Research for Teachers

In my first year as Head of the English Department, I thought I was doing my team a favor.

We had two units that were required to run as an Interdisciplinary Unit between Art and English. The existing version was not working. Both departments knew it. There were gaps in alignment, unclear outcomes, and a general sense that the unit was more frustrating than meaningful.

So I stepped in.

I decided that instead of asking two busy teams to co-create something new, I would do the work for them. I designed what I thought was a strong, coherent, engaging unit. I refined the connections. I clarified the outcomes. I built something I genuinely believed they would appreciate.

Of course, as anyone with leadership experience could have predicted, both subject teams were not happy.

At the time, that reaction felt confusing. I had reduced their workload. I had solved a known problem. The unit was objectively stronger than what existed before.

But I had missed something fundamental about how change works in schools.

I had treated the problem as technical when it was actually social.

Like many leaders early in their role, I assumed that good leadership meant identifying a problem and delivering a solution. But research suggests that implementation is not about the quality of the solution alone. It is about how people interpret and make sense of that solution in their own context (Spillane et al., 2002).

In this case, teachers did not have the opportunity to make sense of the problem or the solution. I had already done that work for them.

More importantly, I had taken away their ownership.

The unit was meant to be co-created. That process was not just a logistical expectation. It was the mechanism through which teachers would build shared understanding, negotiate meaning, and develop investment. When I removed that process, I also removed their agency. As Datnow (2011) highlights, collaboration is not simply about working together. It is about meaningful participation in decision-making. Without that, engagement is limited.

There was also an implicit message in my approach, even if I did not intend it. By designing the unit myself, I positioned my solution above their professional expertise. Research on teacher collaboration emphasizes that effective change depends on valuing and leveraging that expertise, not bypassing it (Vangrieken et al., 2015).

Looking back, the resistance I encountered makes sense.

Teachers were not resisting the unit itself. They were responding to how it had been introduced. Change is not just cognitive. It is emotional. Hargreaves (2005) reminds us that teachers’ responses to change are shaped by their sense of identity, agency, and professional respect. When those are compromised, even well-designed initiatives can generate pushback.

The lesson for me was clear.

The role of leadership is not to create the perfect solution.

It is to create the conditions in which the right solution can be built.

If I were to approach this again, I would start differently. I would bring both departments together and surface what was not working. I would structure time for collaboration, rather than replacing it. I would provide support, examples, and clarity, but keep the ownership with the teachers.

This is not just about process. It is about impact. When teachers are involved in building something, they are more likely to implement it effectively. Collaborative structures, when done well, lead to deeper instructional change (Wayman et al., 2012). They also create the kind of mastery experiences that strengthen teacher efficacy and sustain improvement over time (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).

At the time, I thought I was helping by doing the work for them.

What I was actually doing was taking the work away from them.

And in doing so, I made change harder, not easier.

---

References

Datnow, A. (2011). Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Revisiting Hargreaves in the age of accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 12(2), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-011-9154-1

Hargreaves, A. (2005). Educational change takes ages: Life, career and generational factors in teachers’ emotional responses to educational change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 967–983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.007

Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy Implementation and Cognition: Reframing and Refocusing Implementation Research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1

Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002

Wayman, J. C., Jimerson, J. B., & Cho, V. (2012). Organizational considerations in establishing the Data-Informed District. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(2), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2011.652124