. MitchellInstituteresearchreportno.03/2015.MitchellInstituteforHealth andEducationPolicyandtheCentreforStrategicEducation,Melbourne.Retrievedfrom http:// www.mitchellinstitute.org.au.

Blue–Banning,M.,Summers,J.A.,Frankland,C.,LordNelson,J.,&Beegle,G.(2004).Dimensions offamilyandprofessionalpartnerships:Constructiveguidelinesforcollaboration. Exceptional Children,70 (2),167–184(ERICDocumentreproductionServiceNo.EJ695925). Bradley,D.,Noonan,P.,Nugent,H.,&Scales,B.(2008).ReviewofAustralianhighereducation:Finalreport.Canberra:DepartmentofEducation,EmploymentandWorkplaceRelations. Retrievedfrom www.deewr.gov.au/he_review_finalreport. Briggs,C.L.(2007).Curriculumcollaborations:Akeytocontinuousprogramrenewal. TheJournal ofHigherEducation, 7 (6),679–711.Retrievedfrom http://www.jstor.org/stable/4501239?seq= 1#page_scan_tab_contents

Burrell,A.R.,Cavanagh,M.,Young,S.,&Carter,H.(2015).Team-basedcurriculumdesignasan agentofchange. TeachinginHigherEducation,20 (8),753–766. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562 517.2015.1085856

Chapman,C.,&Fullan,M.(2007).Collaborativepartnershipsforequitableimprovement:Towards anetworkedlearningsystem. Editorial.SchoolLeadershipandManagement,27 (3),207–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701379354.

Dettmer,P.,Thurston,L.P.,&Dyck,N.(2005).Foundationsandframeworksforcollaborative schoolconsultation.In Consultation,collaborationandteamworkforstudentswithspecialneeds, 5/E (5thed.,pp.35–66).Boston,MA:Pearson.

Friend,M.,&Cook,L.(2014). Interactions:Collaborationskillsforschoolprofessionals (7thed.). Harlow:PearsonEducationLimited.

Fullan,M.(2011). Choosingthewrongdriversforwholesystemreform.CentreforStrategicEducation,SeminarSeriespaper204,April2011,1–19.EastMelbourne,VIC:CSE.Retrievedfrom http://www.cse.edu.au

Fullan,M.(2016). Thenewmeaningofeducationalchange (5thed.).NY:TeachersCollegePress. Goddard,Y.L.,Goddard,R.D.,&Tschannen-Moran,M.(2007).AtheoreticalempiricalinvestigationofteachercollaborationforschoolimprovementandstudentachievementinPublic Elementaryschools. TeachersCollegeRecord,109 (4),877–896(ERICDocumentreproduction ServiceNo.EJ820449).

Hattie,J.(2009). Visiblelearning:Asynthesisofover800meta-analysisofachievement .NewYork, NY:Routledge.

Hattie,J.(2015).Theapplicabilityofvisiblelearningtohighereducation. ScholarshipofTeaching andLearninginPsychology,1(1),79–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000021.

Henkel,M.(2005).Academicidentityandautonomyinachangingpolicyenvironment. Higher Education,49, 155–176.

Hoban,G.(Ed.).(2005). Themissinglinksinteachereducationdesign:Developingamulti-linked conceptualframework .Dordrecht,TheNetherlands:Springer/KluwerAcademicPublishers. Jones,S.,Lefoe,G.,Harvey,M.,&Ryland,K.(2012).Distributedleadership:acollaborative frameworkforacademics,executivesandprofessionalsinhighereducation. JournalofHigher EducationPolicy&Management,34(1),67–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080x.2012.64233 4

Jorgensen,C.M.,McSheehan,M.,&Sonnenmeier,R.M.(2009). Essentialbestpracticesin inclusiveschools.SEPAC.Retrievedfrom http://www.f-sepac.org/f-sepac.org/inclusion_files/E ssential%20Best%20Practices%20in%20Inclusive%20Schools.pdf

Kezar,A.,&Holcombe,E.(2018).Mentalmodelsandimplementingnewfacultyroles. Innovative HigherEducation, 43(2),91-106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-017-9415-x

Kezar,A.J.,&Lester,J.(2009). Organizinghighereducationforcollaboration:Aguideforcampus leaders.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.

Lawson,H.A.(2004).Thelogicofcollaborationineducationandthehumanservices. Journalof InterprofessionalCare,18 (3),225–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820410001731278

Levine,T.H.,&Marcus,A.S.(2010).Howthestructureandfocusofteacher’scollaborative activitiesfacilitateandconstrainlearning. TeacherandTeacherEducation,26 (2010),389–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.001

Magolda,P.(2001).Bordercrossings:Collaborationstrugglesineducation. JournalofEducational Research,49 (6),346–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670109598772. Meiers,M.&Ingvarson,L.(2005).Investigatingthelinksbetweenteacherprofessionaldevelopmentandstudentlearningoutcomes.AustralianGovernmentQualityTeacherProgramme. ACER AustralianCouncilforEducationalResearch, 1,1–93.Retrievedfrom http://research.acer.edu.a u/professional_dev/2/. NCATE.(2014). ProgramStandards.NationalCouncilforAccreditationofTeacherEducation. Retrievedfrom http://www.ncate.org/Standards/tabid/107/Default.aspx. Norton,A.,Sonnemann,J.,&Cherastidtham,I.(2013). Takinguniversityteachingseriously,Grattan Institute.Retrievedfrom http://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/191_Taking-Teachi ng-Seriously.pdf

OECD.(2017).PISA2015collaborativeproblem-solvingframework.In PISA2015Assessment andAnalyticalFramework:Science,Reading,Mathematic,FinancialLiteracyandCollaborative

ProblemSolving (pp.131–188).Paris:OECDPublishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/97892642818 20-8-en.

Oliver,S.L.,&Hyun,E.(2011).Comprehensivecurriculumreforminhighereducation:Collaborativeengagementoffacultyandeducators. JournalofCaseStudiesinEducation,2, 1–20(ERIC DocumentreproductionServiceNo.EJ1057195).

Olson,L.M.(2003).Pathwaystocollaboration. ReclaimingChildrenandYouth,11(4),236–239. Retrievedfrom https://reclaimingjournal.com/sites/default/files/journal-article-pdfs/11_4_Olso n.pdf

QAA.(2015). TheQualityCode:Abriefguide.TheQualityAssuranceAgencyforHigherEducation.Retrievedfrom http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/quality-code-brief-gui de.pdf

Schleicher,A.(2011). Buildingahigh-qualityteachingprofession:Lessonsfromaroundtheworld OECDInternationalsummitontheteachingprofession,NewYork,NY:OECDPublishing—Educationataglance2010.Retrievedfrom http://www.oecd.org/education/school/programmefor internationalstudentassessmentpisa/47506177.pdf

Shannon,G.S.,&Bylsma,P.(2007). Ninecharacteristicsofhigh-performingschools:Aresearch basedresourceforschoolsanddistrictstoassistwithimprovingstudentlearning (2nded., pp.1–23).Olympia,WA:OfficeofSuperintendentofPublicInstruction.Retrievedfrom http://l apwaidistrict.org/webfiles/Mandatory%20Info/NineCharacteristics.pdf.

Shroyer,G.,Yahnke,S.,Bennett,A.,&Dunn,C.(2007).Simultaneousrenewalthoughprofessional developmentschoolpartnerships. JournalofEducationalResearch,100 (4),211–224. https://do i.org/10.3200/JOER.100.4.211-225.

Smethurst,J.B.(1997).Ofpracticeandpatternlanguage. JournalofTransitionManagement. Retrievedfrom http://www.mgtaylor.com/mgtaylor/jotm/summer97/community_of_prac tice.htm.

TEQSA.(2015). HigherEducationStandardsFramework(ThresholdStandards)2015. Tertiary EducationQualityandStandardsAgencyAct2011.Retrievedfrom https://www.legislation.gov. au/Details/F2015L01639

Thies,L.C.(2016).Buildingstaffcapacitythroughreflectingoncollaborativedevelopmentof embeddedacademicliteraciescurricula. JournalofUniversityTeaching&LearningPractice, 13(5).Retrievedfrom http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol13/iss5/19

Winitzky,N.,Sheridan,S.,Crow,N.,Welch,M.,&Kennedy,C.(1995).Interdisciplinarycollaboration:Variationsonatheme. JournalofTeacherEducation,46 (2),109–119. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0022487195046002005

Wood,D.J.,&Gray,B.(1991).Towardsacomprehensivetheoryofcollaboration. Journalof BehaviouralScience,27 (2),139–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886391272001

Zundans-Fraser,L.A.(2014). Self-organisationincoursedesign:Acollaborative,theory-based approachtocoursedevelopmentininclusiveeducation (Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation). CharlesSturtUniversity.

Zundans-Fraser,L.,&Bain,A.(2016). Risingtothechallengeoftransforminghighereducation Singapore.RetrievedfromProQuestEbookCentral:Springer.

Chapter2

DefiningCollaborationandPreviewing SuccessFactorsforEffective Collaboration

2.1DefiningCollaboration

Collaborationisclearlyidentifiedasaneedinhighereducation.Thequestionarises astowhetheritisappliedinHEpracticeoristhere(asitseems)agapbetween aspirationandpractice.Toanswerthisquestion,wefirstneedtodeterminewhat ismeantbycollaboration,wherecollaborationisoccurring,whetherthereisan empiricalbaseforanyclaimsaboutitsuseandwhatarethekeyfactorsandmethods ofeffectivepracticethatneedtobetakenup.Theliteraturesuggeststhatformal collaborativepracticeisrareinhighereducationlearningandteaching,whilethere isalimitedempiricalbaseshowingthatitdoesoccureffectivelyinpocketsinsome inclusiveK-12schools.

AsummaryoftheliteratureondefiningcollaborationisincludedinTable 2.1 by: thesectoritisdrawnfrom;thetypeofresearchorpublicationitisbasedon;the perspectivetakenoncollaboration;andthekeyelementsofcollaborationidentified ineach.Thosestudieswithoutanexplicitdefinitionofcollaborationareincludedat theendofthetableinasectionentitledimplieddefinitions.

TheliteraturedescribedinTable 2.1 reflectsalong-standingneedtodefinecollaborationclearly.WoodandGray(1991)conductedareviewofnineprojectsandtwo overviews,acrosssixtheoreticalperspectivestoexamineandexplaincollaborative behaviourandtheimportanceofinterorganisationalcollaborationacrossbusiness, socialservicesandeducationalpolicyalliances.Ofthefouroverarchingissuesthat emergedfromthoseprojects,theneedtodefinecollaborationwascriticaltobuilding atheoryofcollaborationandtodefiningelementsinobservableformsotheycould bestudied.WoodandGray(1991)concludedthat,whiletheprojectscontributed todevelopingatheory,thereremainedmanyunresolvedareasofresearch.Lawson (2004),drawingoninterdisciplinaryliterature,described“imprecise,incoherent,and competingconceptionsofcollaboration”(p.225)asakeyproblemindeveloping “collaborationtheory,policyandpractice”(p.226).InastudyvalidatingtheTeacher CollaborationAssessmentSurvey(TCAS),Woodland,LeeandRandall(2013)also

©TheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNatureSingaporePteLtd.2018 C.NewellandA.Bain, Team-BasedCollaborationinHigherEducation LearningandTeaching,SpringerBriefsinEducation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1855-9_2

Table2.1 Definingcollaborationliteratureincludedinthisreview:Bysector,typeofresearch, perspectiveandelements

Study Sector

Definedcollaboration WoodandGray (1991) Business, social servicesand educational policy

Friendand Cook(2014)

Typeof research/publication

Non-quantitative review Process Group;autonomous stakeholders;problem domain;interactive process;usesharedrules, normsandstructures;act ordecideondomain issues(p.146)

IE Text Style Style;atleasttwo coequals;voluntary; directinteraction between;shareddecision making;worktowarda commongoal(p.8)

OECD(2017) International PISA, secondary education Report Capacity, process Twoormoreagents; capacity;engageina process;solveaproblem; sharetheunderstanding andeffort;cometoa solution;poolknowledge, skillsandefforttoreach solution(p.6)

Kezar(2005) HE Qualitative – WoodandGray(1991) Czajkowski (2006) HE Qualitative – WoodandGray(1991)

Carter,Prater, Jacksonand Marchant (2009)

Doppenberg etal.(2012)

Meirinketal. (2010)

IE,Primary education Qualitative – FriendandCook(2014)

Primary education Mixed

Secondary education Mixed

Interdependent; cognitionand/or behaviour change

Interdependent; belief/behaviour change,process

Rangeoftypologiesof collaboration; collaborativeteacher learning

Sharedresponsibilityand decision-makingon commonpractices; collective problem-solving/joint method;alignedgoals andconceptof collaboration;group cohesion (continued)

Table2.1 (continued)

Study Sector

Typeof research/publication

Perspective

Elements

Lofthouseand Thomas(2017) Secondary education Qualitative Process, relationship Workingtogether; towardsacommongoal; poolingknowledge; problemsolving; co-construction

Woodlandetal. (2013) K-12 Mixed Process Everyday,continuous cycleofcollective professionalteacher dialogue, decision-making,action taking,andevaluation; data-informed problem-solving

Olson(2003) IE Non-empirical article Process Collaborative problem-solving;goals thatcannotbeachieved efficientlybyworking alone

Hobbsand Westling(1998) IE Non-empirical article Process Collaborative problem-solving,Friend andCook(2014)

Jonesetal. (2012) HE Qualitative Process,COP Contributeindividual expertise;collective decision-making;regular networkingsupported; facilitated

Magolda(2001) K-16 Qualitative Relationship andprocess Shareddialogue, expertise,leadership, learninganddesign process

Blue-Banning etal.(2004) IE Qualitative Relationship Interpersonal relationships;shared decision-making

Salisburyetal. (1997) IE Qualitative Interdependent relationship Twoormorepeople; interdependent relationship; collaborative problem-solving;achieve acommongoal

Zundans-Fraser (2014) HE,IE teacher preparation Qualitative Relationship Workingtogetherina positivemanner;ongoing basis;commongoal; supportingstructuresand procedures;collaborative problem-solving (continued)

Table2.1 (continued)

Study Sector

Nokes-Malach etal.(2012) Pilots

Bentleyand Cazaly(2015) K-12

Implieddefinition

Winitzkyetal. (1995) K-16

Kezar(2001) HE

Akmaland Miller(2003) HE

Thies(2016) HE

Oliverand Hyun(2011) HE

Briggs(2007) HE

Typeof research/publication

Quantitative System Complexsystem; interactingparticipants; individualandgroup processes; problem-solving

Qualitative Relationship, system Sharedgoals;sharingof effort,knowledgeand resources

Mixed Process, relationship Interdisciplinaryteams; structured problem-solvingsteps; interpersonalskill development

Quantitative Task/activity Non-explicit

Qualitative Relationship Non-explicit

Qualitative Relationship Cross-disciplinaryteams developingpartnerships throughactive stakeholderinvolvement

Qualitative Relationship, learning,COP Willingnesstowork together;sharedvision andgoals;cultureof learninginaCOP

Qualitative Tasktypes,COP Non-explicit

identifiedtheimportanceofdeveloping“aspecificandexplicitunderstandingofthe desirableandhighleverageelementsandattributesofteachercollaboration”(p.443), tounderstandanddetermineitsefficacy.

FriendandCook(2014)inaleadingtextoncollaborationskillsforschoolprofessionalsindicatethatthereis“confusionaboutitscharacterandimplementation” (p.7)duetofewcleardefinitions.Thereisaneedtodistinguishcollaborationasa conceptandbeyondabroadnotionofworkingtogether,sothathowwegoaboutan activityortaskcanbedistinguishedfromtheactivityortaskitself.Blue-Banning, Summers,Frankland,LordNelsonandBeegle(2004)fromareviewofresearchon collaborativepartnershipsbetweenspecialservicesprofessionalsandparentssuggestonereasonforthegapbetweenrecommendationstocollaborateandpractice maybethe“failuretooperationallydefinetheconstructofpartnership”(p.169).In ahighereducation(HE)study,Kezar(2006)identifieslearningaboutthebenefitsof collaborationasanessentialfactorformakingcollaborationsuccessful.Inastudyof successfactorsinHEinterinstitutionalcollaborations,Czajkowski(2006)attributes

2.1DefiningCollaboration13

confusionoverthemeaningofcollaborationtoitsdefinition“intheliteratureas both arelationshipandaprocess”(p.23).

InsevenstudiesinHE(Kezar, 2001;Akmal&Miller, 2003;Magolda, 2001; Winitzky,Sheridan,Crow,Welch&Kennedy 1995;Thies, 2016;Oliver&Hyun, 2011;Briggs, 2007),themeaningofcollaborationisnotexplicitlydefinedalthough itcanbeimpliedfromthewaysinwhichcollaborationisdiscussed.Kezar(2001) inastudyofcollaborationbetweenstudentaffairspersonnelandacademicsin128 HEinstitutionsreferredtothenumberofsuccessfulcollaborationsandtypesand categoriesthatweresuccessful.Theapproachsuggestedaninterpretationofcollaborationasanevent,instanceortask.AkmalandMiller(2003),inacasestudyofsecondaryteacherpreparationcurriculumrenewal,discussacollaborative-construction phasethatimpliescollaborationisarelationshipinwhichcourse/programcoordinator,facultyandapprovalcommitteemembersdesignmodelsofteacherpreparation. Magolda(2001)referstobordercrossingsinaK-16collaboration,withanimplied definitionofparticipantsengaginginshareddialogue,expertise,leadership,learning andadesignprocessthatacknowledgesallparticipants.Winitzkyetal.(1995)in astudyofK-16interdisciplinarycollaborationreferredtoapplyingacollaborative educationalproblem-solvingand“ecologicaldecision-makingmodel”(p.111)for interdisciplinaryteams,whichincludedstructuredproblem-solvingstepsandinterpersonalskilldevelopment.Thethreeproblem-solvingstepswere:analysecurrent situation;devisemultiplepossiblesolutionsandanticipateconsequences;andselect oneandcreateanactionplanandmeanstoevaluatesuccess.

Thefollowingthreestudies(Thies, 2016;Oliver&Hyun, 2011;Briggs, 2007) highlighthowcollaborationwasviewedbyacademicsengagedintheprocessof curriculumrenewal.Inacross-disciplinaryactionresearchproject,Thies(2016) viewedcollaborationasdevelopingpartnershipsthroughactivestakeholderparticipationincurriculumdevelopment.Inacasestudyofacurriculumreviewteam, OliverandHyun(2011)focusedonhowateamworkedtogetherwiththetaskof reviewingtheprogramcurriculumandthefactorsthataffectedtheirsuccess.Collaborationemergedasawillingnesstoworktogetheracrossculturesandsharea visionandgoalsofthewholeprogram.OliverandHyun(2011)characterisethe team’sapproachas“relational”(p.13)anda“cultureoflearning”(p.14)withina communityofpractice.

Briggs’(2007)goalwastoidentifycommonfeaturesofthenatureorcontext ofintradisciplinarycurriculumcollaborationsasameansforongoingcurriculum renewal.Thestudyinvolved127interviewswiththechairandtwofacultymembersfrom44HEdepartmentsidentifiedasexemplary.Fromreportedexamplesand themes,collaborationemergedasacontinuumrangingfrominformaldiscussionto structuredcommitteeworkandprojects.Thetermcollegialitywasusedsynonymouslywithcollaborationinrelationtothevalueaddedfromsocialnetworks,such astrust.Collaborationwasmostoftenviewedasinformalinteractions,voluntary andmotivatedbyacommitmenttocurriculumqualityandstudentlearning.Brigg’s (2007)studydistinguishedthetheoreticalunderpinningsofcollaborationascommunitiesofpractice(COP),ratherthanteamwork,whereallaspectsofanacademic’s curriculumworkareseenascollaboration,movingcollaborationawayfromstruc-

tureandprocess.Thestudysuggeststhatacademics’interpretationsofcollaboration stronglyrelatetothetypesoftasksundertakentogetherandaspectsofrelationships basedonsocialandprofessionalcapital.

Jonesetal.(2012)followingananalysisofcommonfactorsacrossfourstudiesofdistributedleadershipinAustralianuniversitiesalsodefinecollaborationin theirActionSelf-EnablingReflectiveTool(ASERT)asarelationshipthatmodels COP,where“expertiseofindividualscontributestocollectivedecisionmaking”,and where“opportunitiesforregularnetworkingaresupported”and“collaborationis facilitated”(p.76).

IntheK-12context,Doppenberg,denBrokandBakx(2012)alsofocussedon typesofcollaborativeactivityinastudyofcollaborativeteacherlearningamong411 teachersin49primaryschoolsacross16schoolboards.Importantly,theseauthors gofurtherforegroundinglearningthroughcollaborationanditsimpactonoutcomes; inthisinstanceteacherpractice.Collaborativeteacherlearningisdefinedas“the learningactivitiesthatteachersundertakeincollaborationwithcolleagues,thatlead tochangesinteachers’cognitionand/orbehaviour(cf.Meirink,Meijer,&Verloop, 2007;Shuell,1996)”(p.900).TheauthorsapplyLittle’s(1990,ascitedinDoppenbergetal., 2012,p.901)typologiesofcollaboration,basedondegreesofinterdependencyandcollegialityorcollectiveautonomy,whichstartlowandincreasethrough thetypes,withanimplicationofmorelearningathigherlevels.Thetypesare“storytellingandscanning”,“aidandassistance”,“sharing”(exchange)and“jointwork” (p.901).Theauthorsincludedafifthcategory,“collegialsupport”(involvingtwo teachersin“coachingandcollegialvisitation”)(p.901),wheredependencycouldbe equalorunequal.Collaborationswereidentifiedassingleactivities,suchaslistening,orcoherentcompoundactivities,suchasproblem-solvingwithinastructured process.

Meirink,Imants,MeijerandVerloop(2010)acknowledgetheconflationofcooperationandcollaborationbyteachersandthehighlevelofteacherautonomy.The authorsrefertoHord’s(1986,ascitedinMeirinketal., 2010)definitionofcooperationas“twoormoreteachers,withseparateandautonomouspractices,whoagreeto worktogethertomaketheirprivatepracticesmoresuccessful”(p.163–164).Collaborationontheotherhandisteachers“shar[ing]responsibilityandauthorityformaking decisionsabouttheircommonpractices”(p.164).Theauthorsalsoappliedthelevels ofinterdependencedescribedaboveintheirstudy(Little,1990;Rosenholtz,1989, ascitedinMeirinketal., 2010,p.164).LofthouseandThomas(2017)explored whethercollaborationoccurredintencasestudiesofteacherandstudent-teacher pairsacrosseightschoolsapplyingthreetypesofprotocoltodeveloptheirpractice. Theauthorsclassifiedthetaskmanagementprocessesidentifiedintheirstudyas cooperationratherthancollaboration,whereindividuals“cangainsomeefficiency oredgethroughcooperating”(p.51).LofthouseandThomas(2017)viewedcollaborationastheactionof“working‘together’,notjustworking‘with’;andworking towardsacommongoal,poolingknowledgeandproblem-solving”(p.36).Collaborationinvolveschallengingpracticeandsharediterativebuildingofideas.

InaK-12casestudyofthesystemicscaleupofcollaborationinschools,BentleyandCazaly(2015)definecollaborationas“thesharingofeffort,knowledgeand

2.1DefiningCollaboration15

resourcesinthepursuitofsharedgoals”(p.5),andinvolvingvoluntary“flexible trustbasedrelationships”(p.5).Woodlandetal.(2013),inthecontextofevaluation ofteachercollaborationinK-12comprehensiveschoolreform,testedtheTeacher CollaborationAssessmentSurveybasedon591respondentsacrosstwodistricts, includinggeneralandspecialeducators,leaders,cliniciansandadministrativestaff. Woodlandetal.(2013)definecollaborationwiththeintentionofimprovingteacher instructionalpracticeandstudentoutcomes,as“teachersworkingcloselywithcolleaguesduringtheworkdaytoexaminestudent-learningdataandsolveproblems ofinstructionalpracticethroughacontinuouscycleofdialogue,decisionmaking, actiontaking,andevaluation”(p.443).

IninclusiveeducationintheK-12sector,thereisalonghistoryandrefineddefinitionofcollaborationforsolvingproblemstomeetstudentneeds(Dettmer,Thurston, &Dyck, 2005;Friend&Cook, 2014).HobbsandWestling(1998)viewcollaborativeproblem-solvingas“asystematicwaytoidentifyproblemsorbarriersrelated toinclusionandtocreatesolutionstothoseproblems”(p.14).Salisbury,Evans andPolombaro(1997)inastudyofcollaborativeproblem-solvingforinclusion inelementaryschoolclassroomstated,“collaborativeproblem-solvinginvolvesan interdependentrelationshipamongtwoormorepeopletoachieveacommongoal” (p.195).Theauthorsalsoidentifiedcollaborationasarelationshipthatinvolves:commitmenttodefiningsharedgoals;agreedstructuresforaddressingissues;“shared authorityforideageneration,mutualaccountabilityforsuccessandthesharingof resourcesandrewards”(p.195).

FriendandCook(2014)definecollaborationasinterpersonalcollaboration,“a stylefordirectinteractionbetweenatleasttwocoequalpartiesvoluntarilyengaged inshareddecisionmakingastheyworktowardacommongoal”(p.8),highlighting itasachoiceofinteractionstylethatdifferentiatesthekindofcommunicationand interpersonalrelationshipsthatoccurduringcollaborationfromotherstyles.Friend andCook(2014)explicitlyidentify“interpersonalproblem-solvingasthemostcommonlyusedinteractionprocessthroughwhichprofessionals…collaborateaprocess thatreliesoncommunication”(p.63).Whereproblem-solvingisasharedresponsibilitybetweentwoormorepeople,theninterpersonalproblem-solvingprocesses areneeded.Theauthorsdefineinterpersonalcommunicationas“acomplextransactionalprocessthroughwhichpeoplecreatesharedmeaningsthroughcontinuously andsimultaneouslyexchangingmessages”(p.39).FriendandCook(2014)propose amodelforinterpersonalproblem-solvinginvolvingaseven-stepprocess:“analyse theproblem-solvingcontext”,“identifytheproblem”,“generatesolutions”,“evaluatepotentialsolutions”,“selectsolutions”,“implementthesolution/s”and“evaluate outcomes”(p.73).

Blue-Banningetal.(2004),fromareviewoftheresearchoncollaborativepartnershipsbetweenfamiliesandprofessionals,definedcollaborativepartnershipsassupportive,interpersonalrelationshipsforshareddecision-makingthatinvolveattitudes, skills,valuesandbeliefs.Olson(2003)inareviewoftheresearchoncollaboration referencedBruner’s(1991,ascitedinOlson, 2003)definitionofcollaboration“as aprocessforreachinggoalsthatcannotbeachievedefficientlybyworkingalone” (p.236).Olson(2003)alsoidentifiescollaborationasincluding“shareddecision

making,responsibility,andauthority”and“problem-solvingstructuresandprocesses fordealingwithconflict”(p.236).

InastudyofHEcollaborativeprogramdesign,Zundans-Fraser(2014)reviewed researchacrosshighereducation,teachereducationandinclusiveeducation,describingcollaborationfirstasarelationshipamongparticipants.Theauthordrewona rangeofdefinitionswhichhadincommon,“thenotionofworkingtogetherina positivemanner,inanon-goingbasisandwithacommongoal”(p.45)andincorporatingsupportingstructuresandprocedures.Thoseproceduresincludedasix-step collaborativeprocessappliedbythedesignteamintheZundans-Fraser(2014)study.

Indicatingitsinternationalimport,theOECD’s(2017)ProgramforInternationalStudentAssessment(PISA)publishedaframeworkforassessingcollaborativeproblem-solvingcompetencyinsecondaryschoolstudentsworldwidein2015. ThePISAcollaborativeproblem-solving(CPS)framework(OECD, 2017)defined collaborativeproblem-solvingasacapacitythatincorporatesprocess,relationships andlearning.Thedefinitionisbasedon“computer-supportedco-operativework, team-discourseanalysis,knowledgesharing,individualproblemsolving,organisationalpsychology,andassessmentinworkcontexts”(p.133).Collaborativeproblemsolvingis:

Thecapacityofanindividualtoeffectivelyengageinaprocesswherebytwoormoreagents attempttosolveaproblembysharingtheunderstandingandeffortrequiredtocometoa solutionandpoolingtheirknowledge,skillsandefforttoreachthatsolution.(p.134)

Nokes-Malach,MeadeandMorrow(2012)inastudyontheeffectsofexpertise oncollaborativeproblem-solvinginpairsofexpert,noviceandnon-pilots,define collaboration“asacomplexsystemofinteractingparticipants”(p.55),including individualandgroupprocesses.

Kezar(2005)inaqualitativestudyofcollaborativeinitiativesinfourexemplary HEinstitutionsgroundedherstudyinWoodandGray’s(1991)definition.Woodand Gray(1991)fromtheirreviewindicatedthefollowingdefinitionallowedavarietyof formsandprovidedguidelinesforrecognisingcollaborativephenomenawhenthey occur.Theauthorsfoundthateightofnineprojectseitherexplicitlyorimplieda structuredprocess.“Collaborationoccurswhenagroupofautonomousstakeholders ofaproblemdomainengageinaninteractiveprocess,usingsharedrules,norms,and structures,toactordecideonissuesrelatedtothatdomain”(p.146).Theauthorsalso utilisedGray’s(1989,citedinWoodandGray, 1991,p.145)threestagesofcollaboration,precondition,processandoutcomes,tocategorisekeyfactorsforsuccess. Whiletheresearchpointedtoincludingtheoutcomestowardswhichcollaboration isdirected,theauthorsleftittofurtherempiricalinvestigation.Czajkowski’s(2006) qualitativestudyof52HEinstitutionsalsogroundedherstudyinWoodandGray’s (1991)definitionandcombinedtheresultsfromsurveysandinterviewsontheCollaborationFactorsInventory(CFI)withthethreestagestodevelopasuccessmodel toexplainthephenomenaofcollaborationinhighereducationalliances.

2.2SummaryofDefiningCollaboration

Threecomprehensivedefinitionsemergefromtheliterature,whichalsocoverthe elementsidentifiedacrossthestudies:theOECD(2017)PISACPSframework, FriendandCook(2014)andWoodandGray(1991).Eachofthesedefinitionsdistinguishes how peopleworktogetherfromthetypeoftasktheyareengagedin,asthe basisoftheconceptofcollaboration.Theyhavesixkeyelementsincommon.They are:twoormoreagents;autonomousandvoluntary;engageinagreedprocessesof interaction;shareorcometoanunderstandingofaproblemdomain;sharedecisionmaking;towardsacommongoalormutualbenefit.Thesedefinitionsandthestudies reviewedabovesuggestthefollowing:thekeydifferencebetweenotherusesofthe termcollaboration(e.g.consultation,teamwork,co-teaching,workingtogether)is thepresenceordegreeofinterdependencyandjointcontributionorsharedwork towardsacommongoal;interdependenciesandjointcontributionoccuratevery stageoftheengagementorprocess,nomatterthetypeorfociofthecollaboration; andthataconsciousengagementisneededusingstructuresandmethodstosupportthemultidimensionalnatureofcollaboration.Inaddition,thedefinitionsand studiesencompassdifferentperspectivesoncollaboration;asarelationship,styleor approach,process,capacity,andinvolvinglearning.Boththekeyelementsandthe perspectivesareusedasabasisforunderstandingcollaborationforthepurposesof thisliteraturereview.

Ofsignificanceistherecognitionthatteam-basedcollaborationextendswell beyondapredispositiontoworkwithothers.Whatisclearfromtheanalysisof effortstodefinecollaborationisthecomplexmatrixofinterdependentanddiverse factorsrequiredtomaketeam-basedcollaborationpossibleinorganisations.Those factorsrangefrominterpersonalcompetenciestothewayanorganisationisstructuredtoenablecollaborativeprocesstooccureffectivelyandefficiently.

2.3PreviewingSuccessFactorsforEffectiveTeam Collaboration

Insummary,theprevioussectiondefinedcollaborationintermsofsixkeyelements andthefiveperspectivesofstyle,relationships,processes,capacitiesandlearning. Fromateam-basedperspective,tobeeffectivecollaborationrequiresframeworks thatmakeourunderstandingoperationalbycombiningtheelementsinwaysthat enablethemembersofateamtobecollaborativelycompetent.

Savignon’s(1983;Bagari´c&Mihaljevi´cDjigunovi´c, 2007)modelofcommunicativecompetenceprovidesausefulorganisingframeworktosummarisetheliteratureontheelementsofcollaborativecompetence.Competenceinvolvesunderlying abilitiesandapplicationinpractice.Themodelhasfourparts:grammatical,sociolinguistic,discourseandstrategiccompetencies,whichareinterrelatedanddynamicin nature.Inacollaborationcontext,firstlythegrammarcanbeunderstoodascom-

petencewiththeelementsofattitudes,dispositions,interpersonalcommunication andthestructuresthatsupporttheirmeaningininteraction(Friend&Cook, 2014; Blue-Banningetal., 2004).Thesecondcompetenceiswiththesocialandcognitivedemandsofthoseelementsinteaminteraction(OECD, 2017;Zundans-Fraser, 2014;Ciampaglia, 2010;Tagger&Ellis,2007;Stephens&Myers, 2000;Salisburyetal., 1997;Wood&Gray, 1991).Thirdistheapplicationofthoseelements anddemandstothespecifictasks,discoursesandknowledgebuildingofaproblem domain(Nokes-Malachetal., 2012;Fransen,Kirschner,&Erkens, 2011;Bain,Lancaster,&Zundans, 2009;Stoyanova&Kommers, 2002;Smethurst, 1997).Finally, thereisaneedforstrategiccompetencetomanagetheunpredictableandmultilayered natureofinterpersonalcommunicationandknowledgebuilding,andtheircomplexityincombinationandinnovelsituations(Doppenbergetal., 2012;Jonesetal., 2012;Voogt,Westbroek,Handelzalts,Walraven,McKenney,Pieters,&deVries, 2011;Levine&Marcus, 2010;Friend&Cook, 2014;Fransen,Kirschner,&Erkens, 2011;Ciampaglia, 2010;Rosen,Salas,Fiore,Pavlas,&Lum, 2009;Santangelo, 2009;Shroyer,Yahnke,Bennett,&Dunn, 2007;Rafoth&Foriska, 2006).

Theelementsofcollaborativecompetencecanbebrokenoutintothosefactors thatcontributetocollaborativeeffectiveness.Chapters 3–7 ofthereviewexamine commentaryclaimsandempiricalevidenceforthosefactorsthatareessentialand thetypeofprocessormethodmosteffectiveforteamcollaboration,whereinterdependencyispresentorneededtoachievesharedgoals.Thesefactorsinclude:

Chapter3–Developingindividualattitudes,dispositionsandinterpersonalskillsfor collaboration

Chapter4–Team-basedstructures,protocolsandproblem-solvingskillsforeffective collaboration

Chapter5–Buildingsharedmentalmodels

Chapter6–Leadership,teamnormsandsupportsforcollaboration

Chapter7–Theeffectsoflearningandpracticeoncollaboration.

Table 2.2 providesanoverviewoftheliteratureonteamcollaborationsuccessfactors thatisexaminedinthesechapters.Table 2.2 representstheliteratureoncollaboration successfactorsby:thesectoritisdrawnfrom;thetypeofresearchorpublication itisbasedon;theresearchmethodwhereapplicable;andthemajorconclusions orcontributionsmadetodefiningsuccessfactorsforeffectivecollaboration.While organisationalcultureisrecognisedinthereviewasafactoraffectingtheimplementationofanyinnovation,suchascollaboration,thebodyofliteratureinthisareais toolargetobeexaminedindetailinthisreview.

Table2.2 Teamcollaborationliteratureincludedinthisreview:Bysuccessfactorsforeffective collaborationandresearchbase

Study Sector

Typeof research/publication

Method

Developingindividualattitudes,dispositionsandinterpersonalskills

FriendandCook (2014)

IE Text

Pickford(1995) ESL Non-empirical article

Majorconclusions/contribution

Importanceofshared values,beliefsand interpersonalskills foreffective collaboration,CPS model

Powerrelationsand culturalidentity underpinpositioning andchoiceof languagein interaction

Eckermann (1994) ESL Text Frameofreference impactsinterpersonal communication

Magolda(2001) K-16,university–school partnership Qualitative Casestudy evaluation, interpretive inquiry

Weissetal. (2015) HE Qualitative

Participatory actionresearch, symbolic interactionism, interview, observation, document analysis

Crossingborders requirescultural consciousness, stakeholder commitmentthrough understanding collaborationmerits andparticipationin thedesignprocess

Threephases essentialforcrossing boundaries,valuing other’sexpertiseand achievingcritical professionaldialogue andsharedgoals. Contextfactorsa barriertoshared accountabilityand parity

Winitzkyetal. (1995) K-16,university–school partnership Mixed Longitudinal evaluativecase study

Challenging philosophicaland conceptualchange requiresskillsand structurestoshare expertise,develop trustandcollaborative ethic (continued)

Table2.2 (continued)

Study Sector

Carteretal. (2009)

IE,primary education

Blue-Banning etal.(2004)

Typeof research/publication

Qualitative

IE Qualitative

Method

Phenomenological study

Qualitative inquiry,focus groupsand interviews

Team-basedstructures,protocolsandproblem-solvingskills

Olson(2003)

IE Non-empirical article

Hobbsand Westling(1998)

IE Non-empirical article

FriendandCook (2014)

Stephensand Myers(2000)

IE Text

HEstudents, database systems subject

Salisburyetal. (1997)

Mixed

IE Qualitative

Qualitative inquiry,treatment andcontrol classes

Direct observation, recordedaccounts andfieldnotes

Majorconclusions/contribution

Sharedphilosophyof practiceessentialto engagementin collaborativeprocess

Identified36 indicators/6themesof professional behaviourfacilitative ofcollaborative partnerships

Needconcreteand structuredprocesses andopportunitiesfor teams,six-step processfor establishing collaboration

Maximisesuccess throughstructured meetingand problem-solving processes

Interpersonal problem-solving:a systematicand effectiveprocess enablingfundamental problem-solvingand interpersonalskills

Cohesionincreases withdefinedroles, meetingstructures valuableespecially actionlistsand facilitatorrole

CPSimplementedas designedpromotes valuedprofessional outcomes,iseasily incorporatedinto existingpractice (continued)

Table2.2 (continued)

Study Sector

Kovaleskiand Glew(2006)

IEK-12

Ciampaglia (2010)

IEK-12

Typeof research/publication

Non-quantitative review

Method

Majorconclusions/contribution

Programreview Criticalfactors includefidelityin CPS, curriculum-based data,teamsupportfor solution implementation, ongoingprogress monitoring

Mixed Explanatorycase studydesign FidelityinCPS implementationand data-based decision-making criticaltooutcome achievement

Teamcognition,knowledgebuildingandsharedmentalmodels

Nokes-Malach etal.(2012) Pilots

Quantitative Experimental3 × 2 × 2mixed design

Interdependenceand interactiveprocesses fromdistance betweendomain knowledgeandskill, andtasksolution. Zoneofproximal facilitation

OECD(2017) International, PISA, secondary education Report CPSframework examinesthe componentsthat enableassessmentof CPScapacity

Stoyanovaand Kommers(2002)

HEstudents, linearand hypermedia subject

Rosenetal. (2009) Human factors

Hmelo-Silverand Barrows(2008)

HEstudents, medicalcase analysis

Quantitative

Non-empirical article

Qualitative

Experimental study,treatment andcontrol groups

Discourse analysis

Extentofsharingin interactiondetermines collaborativelearning effectiveness

Modelofteam knowledgebuilding

Knowledgebuilding discourse,structures andexpertfacilitation enableconstructionof collaborative explanations (continued)

Table2.2 (continued)

Study Sector

Fransenetal. (2011) HEprimary pre-service teachers

Bainetal.(2009) HE pre-service teachers,IE subject

Typeof research/publication

Mixed

Method Majorconclusions/contribution

Qualitative questionnaire, regressions analysisand plenarydebrief

Quantitative Casestudy, simple uninterrupted timeseriesdesign

Leadership,teamnormsandsupportsforcollaboration

TaggarandEllis (2007) HEstudents, organisational behaviour subject

Zundans-Fraser (2014) HEIEteacher preparation program design

Quantitative Blindstudy, questionnaire, regressions analysis

Qualitative

Jonesetal.(2012) HE Qualitative

Design-based researchmethod

Sharedmentalmodels significanteffecton mutualperformance monitoringandteam effectiveness,trusta preconditionfor sharedmodels

Patternlanguagea prerequisitefor sharedmentalmodel developmentand effective collaboration

Highteamwork expectationsessential orhighexpectation leaderstoameliorate lowteamexpectations

Changein organisationalculture andprocessneededto supportcollaboration andprogramdesign

Participatoryand inquiry-based actionresearch

Rafothand Foriska(2006) IE Non-empirical article

Shroyeretal. (2007) K-16,university–school partnership

Mixed

Longitudinal evaluativecase study

Resourcesand leadershipPDto supportcollaboration, leadershipdistributed andcollaborative

Modelof principal–teacher influenceonCPS teams

Studentlearning enhancedby collaboration, collaborative reconstruction requiressignificant resources,PDand supportacross systems

(continued)

Another random document with no related content on Scribd:

And told him so, but friendship never ends;

And what if mind seem changed,

And it seem changed with the mind,

When thoughts rise up unbid

On generous things that he did

And I grow half contented to be blind.

He had much industry at setting out,

Much boisterous courage, before loneliness

Had driven him crazed;

For meditations upon unknown thought

Make human intercourse grow less and less;

They are neither paid nor praised.

But he’d object to the host,

The glass because my glass;

A ghost-lover he was

And may have grown more arrogant being a ghost.

But names are nothing. What matter who it be,

So that his elements have grown so fine

The fume of muscatel

Can give his sharpened palate ecstasy

No living man can drink from the whole wine.

I have mummy truths to tell

Whereat the living mock,

Though not for sober ear,

For maybe all that hear

Should laugh and weep an hour upon the clock.

Such thought such thought have I that hold it tight Till meditation master all its parts, Nothing can stay my glance

Until that glance run in the world’s despite To where the damned have howled away their hearts, And where the blessed dance; Such thought, that in it bound I need no other thing

Wound in mind’s wandering, As mummies in the mummy-cloth are wound.

NOTES

SAILING TO BYZANTIUM

S IV

I have read somewhere that in the Emperor’s palace at Byzantium was a tree made of gold and silver, and artificial birds that sang.

THE TOWER. P II

The persons mentioned are associated by legend, story and tradition with the neighbourhood of Thoor Ballylee or Ballylee Castle, where the poem was written. Mrs. French lived at Peterswell in the eighteenth century and was related to Sir Jonah Barrington, who described the incident of the ear and the trouble that came of it. The peasant beauty and the blind poet are Mary Hynes and Raftery, and the incident of the man drowned in Cloone Bog is

recorded in my Celtic Twilight. Hanrahan’s pursuit of the phantom hare and hounds is from my Stories of Red Hanrahan. The ghosts have been seen at their game of dice in what is now my bedroom, and the old bankrupt man lived about a hundred years ago. According to one legend he could only leave the Castle upon a Sunday because of his creditors, and according to another he hid in the secret passage.

THE TOWER. P III

In the passage about the Swan I have unconsciously echoed one of the loveliest lyrics of our time Mr. Sturge Moore’s ‘Dying Swan’. I often recited it during an American lecturing tour, which explains the theft.

T D S

O silver-throated Swan

Struck, struck! A golden dart

Clean through thy breast has gone

Home to thy heart.

Thrill, thrill, O silver throat!

O silver trumpet, pour

Love for defiance back

On him who smote!

And brim, brim o’er

With love; and ruby-dye thy track

Down thy last living reach

Of river, sail the golden light

Enter the sun’s heart even teach,

O wondrous-gifted pain, teach thou

The God to love, let him learn how!

When I wrote the lines about Plato and Plotinus I forgot that it is something in our own eyes that makes us see them as all transcendence. Has not Plotinus written: ‘Let every soul recall, then, at the outset the truth that soul is the author of all living things, that it has breathed the life into them all, whatever is nourished by earth and sea, all the creatures of the air, the divine stars in the sky; it is the maker of the sun; itself formed and ordered this vast heaven and conducts all that rhythmic motion and it is a principle distinct from all these to which it gives law and movement and life, and it must of necessity be more honourable than they, for they gather or dissolve as soul brings them life or abandons them, but soul, since it never can abandon itself, is of eternal being’.

MEDITATIONS IN TIME OF CIVIL WAR

These poems were written at Thoor Ballylee in 1922, during the civil war. Before they were finished the Republicans blew up our ‘ancient bridge’ one midnight. They forbade us to leave the house, but were otherwise polite, even saying at last ‘Goodnight, thank you’ as though we had given them the bridge.

S S

In the West of Ireland we call a starling a stare, and during the civil war one built in a hole in the masonry by my bedroom window.

S S, S II

The cry ‘Vengeance on the murderers of Jacques Molay’, Grand Master of the Templars, seems to me fit symbol for those who labour from hatred, and so for sterility in various kinds. It is said to have been incorporated in the ritual of certain Masonic societies of the eighteenth century, and to have fed class-hatred.

S S, S IV

I have a ring with a hawk and a butterfly upon it, to symbolise the straight road of logic, and so of mechanism,

and the crooked road of intuition: ‘For wisdom is a butterfly and not a gloomy bird of prey’.

NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINETEEN

S S

The country people see at times certain apparitions whom they name now ‘fallen angels’, now ‘ancient inhabitants of the country’, and describe as riding at whiles ‘with flowers upon the heads of the horses’. I have assumed in the sixth poem that these horsemen, now that the times worsen, give way to worse. My last symbol, Robert Artisson, was an evil spirit much run after in Kilkenny at the start of the fourteenth century. Are not those who travel in the whirling dust also in the Platonic Year?

TWO SONGS FROM A PLAY

These songs are sung by the Chorus in a play that has for its theme Christ’s first appearance to the Apostles after the Resurrection, a play intended for performance in a drawing-room or studio.

AMONG SCHOOL CHILDREN

S III

I have taken ‘the honey of generation’ from Porphyry’s essay on ‘The Cave of the Nymphs’, but find no warrant in Porphyry for considering it the ‘drug’ that destroys the ‘recollection’ of pre-natal freedom. He blamed a cup of oblivion given in the zodiacal sign of Cancer.

THE GIFT OF HARUN AL-RASHID

Part of an unfinished set of poems, dialogues and stories about John Ahern and Michael Robartes, Kusta ben Luka, a philosopher of Bagdad, and his Bedouin followers.

THE END

Printed in Great Britain by R R C, L, Edinburgh

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TOWER

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and

help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project

Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files

containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on

which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the

medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGESExcept for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new

computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.