Kougioumtzis & Patriksson 2009

eac ers an
EA CH IN
THEO RY AND PRAC TICE
THE JOURNAJ.. _OF THE

INTERNATIONAL ~T C' '.:",ASSOCIATION
FOR TEACHERS,A.r.: : ;fEACHING
..
I~~~o~J!~?c~Zroup
ISSN 1354-0602
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice
Vol. 15, No. 1, February 2009, 131–154
School-based teacher collaboration in Sweden and Greece:

formal cooperation, deprivatized practices and personalized
interaction in primary and lower secondary schools
Konstantin Kougioumtzis* and Göran Patriksson
Department of Education, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

(Received 16 April 2008; final version received 19 June 2008)
Taylor and Francis
CTAT_A_366305.sgm
Taylor
Teachers
10.1080/13540600802661352
1354-0602
Original
2009
0
1
15
Dr
kkujumzis@sch.gr
00000February
KonstantinKougioumtzis
&Article
and
Francis
(print)/1470-1278
Teaching:
2009 theory(online)
and practice
Downloaded By: [Göteborg University Library] At: 19:49 17 February 2009
During recent years, educational restructuring efforts have commonly regarded

schools as both learning communities and sites for teachers’ professional
development. A plethora of attributes influence prerequisites as well as outcomes of
the efforts, while teachers’ local cultures constitute a cornerstone. More specifically,
enhanced school-based teacher collaboration is associated with upgraded school
effectiveness and enhanced professional growth. However, the comparative study
of school-based teacher collaboration remains a subjective research area. The overall
aim of this study is to highlight teacher collaboration in Sweden and Greece utilizing
nationwide surveys with physical education teachers in both countries. The final
sample consisted of 707 Swedish and 451 Greek professionals. The high response
rate combined with restricted internal dropout forms the basis of the generalization
of the findings. The presentation of the results is connected with issues of formal
cooperation, deprivatized practices and personalized interaction in four teachers
groups: primary and lower secondary schools in Sweden and in Greece. According
to the data, formal cooperation and deprivatized practices occur more frequently in
Sweden than in Greece. However, personalized interaction is rather high in Greek
lower secondary schools. Despite differences between the four contexts, a second
order model represents obtained information adequately with very good fit indexes.
It seems that school-based teacher collaboration in authentic settings can be
connected to complex processes with multifaceted characteristics in different
national contexts as well as in educational stages within one country as well.
Manipulating distinct aspects of schooling may consequently jeopardize expected
outcomes, as development ambitions should be targeting several interdependent
dimensions. Swedish schools generally and lower secondary schools specifically
constitute original examples of enhanced school-based teacher collaboration, while
an intensification of combined endeavours is needed in Greece. The comparative
mapping of interconnected collaboration characteristics might contribute to more
holistic restructuring struggles towards schools as learning communities and sites
for teachers’ professional development.
Keywords: comparative pedagogy; learning communities; professional growth;
school-based teacher collaboration
Introduction
In an era of intensive globalization, Europe occupies a protagonist role as the
European Union (EU) has expanded during recent years. Nowadays, 25 European
nations have common borders, while several countries are negotiating their Union
*Corresponding author. Email: kkujumzis@sch.gr
ISSN 1354-0602 print/ISSN 1470-1278 online

© 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13540600802661352
http://www.informaworld.com
132 K. Kougioumtzis and G. Patriksson
entrance. During the 1970s and 1980s, the European common agenda was mainly
based on economical cooperation. As socio-economic problems increased in complex-
ity in a more borderless world, member states showed willingness to move towards
more holistic solutions. Contemporary policies target not only economical issues but
also social and cultural harmonization (CoEU, 2001). Within the EU, education is
accepted as an area of high priority, and the establishment of adjusted policies and
common goals is regarded as necessity (CoEC, 2004). This is a quite demanding task
as national schooling systems are different in the various countries and top-down strat-
egies might confront national educational traditions. On the other hand, bottom-up
strategies can help European countries move closer to each other without neglecting
their national heritages. It can be argued that such strategies should involve an upgrad-
ing of the professional role of teachers at schools (Hargreaves, 1994, 1997).
Comparative studies contribute to an understanding of the similarities and differ-
ences between two or more distinct cultures. The main objective of comparative
research is not only to understand other cultures but to mirror or reflect on the one’s
own culture using the prism of others (Schriewer, 1999). To put it simply, comparative
studies incorporate the possibility of making the otherness familiar and the familiar
unfamiliar. It should also be stressed that the harmonization of global educational agen-
das and the scrutiny of the teaching enterprise call for multiple comparative accounts
(Judge, 2000; Osborn, 2000). Furthermore, theoretically informed and informing
studies connected to large-scale accounts with several countries and to in-depth descrip-
tions with few countries are needed (Broadfoot, 1999; Chabbott & Elliot, 2003).
During recent decades educational change towards quality provision is increasingly
affixed to the school unit as a professional learning community (Hord, 1997, 2000) and
to teachers’ continuous professional development (Cordingley, Bell, Rundell, &
Evans, 2003; Cordingley & Temperlay, 2006). Furthermore, teachers’ school-based
collegiality, collaboration and cooperation are regarded as key elements in both
community building and development processes. Nowadays, teacher collaboration-
enhancing policies are launching in several countries (Bezzina & Testa, 2005; Brook,
Sawyer, & Rimm-Kaufman, 2007; Meirink, Meijer, & Verloop, 2007); and school-
based teacher collaboration projects have become a topic of febrile educational
research interest (Lavié, 2006; Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas, 2006;
Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008). However, the comparative exploration of school-based
teacher collaboration is rather underdeveloped as large-scale international studies in
general and particularly those on pupils’ attainment monopolize the specific attention
of politicians and the media (Phillips, 1999).
The present article concerns a comparative study of school-based teacher collabo-
ration (SBTC) in Sweden and Greece. The material comes from a bigger project on
working conditions and instructional intentions in primary and secondary schools as
described by Greek and Swedish in-service physical education (PE) teachers. Since part
of the findings have formerly been published (Kougioumtzis, 2006), the article consti-
tutes a meta-analysis utilizing more sophisticated statistical procedures. Furthermore,
focusing exclusively on teacher collaboration facilitates the inclusion of previously
unpublished information.
Background
It can be accepted that the various national schooling systems throughout Europe
have been strongly influenced by classical Greek educational prototypes and the
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 133
ideals of the Enlightenment. However, unique national attributes should not be

underestimated, as the organization and the institution of schooling is assumed to
be a conglomerate of the historical, philosophical, political, sociological and
economical developments in each country (Hargreaves, 2003; Sadovnic, Cookson,
& Semel, 2006). Furthermore, the accelerated educational change movement that
has characterized several countries during recent decades may have multiplied
national uniqueness within a climate of struggles between ethnocentrism and global
consciousness.
Sweden and Greece have clearly demonstrated efforts to cope with the fast-changing
global environment, with education improvement as a first-hand cutting point. The 1994
Swedish compulsory school curriculum reform is part of a broader educational restruc-
turing (Aili & Brante, 2007; Annerstedt, 2005). On the one hand, the legislature points
towards decentralization and a shared responsibility for schools between the State, the
municipalities and the local school units. On the other hand, the new curriculum
indicates a swift turn towards central goals and product orientation. The formation of
local syllabuses and the partial deregulation of subject-time allocation constitute two
concrete implications in everyday school work. Syllabuses represent locally adapted
applications of the central curriculum. The partial school timetable deregulation is
connected to the possibilities given to school units to establish and learners to choose
subjects of specific interest.
The 2003 Greek compulsory school curriculum reform follows several education
restructuring efforts related to university admission. The novel integrated curriculum
promotes a transition towards subject fusion through inter-disciplinarity and cross-
thematic integration (Matsaggouras, 2002). Inter-disciplinarity implies within-subject
efforts to grasp content with a scientific pluralism, while cross-thematic integration
refers to teaching and learning associated to areas of mutual interest among school
subjects. The curriculum reform is accompanied with efforts to restructure primary
schooling introducing the ‘full-day’ school. This form is characterized by an extended
timetable (until 15:30); it is intended to replace the ‘morning’ school (until 13:00).
Furthermore, textbooks throughout compulsory schooling have been changed almost
completely to support inter-disciplinarity and cross-thematic integration. Although the
impact of the extended timetable and the novel textbooks ought to be obvious, it is
difficult to claim distinct implications in everyday schoolwork as research accounts
are rare.
The willingness to make educational change in both Sweden and Greece is
significant, though certain differentiations can be noted with Hargreaves (1997) in
mind. It seems that teachers’ voices are stronger in Sweden, as they can influence
both local syllabus production and timetable formation. On the other hand, the Greek
case represents obvious top-down vision, as the restructuring efforts are combined
with the lowest financial support for education within the EU (OECD, 2002, 2005a).
Expecting teachers to teach as never before but having conventional structures intact
should be regarded as remarkable (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). The
Swedish state spends twice as much on education mainly through municipal budgets.
Trust in people is also more clearly stated in the Swedish context, while trust in
processes seems to affect the actions of the Greek central state. Furthermore, it
seems that the interaction between central structures and local cultures runs more
smoothly in Sweden since the State dictates outcomes, leaving certain autonomy to
the periphery. A comprehensive account on the tensions between centre and local
remains a complicated project as modern states can demonstrate sophisticated
surveillance even in decentralized educational systems (Dale, 1997; Smyth, 2001;

Whitty, 1997).
Establishing schools as professional learning communities and stimulating teach-
ers’ continuous professional development might be the essence of educational
restructuring in both Sweden and Greece that will help them keep up with the interna-
tional competition and ensure quality learning and socialization outcomes. Although
evaluation efforts are more common in Sweden than in Greece, comparative accounts
are needed to spell out more clearly tensions not only between educational structures
and school cultures but within school cultures as well. National research accounts
form the study ground of educational phenomena. However, assessing comprehen-
sive solutions presupposes non-normative data gathering and explanation strategies.
Comparative research can serve as a powerful instrument while attributes in one
country can be used as reference points for the other. Furthermore, similarities as well
as differences in nation-specific factors affecting educational processes can put
forward alternative solutions of reasoning and justification (Broadfoot, 1999;

Schriewer, 1999).
Problem
From the current internationalized global environment, the development of knowledge-
based national economies has emerged and generated novel change pressures on
national schooling systems (Dale, 1997; Darling-Hammond, 2005; Whitty, 1997). In
order to advocate fruitful and sustainable changes, policymakers and researchers in
several countries suggest an upgraded role for the local school units (Darling-
Hammond, 2005; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). More specifically, schools
are promoted as professional learning communities (Hord, 1997, 2000) and as work-
places for teachers’ continuous professional development (Cordingley & Temperlay,
2006; Cordingley et al., 2003). According to the community model, managerial-
inspired solutions increase the distance between school and community, jeopardizing
provision quality and school effectiveness (Furman-Brown, 1999). The developmental
example stresses the importance of abandoning the teacher’s traditional transmission
role to become one of change agent within a revitalized school structure. Despite
variations in epistemological approaching, knowledge production, policy suggestions
and action ranking, the two schooling prototypes share a vital area of interest: both
enterprises put teachers at the core of education-enhancing efforts generally and of the
issue of teachers’ school-based collaboration particularly.
The project of school-based teacher collaboration concerns giving up habitual
ways of thinking about schooling and conventional interaction patterns between
school professionals (Barott & Raybould, 1998). Within traditional schooling
systems, vertical hierarchies and positional relations among structures and agents are
connected to highly centralized organizations with clear top-down mentalities and
function. Furthermore, traditional teachers’ almost ritualistic demands on discrete
classroom management and isolated-autonomous occupational status are assumed to
assist professional stagnation and declined output. School-based teacher collaboration
rewards internally developed professional communities with reflective dialogue
among members, deprivatized practices and shared work-responsibility and visions
(Bryk, Camburn, & Louis Seashore, 1999; Wallace & Louden, 2000). The collabora-
tive stance is mainly associated to schools’ innovative capacity and teachers’ profes-
sional growth (Hindin, Morocco, Mott, & Aguilar, 2007). According to Geijsel, Van
den Berg, and Sleegers (1999), teachers join forces to ensure both function and
innovation at schools. Additionally, improved interaction among teachers might result
in absorbed market-oriented de-schooling policies and consultation of generated
teacher de-professionalization strategies (OECD, 2001, 2005b).
The profoundness of enhanced school-based teacher collaboration can, however,
be associated with nonexistent evidence critics. Allen and Hecht (2004) describe the
collaboration viewpoint in terms of team romance claiming a mismatch between
enthusiasm and modest verification. Reviewing selected research accounts, Allen and
Hecht suggest a lack of clear connections to both improved student outcomes and
elevated teacher group performance. The absence of straight lines between enhanced
teacher collaboration and improved student outcomes is acknowledged elsewhere,
signifying the multifaceted nature of schooling and the importance of multiplied
inquiries in authentic school settings (Hindin et al., 2007; Vescio et al., 2008).
However, teacher collaboration can equitably be connected to several schooling
development factors constituting not only a long-term enterprise but a project with
short-term benefits as well (Hindin et al., 2007). Enhanced teacher collaboration (1)
modifies authoritarian instructional cultures towards more student-centred
approaches, (2) facilitates professional development based on teachers’ actual needs
within naturally engaged settings, and (3) increases teachers’ authority regarding not
only school matters but governance issues as well (Bezzina & Testa, 2005; Broadhead,
2001; Hargreaves et al., 2006; Newmann, King, & Youngs, 2000; Vescio et al., 2008;
Wiggins & Damone, 2006).
Enhanced school-based teacher collaboration has been described as an advanced
stage of the teaching profession succeeding the pre-professional stage and the stage
of the autonomous professionals (Hargreaves, 2000). The collegial nature of the
teaching enterprise can, however, be confronted, as existing research suggests that
collaboration in schools is not only scarce but also difficult to promote and sustain.
According to Brook et al. (2007) teacher collaboration occurs infrequently, mostly
within informal contexts and usually as a result of teachers’ personal initiatives rather
than as structured interaction. Regularly, operating teams, exchanging classes, co-
teaching, peer-coaching or study groups among teachers can cautiously be connected
to regular school environments. On the other hand, collaboration about student-
centred topics, individual student needs and classroom management exist as quite
usual collegial activities. Although effective collaboration fosters change, reduces
professional judgement ambiguity and boosts caring ethics, a knowledge gap is
evident not only in predicting enhanced school-based teacher collaboration but in
describing processes of professional community building at schools (Brook et al.,
2007)
School-based teacher collaboration is promoted in leading models of effective
schooling and upgraded teachers. Although the map of the phenomenon is far from
replete, research has disclosed several benefits in distinct schooling variables and an
outstanding potential for teachers’ professional development. An intensification of
effort is needed, while special attention ought to be given to drawing extensively the
lines between teacher cultures and educational structures. School cultures are impres-
sively interactive with sophisticated associations to both internal and external influ-
ences (Cavanaugh & Dellar, 1997). In order to develop healthy teacher communities,
the teachers’ collaboration mechanism should be spelled out. The current febrile
research interest might generate more comprehensive descriptions combined with an
intensification of comparative efforts.
Theory
A national educational system refers to both an institution and an organization. As an
institution, schooling is compelled by central State intentions related to the reproduc-
tion of scientific knowledge and societal values. As organizations, schools are
connected to formal structures remarkably influenced by professional traditions. A
variety of agents influence authentic school settings, while tensions between the
central State and teachers can be regarded as a cutting point. Utilizing Bernstein
(1981, 1990, 2000), the central State can significantly determine teachers’ bearing
through complex code processes of classification and framing. The construction of
dichotomies between subjects or between teachers requires a strong classification,
while resolute central steering decreases the autonomy of teaching within a strong
framing procedure. However, Giddens (1991) provides a quite contrastive account,
describing actuality as the sum of self-initiated individual enactment. Consequently,
individual teachers’ perceptions of school environment, beliefs and personal charac-

teristics such as years of experience might influence school processes such as the
development of collaborative settings (Brook et al., 2007).
Teachers’ individual potentials can be somewhat underestimated, as the teaching
profession is assumed to depend strongly on the nature of teacher cultures (Hargreaves,
1999, 2000, 2003). ‘Cultures of teaching comprise beliefs, values, habits and assumed
ways of doing things among communities of teachers who have had to deal with similar
demands and constrains over many years’ (Hargreaves, 1994, p. 165). Fragmented
individualistic teacher cultures may lack the power to resist the intensification of
market-oriented ideologies at schools. On the other hand, collaborative teacher
cultures can be shown to be efficacious in resolving complex schooling issues as well
as in encouraging knowledge, consent and active participation of teachers as insiders.
However, esconced technicist efforts to stress collegial milieus can be connected to the
novel sedimenting control of the labour process of teaching (Smyth, 2001). Balkanized
collaboration as well as imposed or contrived collegiality specifically and central
control by local developments generally can jeopardize issues of teachers’ actual
professional development (Hargreaves, 1994).
The establishment of specific power relations between individuals, agents and/or
structures presents one of the mechanisms for the production and reproduction of
dominant ideas and values within a given society (Bernstein, 1981, 1990, 2000).
Power relay processes can be described through the notion of classification used as a
tool for uncovering underlying relations, as it is associated not only with categories
(individuals, agents, structures) but prominently with boundaries between categories.
A strong classification means strong boundaries between various categories, while a
weak classification declares a lack of boundaries. A straight power-classification line
indicates that strong classification is caused by specific power structures stressing
the maintaining of isolation. Consequently, a description of collaboration through
classification refers not only to a desirable teacher-to-teacher relationship, but incor-
porates the possibility of grasping broader issues of the teaching enterprise and the
restructuring of the teaching profession.
School-based teacher collaboration can be regarded as an expression of the classi-
fication between teachers. With Bernstein in mind, enhanced collaboration indicates
a weak classification between teachers and declares rather an absence of external
separating forces rather than individual teacher efforts to promote collective undertak-
ings. School-based learning communities and teachers’ continuous professional
development can therefore predominantly be regarded as structural matters. The

importance of a supportive school environment on collaborative efforts is well docu-
mented in the literature (Bryk et al., 1999). Furthermore, discrepancies between
teacher collaboration needs and existing working structures are rather validated
(Reeves, 2007). According to Stoll et al. (2006), the construction and sustainability
processes towards collaborative settings are determined not only by individuals’
orientation to change and group dynamics; they depend mostly on school context
influences such as given time and space, support and partnerships.
The decentralization of the Swedish schooling system signifies a continuous
professional development approach as it is based on upgraded school professionals
(Lindensjö & Lundgren, 2000). The Greek integrated curriculum regards a learning
community model with inter-disciplinarity and cross-thematic integration which are
expected to assist teachers towards more authentic knowledge and skills transmission.
Furthermore, it seems that the two solutions represent a bottom-up (Regeringskansliet,
2003) and a top-down strategy, respectively (Stylianidou, Bagakis, & Stamovlasis,

2004). Consequently, a focus on the classification between teachers in each country
may assist not only in descriptions of the nature of teachers’ cultures in genuine
settings, but in an understanding of the mechanism of school-based teacher collabora-
tion construction as well. Individual attributes and teachers’ cultures influence signif-
icantly the quantity and quality of school-based teacher collaboration. However, the
ability of the central State to manipulate local school developments should not be
underestimated.
Aim
The nature of teachers’ cultures plays a significant role in teachers’ professional
development and in the learning community construction. The latest restructuring
efforts in Sweden and Greece signify moves towards development and community
approaches, respectively. However, research on school-based teacher collaboration is
restricted to a high degree in the first country and severely in the second, while
comparative accounts occur rarely in an international perspective. With these restric-
tions in mind, this article elaborates on school-based teacher collaboration in the two
contexts. More specifically, the first aim is to grasp dimensions of collaboration in
terms of formal collaboration, depersonalized practices and personalized interaction.
The second aim is associated with interconnections of the three dimensions and the
establishment of a model of school-based teacher collaboration.
Method
An internal language of description refers to a theoretical construct, while an external
language is connected to various tools in order to empirically study a phenomenon
(Bernstein, 2000; Morais & Neves, 2001). The internal language of the present article
is connected to the concept of classification, while the external refers to school-based
teacher collaboration. Information has been obtained through three batteries of
questions related to formal cooperation, deprivatized practices and personalized inter-
action. Formal cooperation concerns formal teacher meetings at schools in terms of
scheduled conferring. Deprivatized practices are relevant to cross-subject collaboration
between teachers and issues of classroom collaboration. Personalized interaction brings
up joint efforts to cope with various professional issues mostly during tuition-free time
Table 1. The Greek and Swedish samples of PE teachers.

PE Teachers Greece Sweden
Population (N) ≈ 5000 PE teachers ≈ 6000 PE teachers
Nationwide school samples 300 primary schools and 300 300 primary schools and 300
lower secondary schools lower secondary schools
Overall response rate 73% of schools 77% of schools
Within school average 86% of PE teachers 76% of PE teachers
response rate
Population (n) 451 PE teachers 707 PE teachers
Primary schools (primary) 214 PE teachers 293 PE teachers
Lower secondary schools 237 PE teachers 414 PE teachers
(lower secondary)
as non-classroom collaboration. The 12-item instrument (Appendix 1) has been devel-

oped with the internal language and pilot studies in mind (Kougioumtzis, 2006).
Furthermore, professionals in each country have commented on the comprehensibility
of each question, which forms the basis of instrument validity. Instrument reliability
is associated with an alpha of .75 (considering the entire sample in both Sweden and
Greece). The unique alphas in each country present as .76 and .73, respectively.
The five-Likert-scaled questionnaire of the main study has been sent to 600 random
stratified sampled schools in each country with PE teachers as the final receivers
(Table 1). Teachers responded from 77% of Swedish and 73% of Greek schools
queried. The total sample consisted of 707 and 451 individuals, respectively. Consid-
ering the limited internal dropout (missing values), the generalizability of the findings
is well-established.
Data analysis was done in two stages: a descriptive and a model development. The
descriptive stage is associated to analysis of variance (ANOVA, SPSS) with multiple
comparisons (Bonferroni when equal variances and Dunnett T3 when unequal) to
study differences between four teacher groups in Swedish primary schools (SP), in
Swedish lower secondary schools (SL), in Greek primary schools (GP) and in Greek
lower secondary schools (GL). Mostly in Greece but also in Sweden the two education
levels have been developed under certain circumstances. Historically, teachers in
different educational levels are expected to follow distinct central initiatives according
to broader political, economic, and educational streams (Smyth, 2001). The second
stage refers to linear structural equation modelling (AMOS) and the establishment of
well-fitting models on school-based teacher collaboration.
Results
Formal cooperation
Formal cooperation (FC) refers to scheduled conferences at schools with teachers from
several or all school subjects as participants. School conferences are commonly initi-
ated by the school leadership in both Sweden and Greece. However, Swedish principals
seem to follow local needs, while the Greek legislature requires a minimum number
of gatherings to discuss at least assessment and promotion. The first context indicates
a trust on people, while variation can occur throughout the country. The essence of obli-
gation in the second context might flatten variability between schools. In this study,
formal cooperation has been measured utilizing four questions (Appendix 1) associated
to conferring frequency, teachers own participation pattern (degree of activity),
perceived climate (degree of positive reception from other teachers) and absence of
power misuse among teachers (lack of decisions against one’s own interests).
School conferences occur more frequently in Swedish secondary schools than in
both Swedish primary and Greek schools (Table 2). The differences between group
means (FC1) are statistically significant, F(3,1157) = 253.5, p < .001, except for the
variation between the two Greek sets (Dunnett). Furthermore, Swedish teachers
reported significantly better climates during conferences (FC3) than their Greek coun-
terparts, F(3,1157) = 8.5, p < .001, while the means between clusters from the same
country did not vary significantly (Dunnett). However, no differences between the
means of the four groups could be established in matters of participation patterns (FC2)
or power misuse (FC4), F(3,1157) = 2.9, p < .034 and F(3,1157) = 4.0, p < .007,
respectively. A first order model with excellent fit indexes establishes connection
between frequency, participation, climate and power misuse related to school confer-
ences (see Appendix 2, variance and covariance matrices). As can be seen in Table 2,
the degree of positive reception from other teachers (FC3) shares the highest common-
ality with the latent variable of formal cooperation taking into account the standardized
regression estimates (SRW).
Brook et al. (2007) describe teacher collaboration as occurring infrequently and
predominantly within informal contexts on the basis of teachers’ personal initiatives.
It seems, though, that this picture is challenged in Swedish lower secondary schools,
as structured teacher cooperation takes place several times a week (Appendix 1; see
also Aili & Brante, 2007). Furthermore, the slimmed Swedish conferring prerequisites
tend to promote more efficiently formal interaction than do the central requirements
in Greece. Differences between the two countries associated to the perceived confer-
ence climate are in line with frequency variation, which might indicate a conferring
know-how accumulated during conferences. The opposite causation in terms of more
frequent conferences when the climate is perceived to be better is also possible.
Deprivatized practices
In the former section, formal cooperation highlights an official type of interaction,
while deprivatized practices (DP) regard joint efforts to plan and carry out each
teacher’s classes, shared lessons or common projects. The Greek curriculum promotes
inter-disciplinarity and cross-thematic integration, stressing collaboration between
teachers in various subjects. In the Swedish context, teachers might be interested in
cooperation to offer attractive products having in mind learners’ rights to exchange
some ordinary classes with extra-curricular activities. For example, teachers in PE,
biology and social sciences can strengthen collaborative efforts to offer ‘Lifestyle’.
Within this article, deprivatized practices have been analysed through four questions
(Appendix 1) connected to joint efforts with teachers in the same subject (DP1), teach-
ers in theoretical subjects (DP2), teachers in practical subjects (DP3) and with
colleagues to plan and carry out events on a school level such as sport days, exhibi-
tions or other themes of general interest (DP4).
PE teachers collaborate with other PE teachers more intensively in lower second-
ary schools than in primary schools, F(3,1157) = 46.4, p < .001. This was expected as
lower secondary schools are usually connected to school units with more than one PE
teacher. In the other three questions, there were statistically significant differences
140
Table 2. Formal cooperation.

Teacher groups First order model
Means and standard deviations Descriptives Fit indexes
SP SL GP GL Mean Skewness Kurtosis SRW SE
FC1 3.60 (1.03) 3.94 (.89) 2.17 (.90) 2.16 (.95) 3.16 −.25 −1.10 .25 .04 Chi-sq 7.21
FC2 3.67 (1.01) 3.86 (.91) 3.84 (.88) 3.86 (.91) 3.81 −.35 −.46 .35 .04 Df 2
K. Kougioumtzis and G. Patriksson
FC3 4.09 (.89) 4.16 (.84) 3.88 (.89) 3.87 (.78) 4.03 −.68 .16 .88 .06 GFI 1.00
FC4 3.41 (.95) 3.38 (.94) 3.18 (1.16) 3.17 (1.19) 3.30 −.25 −.55 .51 .04 RMSEA .02
Note: GFI = Goodness of Fit Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, Df = Degrees of freedom, SRW = Standardized Regression Weights, SE =
Standard Error.
between Greek and Swedish PE teachers, without any differences between groups
from the same country. More specifically, PE teachers in Sweden collaborate with
other teachers teaching subjects are both theoretical, F(3,1157) = 30.0, p < .001, and
practical (e.g. music), F(3,1157) = 5.2, p < .001, more intensively than their Greek
counterparts. Furthermore, they collaborate at a higher level on a school level (e.g.
sports and field days), F(3,1157) = 13.0, p < .001. However, the level of deprivatized
practices (Table 3) seems to be lower than the level of formal cooperation (Table 2)
in both countries. A first order well-fitting model bonds the four questions into a struc-
ture representing deprivatized practices (see Appendix 2, variance and covariance
matrices).
According to the first order model in Table 3, collaboration with other teachers in
both theoretical (DP2) and practical (DP3) oriented subjects shares the highest
commonality with the construct of deprivatized practices. However, the low weight
(SWR) of deprivatized practices at a school level might raise issues of declined
citizenship education in both Sweden and Greece as relevant activities are commonly
associated not only with sport or theatre but with broader issues of intercultural educa-
tion and/or socialization in both countries.
Personalized interaction
Formal cooperation and deprivatized practices focus more or less structured collabo-
rative undertakings. Personal interaction (PI) indicates a degree of professional
intimacy as it is associated with sharing and working together on a private level.
Enhanced school-based teacher collaboration presupposes commitment to emergence,
trust and humility among colleagues (Wallace & Louden, 2000). Such sensitive issues
can be challenged through personalized interaction during tuition-free time rather than
through central mandates and directives. Nonetheless, the structuring of tuition-free
time and teachers’ schedule management remain multifaceted topics (Aili & Brante,
2007). In the present article, personalized interaction has been studied through four
questions (Appendix 1) linked with private dialogues during tuition-free time. More
specifically, the degree of interaction has been obtained through such activities as
sharing individual problems (PI1), supporting colleagues’ considerations (PI2), and
joint dialogues on broader schooling issues with colleagues generally (PI3) and with
colleagues in the same subject particularly (PI4).
The analysis reveals the highest degree of individual practice sharing in lower
secondary schools in Greece, F(3,1157) = 11.0, p < .001. However, differences
between same educational levels are not statistically significant (Bonferroni). The
same pattern displays for not only supporting colleagues generally, F(3,1157) = 6.5,
p < .001, but in dialoguing with colleagues in practical school subjects specifically,
F(3,1157) = 33.9, p < .001. Moreover, the position of Greek lower secondary schools
is stronger in matters of joint dialogues with colleagues regardless of subject,
F(3,1157) = 13.7, p < .001. In this issue, Greek lower secondary teachers reported
significantly more interaction even than their colleagues in the Swedish lower second-
ary school. The four questions can be adequately represented by a well-fitting first
order model (see Appendix 2, variance and covariance matrices).
In Table 4, the item of supporting colleagues (PI2) shares the highest commonality
with the construct of personalized interaction. However, the weights of the other three
items were also rather high, giving the impression not only of a robust construction
but of a highly multifaceted one as well.
142
Table 3. Deprivatized practices.

Teacher groups First order model
DP1 2.59 (1.12) 3.42(1.00) 2.71 (1.10) 3.27 (1.07) 3.05 −.41 −.84 .36 .03 Chi-sq 12.0
DP2 2.63 (1.02) 2.62 (.99) 2.12 (.97) 2.01 (.94) 2.41 .24 −.82 .78 .03 Df 2
DP3 1.88 (.96) 2.02 (.98) 1.74 (.88) 1.81 (.86) 1.89 1.01 .58 .77 .02 GFI .99
DP4 2.63 (.70) 2.69 (.72) 2.32 (.82) 2.49 (.84) 2.57 .26 .25 .50 .03 RMSEA .07
Standard Error.
Table 4. Personalized interaction.

Teacher groups Overall first order model
PI1 3.36 (.85) 3.49 (.79) 3.21 (.95) 3.64 (.84) 3.43 −.10 −.62 .74 .02 Chi-sq 12.1
PI2 3.39 (.83) 3.53 (.81) 3.28 (.89) 3.59 (.88) 3.46 −.16 −.57 .88 .02 Df 2
PI3 3.79 (.87) 3.97 (.73) 3.96 (.93) 4.45 (.60) 4.02 −.73 .26 .62 .02 GFI .99
PI4 3.43 (.78) 3.39 (.79) 3.08 (.88) 3.53 (.82) 3.37 −.08 −.54 .61 .03 RMSEA .07
Standard Error.
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice
143
School-based teacher collaboration

Descriptions of school-based teacher collaboration in Sweden and Greece reveal
similarities as well as differences. Overwhelmingly, more intense formal cooperation
and deprivatized practices count higher for the two Swedish groups and predomi-
nantly for lower secondary schools, while personal interaction is higher in Greek
lower secondary schools. The situation in Greek primary schools is rather problematic
as teachers reported very low degrees on all three collaboration dimensions. However,
it seems that in matters of personal interaction Greek primary teachers answered
similarly to their Swedish counterparts.
The establishment of an overall index of school-based teacher collaboration could
be mathematically correct, but still conceal some cooperation quality issues and the
interdependence of the three dimensions. More specifically, a representation of the 12-
item questionnaire through a first order model reveals a non-fitting compound (Table
5).
On the other hand, a second order model represents a better solution as several fit
indexes fulfil estimation requirements (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999; Byrne, 2001).
The total teacher sample generated B model (Figure 1) can be applied not only to
the entire sample of teachers (TOT), but to each one of the four groups (SP, SL, GP,
GL) with very good fit estimates (Table 6).
Standardized Regression Weights (loadings) indicate the commonality of first and
Figure 1. School-based teacher collaboration: a multidimensional construct.
second order components. Considering a reasonable loading limit of .60, Swedish

contexts are typified by formal cooperation combined with depersonalized practices
in primary schools and with personalized interaction in lower secondary schools. In
Greece, primary schools distinguish depersonalized practices while lower secondary
schools brand personalized interaction. However, restrained loadings should not be
underestimated as model constitution depends heavily on the total solutions.
Summarizing the main findings of the study, the multidimensionality of school-
based teacher collaboration is rather established. Despite a variety of similarities and
differences between the four teaching groups, a cultural and educational level of
specific interconnection pattern is revealed clearly between formal cooperation,
deprivatized practices and personalized interaction. Commingling previous research
accounts with the results of the present study supports multidimensional efforts related
to school-based teacher collaboration to upgrade professional learning communities
and stimulate teachers’ continuous professional development. However, sporadic and/
or spasmodic central initiatives towards enhanced teacher collaboration might have
contradictory and unexpected results.
Table 5. School-based teacher collaboration: explorative analysis.

Model x2 Df x2/Df GFI AGFI RMSEA TLI CFI PNFI
A. First order 1350.4* 51 25.0 .81 .72 .14 .52 .60 .49
B. Second order 313.2* 54 6.1 .96 .93 .07 .90 .92 .70
Difference between A and B 1037.2* 3 18.9 .15 .19 .07 .38 .32 .21
*p > .001.
Note: Df = Degrees of freedom, GFI = Goodness of Fit Index, AGFI = Adjusted GFI, RMSEA = Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation, TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index, CFI = Comparative Fit Index, PNFI =
Parsimonious Normed Fit Index.
FC1
.30
.41 FC2
FC
.77
FC3
.53
FC4
DP1
.52 .36
.79 DP2
.67
SBTC DP
.76
DP3
.51
.54
DP4
PI1
.75
.87 PI2
PI .62
PI3
.62
PI2
Figure 1. School-based teacher collaboration: a multidimensional construct.
Discussion
Educational provision and school effectiveness constitute critical issues in a highly

competitive global environment. Several efforts are connected to local aggregation in
terms of learning communities and professional development. Both efforts emphasize
the responsibility and/or the possibility of teachers to act in collaborative manners.
The attributes and the mechanism of building community and assembling develop-
ment remain topics of main research interest internationally. Comparative accounts
can further efforts to grasp the phenomenon evading normative assumptions. The
analysis of school-based teacher collaboration in Sweden and Greece represents an
effort to explore authentic situations on the basis of each other.
School-based teacher collaboration depicts an umbrella concept focusing relations
between teachers at schools such as collaboration, cooperation, collegiality etc.
‘Relations between’ portrays a multifaceted phenomenon with local as well as distant
sources and implications. The importance of external influences on internal outcomes
serves as a starting point through the notion of classification. Relations between teachers
with a strong classification map fragmented teacher cultures, caused predominantly by
central initiatives (Bernstein, 2000; Hargreaves, 2003). Accordingly, weak classifica-
tion indicates a collaborative setting centrally facilitated. However, teachers’ own
traditions might interfere, forming isolated cultures and contrived collegiality.
Classification between teachers seems to be stronger in Greece than in Sweden,
signifying fragmented and collaborative cultures, respectively. More specifically,
146
Table 6. School-based teacher collaboration: confirmatory analysis.

FC1 FC2 FC3 FC4 DP1 DP2 DP3 DP4 PI1 PI3 PI3 PI4 FC DP PI x2 GFI RMSEA
TOT .30 .41 .77 .53 .36 .79 .76 .51 .75 .87 .62 .62 .52 .67 .54 313.2* .96 .07
SP .53 .64 .59 .27 .35 .74 .72 .56 .81 .90 .80 .71 .72 .79 .57 118.6* .94 .07
SL .25 .52 .68 .50 .33 .78 .74 .44 .75 .80 .55 .55 .62 .53 .71 165.3* .94 .07
GP .21 .37 .73 .63 .48 .82 .77 .56 .71 .88 .63 .59 .29 .73 .30 94.5* .93 .06
GL .12 .42 .73 .63 .31 .92 .80 .43 .65 .93 .44 .64 .38 .48 .83 92.6* .94 .06
*p > .001.
Note: GFI = Goodness of Fit Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
formal cooperation and deprivatized practices are obviously enhanced in Sweden,

while lower secondary teachers in Greece reported an upgraded personalized interac-
tion. Lower secondary Swedish teachers exemplify very weak classification and an
upgraded collegiality. However, it is rather difficult to differentiate between collabo-
rative cultures and contrived collegiality in this group. It can be argued that the partial
time deregulation in Sweden forced lower secondary teachers to improve upon collab-
oration in order to establish common subjects/themes with school and pupil choice in
mind. One the one hand, contrived collegiality can be connected to external pressures
on teachers. On the other hand, it can be associated with effective central steering
through the manipulation of crucial structural factors such as time. By any means, the
situation in Sweden remains an authentic example of enhanced school-based teacher
collaboration.
During recent years, the comparative argument increasingly affects central inten-
tions as noticeable attributes of foreign systems serve as norms. It seems that policy-
makers in Greece initiated the latest reform with international developments on

schools as learning communities in mind. This is obvious as several important
national characteristics have been bypassed generally and teachers’ cultures specifi-
cally. Greek teachers reported very low degrees on formal interaction, while school
conferences occur rarely. Enhanced learning communities presuppose at least a degree
of collaborative culture, which raises serious questions on reform implementation.
However, enhanced personalized interaction might generate local improvement,
which can increase subordination to teachers’ individual wills.
School-based teacher collaboration can be described as formal cooperation,
deprivatized practices and personalized interaction. According to the results, collabo-
ration as a threefold concept constitutes a culturally inherited web with various
expressions in different educational levels. Centrally aspired manipulations on distinct
aspects might jeopardize school effectiveness and quality provision, as the teaching
enterprise is full of complexities. On the other hand, considering the whole web might
accelerate expected developments. Therefore, we are suggesting an intensification of
comparative arguments as starting points for the analysis of culturally specific
mechanisms rather than the transferring of envied attributes.
References
Aili, C., & Brante, G. (2007). Qualifying teacher work: Everyday work as basis for the
autonomy of the teaching profession. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 13(3),
287–306.
Allen, N., & Hecht, T. (2004). The ‘romance of teams’: Towards an understanding of its
psychological underpinnings and implications. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 77(4), 439–461.
Annerstedt, C. (2005). Physical education and health in Sweden. In: M. Gerber & U. Pühse
(Eds.), International comparisons of physical education (pp. 604–629). Aachen: Meyer &
Meyer.
Arbuckle, L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SmallWaters.
Barott, J., & Raybould, R. (1998). Changing schools into collaborative organizations. In: D.G.
Pounder (Ed.), Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls (pp. 27–42).
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Bernstein, B. (1981). On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. In: M.F.D.
Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control: New directions in the sociology of education
(pp. 47–69). London: Collier.
Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, codes and control: The structuring of pedagogic discourse.
London/New York: Routledge.
Bernstein, B. (2000). Class, codes and control: Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity:
Theory, research, critique. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bezzina, C., & Testa, S. (2005). Establishing schools as professional learning communities:
Perspectives from Malta. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28(2), 141–150.
Broadfoot, P. (1999). Not so much a context, more a way of life? Comparative education in the
1990s. In: R. Alexander, P. Broadfoot, & D. Phillips (Eds.), Learning from comparing:
Contexts, classrooms and outcomes (pp. 21–31). Oxford: Symposium.
Broadhead, P. (2001). Curriculum change in Norway: Thematic approaches, active learning
and pupil cooperation – from curriculum design to classroom implementation. Scandina-
vian Journal of Educational Research, 45(1), 19–36.
Brook, L., Sawyer, E., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. (2007). Teacher collaboration in the context of
the responsive classroom approach. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 13(3),
211–245.
Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis Seashore, K. (1999). Professional community in Chicago
elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 751–781.
Byrne, B. (2001). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications and
programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cavanaugh, R., & Dellar, G. (1997, March). Towards a model of school culture. Paper
presented at the AERA Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, 24–28.
Chabbott, C., & Elliott, E. (2003). Understanding others, educating ourselves: Getting more
from, comparative studies in education. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
CoEC. (2004). Progress towards the common objectives in education and training: Indicators
and benchmarks. Brussels: European Council.
CoEU. (2001). The concrete future objectives of education and training systems. Brussels:
European Council.
Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Rundell, B., & Evans, D. (2003). The impact of collaborative CPD
on classroom teaching and learning. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Cordingley, P., & Temperlay, J. (2006). Leading continuing professional development in
school networks: Adding value, security impact. Nottingham: National College for School
Leadership.
Dale, R. (1997). The state and the governance of education: An analysis of the restructuring of
the state-education relationship. In: A. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, & A. Stuart Wells
(Eds.), Education: Culture, economy, society (pp. 273–282). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Teaching as a profession: Lessons in teacher preparation and
professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(3), 237–240.
Darling-Hammond, L., & MacLaughlin, M. (1995). Policies that support professional devel-
opment in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597–605.
Furman-Brown, G. (1999). Editor’s foreword. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(1),
6–12.
Geijsel, F., Van den Berg, R., & Sleegers, P. (1999). The innovative capacity of schools in
primary education: A qualitative study. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 12(2), 175–191.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age.
Cambridge: Polity.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing time: Teachers’ work and culture in the
postmodern age. London: Cassell.
Hargreaves, A. (1997). Restructuring restructuring: Postmodernity and the prospects for
educational change. In: A.H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, & A. Stuart Wells (Eds.),
Education: Culture, economy, and society (pp. 338–353). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1999). Schooling in the new millennium: Educational research for the post-
modern age. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 20(3), 333–355.
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and
Teaching: theory and practice, 6(2), 151–182.
Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity.
Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Hargreaves, L., Cunningham, M., Everton, T., Hansen, A., Hopper, B., McIntyre, D., et al.
(2006). The status of teachers and the teaching profession: Views from inside and outside
the profession. London: University of Cambridge/University of Leicester.
Hindin, A., Morocco, C., Mott, E., & Aguilar, C. (2007). More that just a group: Teacher
collaboration and learning in the workplace. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice,
13(4), 349–376.
Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and
improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Hord, S. (2000). Professional learning communities: An ongoing exploration. Austin, TX:
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Judge, H. (2000). Comparing education professionals: An introductory assay. In: R. Alexander,
M. Osborn, & D. Phillips (Eds.), Learning from comparing: Policy, professionals and
development (pp. 151–160). Oxford: Symposium.
Kougioumtzis, K. (2006). Lärarkulturer och Professionskoder. En comparative studie av
idrottslärare i Sverige och Grekland [Teacher cultures and professional codes: A compar-
ative study of physical education teachers in Sweden and Greece]. Gothenburg: ACTA.
Lavié, J. (2006). Academic discourses on school-based teacher collaboration: Revisiting the

arguments. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(5), 773–805.
Lindensjö, B., & Lundgren, Ulf. P. (2000). Utbildningsreformer och politisk styrning
[Educational reforms and political steering]. Stockholm: HLS.
Matsaggouras, I. (2002). Diepistimonikotita, diathematikotita kai eniaiopoiisi sta nea Program-
mata Spoudo: Tropoi organosis tis sholikis gnosis [Inter-disciplinarity cross-thematic
integration and the new Syllabus: Structuring educational knowledge]. Epitheorisi Ekpaid-
eftikon thematon, 7, 19–36.
Meirink, J., Meijer, P., & Verloop, N. (2007). A closer look at teachers’ individual learning in
collaborative setting. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 13(2), 145–164.
Morais, A., & Neves, I. (2001). Pedagogic social contexts: Studies for a sociology of learning.
In A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies, & H. Daniels (Eds.), Towards a sociology of pedagogy:
The contribution of Basil Bernstein to Research (pp. 185–221). New York: Peter Lang.
Newmann, F., King, B., & Youngs, P. (2000). Professional development that addresses school
capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. American Journal of Education,
108(4), 259–299.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2001). What schools for
the Future? Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2002). Education at a
glance: OECD indicators 2002. Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2005a). Education at a
glance: OECD indicators 2005. Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2005b). Teachers
matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD.
Osborn, M. (2000). Introduction: Education professionals compared. In: R. Alexander,
M. Osborn, & D. Phillips (Eds.), Learning from comparing: Policy, professionals
and development (pp. 145–149). Oxford: Symposium.
Phillips, D. (1999). On comparing. In: R. Alexander, P. Broadfoot, & D. Phillips (Eds.),
Learning from comparing: Contexts, classrooms and outcomes (pp. 15–20). Oxford:
Symposium.
Reeves, J. (2007). Inventing the chartered teacher. British Journal of Educational Studies,
55(1), 56–76.
Regeringskansliet. (2003) Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Stockholm:
Regeringskansliet.
Sadovnic, A., Cookson, P., & Semel, S. (2006). Exploring education: An introduction to the
foundations of education. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Schriewer, J. (1999). Coping with complexity in comparative methodology: Issues of social
causation and processes of macro-historical globalization. In: R. Alexander, P. Broadfoot,
& D. Phillips (Eds.), Learning from comparing: Contexts, classrooms and outcomes
(pp. 33–72). Oxford: Symposium.
Smyth, J. (2001). Critical politics of teachers’ work: An Australian perspective. New York:
Peter Lang.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning
communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.
Stylianidou, F., Bagakis, G., & Stamovlasis, D. (2004). Attracting, developing and retaining
effective teacher. Athens, GA: Education Research Centre.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review on the impact of professional learn-
ing communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24(1), 80–91.
Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (2000). Teachers’ learning. Stories of science education. Hing-
ham, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Wiggins, K., & Damone, S. (2006). ‘Survivors’ or ‘friends’? A framework for assessing
effective collaboration. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(5), 49–56.
Whitty, G. (1997). Marketization, the state, and the reformation of the teaching profession. In:
A. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, & A. Stuart Wells (Eds.), Education: Culture, economy,
society (pp. 299–310). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Appendix 1. The 12-item questionnaire
Questions Values
FC1 How often do you participate in formal 5 = several times per week; 4 = about
school meetings with colleagues once a week; 3 = about once every
from several schools subjects? two weeks; 2 = about once a month; 1
= several times a year
FC2 Do you participate actively at formal 5 = every time; 4 = often; 3 =
school meetings developing sometimes; 2 = rarely; 1=never
educational issues in front of your
colleagues?
FC3 Are you satisfied with the way your 5 = absolutely; 4 = very pleased; 3 =
colleagues treat you during formal rather pleased; 2 = tense situation; 1 =
school meetings? (kind of not at all

reception)
FC4 Can you trace power misuse from your 5 = every time; 4 = often; 3 =
colleagues against you or your sometimes; 2 = rarely; 1 = never
subject during formal school
meetings?
DP1 How often do you collaborate with 5 = on a weekly basis; 4 = on a monthly
other PE teachers to plan or carry basis; 3 = on a semester basis; 2 = on
out common lessons? a yearly basis; 1 = never
teachers in theoretical school basis; 3 = on a semester basis; 2 = on
subject to plan or carry out common a yearly basis; 1 = never
lessons?
teachers in practical school subject basis; 3 = on a semester basis; 2 = on
to plan or carry out common a yearly basis; 1 = never
lessons?
other teachers to plan or carry out basis; 3 = on a semester basis; 2 = on
common school events (e.g. sports a yearly basis; 1 = never
day)?
PI1 Do you discuss your own classes with 5 = continually; 4 = often; 3 =
colleagues during tuition-free time? sometimes; 2 = rarely; 1 = never
PI2 Do colleagues discuss their classes 5 = continually; 4 = often; 3 =
with you during tuition-free time? sometimes; 2 = rarely; 1 = never
PI3 Do you discuss broader schooling 5 = continually; 4 = often; 3 =
issues with colleagues regardless of sometimes; 2 = rarely; 1= never
school subject during tuition-free
time?
PI4 Do you discuss broader schooling 5 = continually; 4 = often; 3 =
issues with colleagues in the same sometimes; 2 = rarely; 1 = never
subject as you during tuition-free
time?
Appendix 2. Variance–covariance matrices
The complete sample
Variance–covariance matrix
PI4 PI3 PI2 PI1 DP4 DP3 DP2 DP1 FC4 FC3 FC2 FC1
PI4 .68
PI3 .23 .66
PI2 .39 .37 .72
PI1 .31 .35 .47 .74
DP4 .12 .05 .10 .10 .60
DP3 .23 .11 .16 .18 .27 .89

DP2 .19 .09 .20 .20 .31 .59 1.04
DP1 .17 .10 .12 .17 .21 .30 .29 1.26
FC4 .10 .07 .08 .09 .14 .03 .08 .01 1.08
FC3 .11 .08 .10 .11 .14 .11 .16 .05 .40 .74
FC2 .13 .16 .16 .15 .14 .17 .23 .13 .14 .25 .87
FC1 .13 −.03 .12 .08 .19 .18 .34 .17 .19 .22 .16 1.53
Swedish primary schools (SP)
PI4 .60
PI3 .36 .75
PI2 .42 .52 .68
PI1 .38 .48 .50 .72
DP4 .10 .15 .14 .13 .48
DP3 .19 .21 .18 .23 .26 .92
DP2 .17 .22 .25 .27 .27 .53 1.03
DP1 .12 .11 .09 .17 .19 .33 .23 1.24
FC4 .00 .04 .04 .09 .11 .03 .08 −.07 .90
FC3 .13 .13 .16 .17 .19 .13 .20 .06 .36 .78
FC2 .15 .18 .16 .19 .17 .24 .37 .19 .02 .30 1.01
FC1 .17 .16 .18 .18 .11 .18 .21 .04 .09 .24 .42 1.06
Swedish lower secondary schools (SL)
PI4 .62
PI3 .13 .54
PI2 .28 .28 .65
PI1 .26 .24 .39 .63
DP4 .13 .00 .07 .11 .52
DP3 .28 .06 .11 .16 .24 .97
DP2 .18 .10 .18 .18 .23 .57 .99
DP1 .13 .02 .05 .12 .17 .21 .25 1.00

FC4 .09 .12 .06 .10 .08 .03 .03 .05 .87
FC3 .12 .12 .10 .13 .07 .12 .14 .03 .34 .71
FC2 .15 .21 .21 .16 .06 .14 .19 .10 .14 .26 .83
FC1 .08 .08 .13 .04 .05 .14 .16 .12 .06 .08 .18 .79
Greek primary schools (GP)
PI4 .78
PI3 .32 .85
PI2 .42 .43 .79
PI1 .27 .43 .54 .91
DP4 .11 .08 .02 −.04 .67
DP3 .20 .16 .11 .09 .32 .78
DP2 .23 .16 .09 .09 .35 .54 .94
DP1 .22 .06 .07 .08 .25 .32 .46 1.20
FC4 .18 .09 .06 .02 .22 .06 .03 .04 1.33
FC3 .09 .04 .00 .01 .20 .08 .06 .07 .47 .79
FC2 .07 .14 .04 .00 .24 .13 .13 .06 .21 .21 .77
FC1 .06 .03 −.03 −.02 .05 −.06 −.04 .00 .19 .12 .01 .80
Greek lower secondary schools (GL)
PI4 .66
PI3 .12 .36
PI2 .44 .21 .78
PI1 .24 .18 .44 .70
DP4 .08 .02 .14 .13 .71
DP3 .17 .08 .21 .21 .22 .74
DP2 .16 .08 .27 .27 .31 .60 .88
DP1 .13 .06 .13 .14 .18 .26 .27 1.14
FC4 .12 .09 .17 .11 .16 −.06 .07 .03 1.41
FC3 .06 .09 .12 .10 .08 .03 .07 −.02 .45 .61
FC2 .13 .02 .17 .20 .18 .16 .24 .05 .25 .22 .82
FC1 .09 .08 .10 .08 .16 .09 .11 .21 .13 .04 .01 .89

Kougioumtzis &amp; Patriksson 2009

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kougioumtzis &amp; Patriksson 2009

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

eac ers an

THE JOURNAJ.. _OF THE

School-based teacher collaboration in Sweden and Greece:

Department of Education, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

During recent years, educational restructuring efforts have commonly regarded

*Corresponding author. Email: kkujumzis@sch.gr

ISSN 1354-0602 print/ISSN 1470-1278 online

ideals of the Enlightenment. However, unique national attributes should not be

surveillance even in decentralized educational systems (Dale, 1997; Smyth, 2001;

forward alternative solutions of reasoning and justification (Broadfoot, 1999;

individual teachers’ perceptions of school environment, beliefs and personal charac-

development can therefore predominantly be regarded as structural matters. The

2003) and a top-down strategy, respectively (Stylianidou, Bagakis, & Stamovlasis,

Table 1. The Greek and Swedish samples of PE teachers.

as non-classroom collaboration. The 12-item instrument (Appendix 1) has been devel-

Table 2. Formal cooperation.

Table 3. Deprivatized practices.

Table 4. Personalized interaction.

School-based teacher collaboration

second order components. Considering a reasonable loading limit of .60, Swedish

Table 5. School-based teacher collaboration: explorative analysis.

Figure 1. School-based teacher collaboration: a multidimensional construct.

Educational provision and school effectiveness constitute critical issues in a highly

Table 6. School-based teacher collaboration: confirmatory analysis.

formal cooperation and deprivatized practices are obviously enhanced in Sweden,

makers in Greece initiated the latest reform with international developments on

Lavié, J. (2006). Academic discourses on school-based teacher collaboration: Revisiting the

Appendix 1. The 12-item questionnaire

school meetings? (kind of not at all

Appendix 2. Variance–covariance matrices

The complete sample

DP3 .23 .11 .16 .18 .27 .89

Swedish primary schools (SP)

Swedish lower secondary schools (SL)

DP1 .13 .02 .05 .12 .17 .21 .25 1.00

Greek primary schools (GP)

Greek lower secondary schools (GL)

You might also like

Kougioumtzis & Patriksson 2009

Kougioumtzis & Patriksson 2009