Research for Teachers

When I first began collaborating with teaching teams, I believed successful collaboration meant leaving meetings with something finished. If we completed the slides, finalized the assessment, or built the unit plan, I felt productive. Efficient meetings felt like effective meetings.

At the time, collaboration looked like completion.

I remember leaving planning sessions satisfied because we had “gotten through” the agenda. We divided responsibilities efficiently, assigned tasks clearly, and produced resources quickly. In many ways, schools reinforce this mindset. Collaborative planning time is limited, teachers are busy, and productivity is visible. A completed document feels like evidence that collaboration occurred.

What is much harder to measure is thinking.

Over time, I began noticing that some of our most efficient meetings produced polished resources but very little intellectual movement. We became skilled at dividing tasks and moving quickly, but not necessarily at examining our assumptions about teaching and learning. Sometimes we bypassed difficult conversations entirely because they slowed us down.

Ironically, some of the meetings that initially felt the least productive became the most professionally valuable.

These were the meetings where someone raised a difficult question about student understanding, challenged an instructional approach, or introduced evidence that complicated our thinking. Occasionally, the meeting ended without a perfectly finished product, but everyone left thinking differently.

That realization fundamentally changed how I understand collaboration.

I no longer believe the primary value of collaboration is resource production. The real power of collaboration is collective sense-making.

Research on Professional Learning Communities supports this idea. Suzanne Vescio, Dorene Ross, and Alyson Adams (2008) found that effective PLCs improve teacher learning when educators engage in inquiry together rather than simply exchanging materials. Similarly, Ilana Horn and Judith Warren Little (2010) emphasized that professional growth depends heavily on the substance of teacher conversations. Discussions centered on problems of practice, student thinking, and instructional dilemmas generate far richer learning than conversations focused only on logistics.

This distinction matters because schools often reduce collaboration to productivity.

Did the team finish the agenda?
Was the assessment completed?
Were the resources uploaded?

Those outcomes matter, but they are not necessarily evidence of meaningful collaboration.

Some of the most important collaborative experiences I have had involved unresolved questions rather than polished answers. Teams wrestling with whether students truly understood a concept. Debates about scaffolding and rigor. Conversations about whether assessments measured what we genuinely valued.

Those discussions were slower, messier, and occasionally uncomfortable. But they pushed our thinking forward.

I also began realizing that meaningful collaboration often requires intellectual struggle. Teams need space to question assumptions, challenge ideas, and reconsider practices. If collaboration becomes solely about efficiency, inquiry can easily disappear.

This shift in thinking also changed the way I facilitate meetings as a leader. Earlier in my career, I often felt pressure to ensure every collaborative session ended with visible completion. Now, I pay far more attention to the quality of the discussion itself. Sometimes the most valuable outcome of a meeting is not a finished resource, but a team leaving with a more nuanced understanding of student learning.

Looking back, I once believed collaboration was successful when teams produced strong resources together. Now I think the most meaningful evidence of collaboration is whether teachers leave thinking differently than when they entered the room.

A team can leave with a perfect unit plan and still avoid meaningful professional learning. Another team may leave with unresolved questions and unfinished ideas, yet have engaged in far deeper collaboration.

The longer I work in schools, the more I believe collaboration is not ultimately about the product. It is about how collective conversation reshapes professional thinking.

References

Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345158

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004