Journal of Educational Administration

Collaborative practice: a model of successful working in schools

C.R. James, G. Dunning, M. Connolly, T. Elliott,
Article information:
To cite this document:
C.R. James, G. Dunning, M. Connolly, T. Elliott, (2007) "Collaborative practice: a model of successful
working in schools", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 45 Issue: 5, pp.541-555, https://
doi.org/10.1108/09578230710778187
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 05:57 28 November 2018 (PT)

Permanent link to this document:

https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230710778187
Downloaded on: 28 November 2018, At: 05:57 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 60 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4082 times since 2007*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2002),"Collaborative practice research", Information Technology & People, Vol. 15 Iss 4 pp. 321-345
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840210453115">https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840210453115</a>
(2015),"Learning through reflection: the critical role of reflection in work-based learning (WBL)",
Journal of Work-Applied Management, Vol. 7 Iss 1 pp. 15-27 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
JWAM-10-2015-003">https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-10-2015-003</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:548078 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

Collaborative
Collaborative practice: a model of practice
successful working in schools
C.R. James
University of Bath, Somerset, UK 541
G. Dunning and M. Connolly
University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd, Wales, UK, and Received December 2006
Accepted March 2007
T. Elliott
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 05:57 28 November 2018 (PT)

University of Wales Bangor, Wales, UK

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop the notion of collaborative practice from
theoretical and empirical bases.
Design/methodology/approach – The research analysed the concepts of collaboration, reflective
practice and the primary task. It also examined the ways of working of 18 primary schools in Wales
where the level of student attainment in national test scores was high, despite the pupils experiencing
considerable social and economic disadvantage.
Findings – From the conceptual analysis, we contend that established models of joint working
accord insufficient significance to the work task and that reflective practice is essentially a social
process, which requires a task focus to be successful. In the schools we studied, there was a particular
way of working which we have called “collaborative practice”. It contributed substantively to their
success. Collaborative practice is highly developed and inclusive joint working on a clearly defined
main task, or primary task, in a reflective way. There are thus three elements to collaborative practice:
collaboration, reflective practice and focus on the primary task. All three elements must be present for
collaborative practice to be successful.
Originality/value – The collaborative practice model provides a straightforward framework for
analysing work in schools. It also gives a secure foundation on which to base successful practice in
educational institutions. The collaborative practice model therefore has implications for research and
practice in educational settings, for the practice of educational leaders and managers, and for the
professional development of those who work in schools.
Keywords Joint ventures, Task-centred leadership, Schools, Best practice, Function evaluation, Wales
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
It is now generally accepted that a there is a link between a school’s effectiveness and
the socio-economic status of its pupils with high levels of socio-economic disadvantage
having a negative influence on pupil attainment (Tedlie et al., 2000). There is
effectiveness-disadvantage link in the education system in Wales (Welsh Assembly
Government, 2002) where the research reported in this paper was undertaken.
However, the relationship is not a deterministic one. Some schools in Wales are able to Journal of Educational
counter this trend and the pupils reach a high level of attainment in national test scores Administration
Vol. 45 No. 5, 2007
despite experiencing substantial socio-economic disadvantage. We have recently pp. 541-555
completed a study of some of these high attainment-high disadvantage primary q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-8234
schools and identified a number of important characteristics that were common to the DOI 10.1108/09578230710778187
 JEA schools we studied (James et al., 2006). Threaded through these characteristics was a
45,5 particular way of working which was, in essence, highly developed and inclusive joint
working, or collaboration, on a clearly defined main task, or primary task as we call it,
in a way that is grounded in reflective practice. We have named this way of working
“collaborative practice” and it was the dominant mode of practice in the schools.
In this paper, our intention is to develop collaborative practice as a model of
542 organising in schools. In the first two sections, we analyse the key components of
collaborative practice and give an empirically based illustration. We then develop the
concept and provide an illustrative model.

Conceptual perspective
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 05:57 28 November 2018 (PT)

The elements of collaborative practice: reflective practice, collaboration and the primary
task
Dewey defined reflection as:
[. . .] the active, careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light
of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends (Dewey, 1933, p. 9).
Donald Schon used this notion of reflection to explain how professional practitioners
think and act (Schon, 1983, 1987). His concept of reflective practice, together with
David Kolb’s elegant explanation of experiential learning, in which reflective
observation plays a key part (Kolb, 1984), have had a profound effect on
conceptualisations of teaching as a professional practice.
Schon contributed to the understanding of professional practice in three ways. First,
he explained that practitioners cope with the diverse and, in essence, unique contexts
for practice by reflecting in action during which they metaphorically converse with the
context and simultaneously act, ideally with optimal appropriateness. Second, Schon
argued that professional practitioners reflect on their actions to learn from them, and
thereby improve their practice. Third, he called for the development of an epistemology
of practice and he provided the reflective practice model through which to develop it.
Professional practice has two epistemologically interlinked dimensions knowing
through reflection in action and knowing through reflection on action.
Over the last 20 years, the reflective practice concept has been extended,
embellished and critiqued. For example, Killion and Todnem (1991) have proposed
reflection for practice to give purpose to reflection, as has Eraut (1995), and have
reworked reflection on action into a process of self-evaluation. Van Manen (1991) has
argued for anticipatory reflection, which takes place prior to action. Clarke et al. (1996)
have distinguished deliberative reflection for thoughtful and intelligent practice from
deep reflection, which gives a more meaningful understanding of professional
knowledge and its development. Eraut (1995) has argued that Schon does not provide
sufficient evidence for reflection in action as a mode of practice and that reflection in
action is inadequate as an underpinning of teaching practice in the highly complex
context of the classroom. David Boud and colleagues explored the role of reflection in
learning from experience (Boud et al., 1985), which others have developed, for example,
Moon (1999). Other models of experiential learning in which reflection plays a part
have also been developed (Dennison and Kirk, 1990).
Habermas’s (1971) concept of knowledge interests has been used to characterise the
different purposes of reflective practice (Van Manen, 1977; Leitch and Day, 2000). The
 function of reflection at the technical level is to improve efficiency and effectiveness in Collaborative
terms of practical skill. At the practical level, the purpose is to improve practice in practice
relation to the immediate context – the “lifeworld”. In education, outcomes of reflective
practice at this level may enhance the capacity to exercise practical and moral
judgments, to identify relevant problems and through the process to develop the
capacity to self-evaluate (Leitch and Day, 2000). The purpose of reflection at the
emancipatory level is to enhance understandings of the social, economic and political 543
influences on practice and may develop practitioner empowerment and authority.
Reflective practice has been advocated as an underpinning of educational leadership
(Killion and Todnem, 1991; Day, 2000; James and Connolly, 2000) and it has been
extended and developed in a range of professional groups such as the medical
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 05:57 28 November 2018 (PT)

(Mamede and Schmidt, 2004); architectural (Hanson, 2001) and legal (Webb and
Maughan, 1996) professions.
Since the mid-1980s, the meanings of “profession” and “professional” have become
increasingly blurred and the range of occupational groups to which reflective practice
may apply has broadened. Arguably, all those in occupations where the work is
complex and discretionary, requires theoretical knowledge, skill, judgement and a
degree of autonomous action, and takes place in diverse contexts, which are the criteria
for professional work set out by Freidson (1991), need to practice reflectively.
Moreover, if they are to learn from their experience at work, they need to reflect on their
practice. On that basis and because of their responsibilities and the requirements of
their work, all adults who work with pupils in schools need to practice reflectively to
optimise and improve the quality of their work.
One important but not often explicitly stated criticism of reflective practice is that it
is generally viewed as an individual practice and that the role of others in the process,
particularly fellow practitioners, is insufficiently stressed. This individual emphasis is
understandable given that autonomy is regarded as essential in professional practice
because practitioners need to exercise individual discretion and judgement in complex
and uncertain settings (Hoyle, 1980; Freidson, 1991; Hoyle and John, 1995). Indeed,
reflective practice in teaching has been justified because it enhances the autonomy of
individual practitioners (Calderhead, 1989).
In a number of ways, others can have a key role in individuals’ reflections in and on
their educational practice. First, in a variety of designated roles, as coaches, mentors,
peer tutors, managers, leaders and professional development tutors, and in informal
roles, others can enable an individual’s reflection on action. They can assist in realising
the full potential of reflection on action for learning and development and can help to
overcome the difficulties teachers face in reflecting on their practice in isolation (Day,
1999). Moreover, if the others themselves work reflectively in the process of enabling
reflection on action, they too can learn and develop. Dialogue, undertaken in a spirit of
reflection and inquiry, and co-reflection can enhance creativity because of the different
perspectives that are available from others (Bohm, 1965). Second, individual teachers’
experience of the practice of others is also likely to shape their reflections. Joint
working amongst teachers and adults other than teachers in a school will inform and
be informed by others and can give opportunities for reflection and learning. Third, the
context for an individual’s reflective practice is set in part by the reflective practice of
others. Thus, the influence of others’ reflective practice significantly affects an
individual’s reflections in and on action and vice versa. Whilst the concentration on
 JEA individual reflection in and on practice has continued in teaching, see for example,
Loughran (1996) and Farrell (2003) and in educational leadership (Sergiovanni, 2000),
45,5 the notion of reflection has recently started to broaden into more collective forms in
teaching see for example, Yorke-Barr et al. (2001), and in other settings, for example
Reynolds and Vince (2004) and Boud et al. (2005).
A final criticism of reflective practice is that there is insufficient attention paid to its
544 purpose and it is here that the concept of the primary task (Rice, 1963), which
originates in group relations theory, can be helpful. The primary task is the task an
organisation must perform to survive. In essence, it defines what is to be done. The
concept may seem to be an over-simplification, especially given the complexities faced
by many institutions, including schools. However, the primary task is a valuable
heuristic device:
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 05:57 28 November 2018 (PT)

[. . .] which allows us to explore the ordering of multiple activities . . . and to construct and
compare different organisational models of an enterprise based on different definitions of its
primary task (Miller and Rice, 1967, p. 62).
Lawrence (1977) identified three different forms of primary task, the normative
primary task, which is the defined, formal or official task; the existential primary task,
which is the task the work group members believe they are undertaking, and the
phenomenal primary task, which is the task that can be inferred from work group
members’ behaviour. Engaging in the normative primary task reflectively can help to
ensure that there is congruence between the three kinds of task, which may enhance
the effectiveness of organisational practice (James et al., 2006).
Joint working by schools, groups of teachers and individual teachers has come to
prominence as mode of practice relatively recently. At the institutional level, it has
been described variously as partnership (Bennett et al., 2004), federation (DfES, 2003)
and collaboration (Glatter, 2003). Our preference here is for the term “collaboration”
because of its etymological link with “joint working” (Harper, 2001). At the
inter-institutional level, joint working can bring a range of benefits in both educational
and non-educational settings, which Connolly and James (2006) argue are underpinned
by the requirements for additional resources and/or legitimacy.
Our principal interest here is in collaboration at the level of educational practice by
individuals and small groups in the same school. Collaboration is an important aspect
of professional practice in schools and colleges (Nias et al., 1989; Smyth, 1991; Quicke,
2000). The idea of schools as “professional communities” (Louis et al., 1995; Halverson,
2003) and “professional learning communities” (Dufour and Baker, 1998; Roberts and
Pruitt, 2003) is grounded in the notion that educational work in schools is collaborative.
Inclusive collaboration may help to prevent splitting and projection which may lead to
other problematic organisational practices (Dunning et al., 2005) and can enhance
emotional containment (Aubrey-Hopkins and James, 2002).
Practice in its collective form has been brought to the fore as “communities of
practice” by Lave and Wenger (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). A community
of practice is:
[. . .] a set of relations among persons, activity and world over time and in relation with each
other (Lave and Wenger, 1991, p. 98).
The focus is on practice as a way of socially reproducing meaning, as a basis of
community coherence, and as learning. Arguably with the emphasis on “community”
 and “practice” as vehicles for social learning, the significance of the work group’s task Collaborative
is underplayed which limits the usefulness of the model. A work group’s conscious and practice
unconscious relationship with the primary task is significant. Work groups have a
tendency to avoid work on the primary task typically because of the anxiety and other
emotions that may be associated with it (Obholzer and Roberts, 1994). They may adopt
basic assumption mentalities (Bion, 1975) where practices have the purpose of meeting
the group’s unconscious needs rather than accomplishing the primary task (Obholzer 545
and Roberts, 1994). Understanding a work group’s relationship with the primary task
is therefore important particularly in: apprehending the significance of the primary
task for the group; sustaining the purpose of the group; enabling the group to avoid
basic assumption working and importantly in shaping what is learned. James and
Connolly (2000) point to the crucial significance of clarifying and working on the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 05:57 28 November 2018 (PT)

primary task in the transformation of ineffective schools.

One aspect of joint working in educational settings, which is not given prominence,
is reflection. If individual professional practice can be conceptualised as reflective
practice, then joint professional working – collaboration – must also in some sense be
a reflective practice. As with any other aspect of professional work, collaborating
partners need to be able to adjust their collaboration practices to ensure they are
optimally appropriate, to learn from their experience of collaboration and to improve
their collaborative practice.

The empirical perspective

A study of successful schools in disadvantaged settings
In this section, we intend to complement the preceding conceptual analysis with some
of the findings of a study of successful primary schools in disadvantaged settings in
Wales, UK (Welsh Assembly Government, 2005; James et al., 2006). We give important
contextual information, describe the sample, the research and the methodology, and
outline the relevant findings.

The context
Since devolution in the UK in 1999, the National Assembly for Wales (NAfW) has been
responsible for the education system in Wales. The Welsh Assembly Government
administers education on behalf of the NAfW and 22 local authorities manage the
system locally. In the maintained school sector, there are approximately 1,630 primary
schools, 230 secondary schools and 45 schools for pupils with special educational
needs. About a quarter of all the primaries are Welsh-medium schools, where the
pupils are taught in Welsh. Wales has its own school inspection service, which is
known as Estyn. School pupils in Wales follow the National Curriculum, which has a
Key Stage structure similar to that in England but includes Welsh language and differs
in other ways. National pupil assessment at the end of KS1 and KS2 by Standard
Assessment Tests (SATs) has recently been abolished but was in place at the time of
the research.

The sample
We studied 18 primary schools from 12 local authorities across Wales. All had recently
received a favourable Estyn inspection report and were recommended by their local
authorities as schools that were performing well in difficult circumstances. The schools
 JEA had consistently been in the upper quartile of all the schools in Wales for the
45,5 percentage of their pupils attaining the core subject indicator (CSI) in the end of KS2
SATs in the previous three years. The Key Stage 2 CSI is Level 4 or better in
mathematics, science and English or Welsh. In 13 schools, over 30 per cent of the pupils
were entitled to FSM in two of the previous three years. In the remainder, over 15 per
cent of students were entitled to FSM during that period. Five were Welsh-medium
546 schools.

The research
We collected data from the chair of the governing body and/or governors, the
headteacher, senior staff, teachers, support staff, parents and pupils using
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 05:57 28 November 2018 (PT)

semi-structured interviews and group discussions. The data collection explored

respondents’ views on how the pupils were enabled to reach a higher level of
attainment than might be expected from the setting and to discover the respondents’
rationales for those practices. We analysed various documents, including school
policies, Estyn inspection reports and school development plans. Recurring themes
from all the cases were identified. For the purposes of this paper, we consider three
particular themes:
(1) the focus on the primary task;
(2) collaboration; and
(3) reflective practice.

The findings
The focus on the primary task. Across the sample, the normative primary task was
very apparent. We summarised it as “ensuring effective and enriched teaching for
learning for all pupils and improving and further enriching teaching and learning for
all pupils”. It was widely sanctioned by all those we spoke to and was a very prominent
theme in the data. The teaching staff engaged in this task purposefully and with
persistence and passion. The task was pre-eminent in all the schools, it gave purpose to
the work and it defined what was to be done. Importantly, there was congruence
between the normative, the existential and phenomenal primary task (Lawrence, 1977).
This focus on the primary task was evident in the data in various ways:
.
Ensuring effective teaching for learning for all pupils. There was a
straightforward and direct emphasis on teaching to bring about pupil
attainment. The teachers’ work with their classes was therefore the priority.
“It all comes down to teaching in the classroom” said one headteacher, “It’s what
happens in the classroom that counts” said another. The arrangement and size of
classes and the age and ability range of the pupils in them varied from school to
school but in each school the organisation of teaching groups had been carefully
considered to maximise pupil attainment. Respondents felt that continuity,
progression and thoroughness in teaching contributed to the sense of
consistency and stability for the pupils, which in turn increased the pupils’
confidence and ability to learn. Differentiated learning tasks were important
because of the typically wide range of pupil ability in any class. “It is a planning
requirement here” said one headteacher with considerable emphasis. Classroom
teaching assistance of a range of kinds helped the management of these
 differentiated tasks. The schools concentrated on improving the pupils’ literacy Collaborative
and numeracy, which they considered to be foundational for other learning. As practice
the Chair of the Governing Body put it:
There is an emphasis here on the core business, which is getting the basics right,
teaching the children well to ensure they get a good start.

The pupils were kept busy, there was a work ethic in the schools generally, and all the 547
pupils had targets, which they helped to set. Assessment was considered to be
important – “The heart of all teaching and learning” as one teacher described it – and
typically there was a plan of regular assessment across a year-group or the whole
school. The schools deliberately committed resources to enhancing the learning of
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 05:57 28 November 2018 (PT)

pupils with learning difficulties and there was a relentless determination to meet those
pupils’ needs. As one teacher put it, “We never give up” (her emphasis). Meeting special
learning needs was part of the work of responding positively to the individual learning
needs of all the pupils.
.
Ensuring enriched teaching for learning for all pupils. The schools sought to
enrich the pupils’ learning experience and used a wide range of learning
activities and experiences to do so. Creativity in teaching was valued, and
computers, interactive whiteboards and the internet were used extensively to
augment learning. The pupils visited places of educational interest outside the
schools and members of the schools’ communities visited the schools as did
dance and theatre groups, bands and poets. Most of the schools had links with
schools in other countries. There were numerous additional activities and clubs.
This enriched curriculum had a dual purpose. First, it compensated for the
pupils’ likely lack of these kinds of experience outside school. One headteacher
put the rationale very clearly, “Our view is that if we don’t give these
opportunities, nobody does, it doesn’t happen”. Second, it enriched pupil learning
in school and importantly motivated the pupils to learn.
.
Improving and further enriching teaching for learning for all pupils. The teaching
staff in the schools continually sought to improve and further enrich their
teaching. The schools planned and organised professional training and
development prudently. In-school training and development sessions were
typically regular and frequent – “Once a week without fail” as one headteacher
put it – and were linked directly to planned developments. Typically, all those
involved in teaching, including nursery nurses and classroom learning
assistants, participated in these school-based development sessions. Parent
helpers were also trained and developed. When teachers attended external
courses, their new knowledge was shared and jointly reflected upon. Possible
curriculum changes were considered carefully to ensure they would improve the
pupils’ learning and if so were then integrated thoughtfully into existing practice.
Self-evaluation, monitoring and performance management processes were
accepted, well established and used to improve practice.

Collaboration. Joint working – collaboration – featured very prominently in all the

case study schools. A number of aspects of collaboration were evident in the data
All the adults working in the school – teaching assistants, nursery nurses, parent
helpers and support staff of all kinds – were considered to be part of the teaching team
 JEA and all were expected to be active team members. There was equal valuing and parity
45,5 of esteem despite the team members’ different roles and responsibilities. Those who
gave additional support in the classroom worked to the same standards as the teachers.
They all have “a professional approach” in the words of one headteacher. The presence
of other adults in the classroom appeared to elevate teaching norms generally. One
headteacher was clear that “having another adult in the class challenges staff to
548 maintain standards”.
There was an expectation that everyone would conform to the accepted ways of
working in the school. There was consistency, with members of staff working in the
same way reliably and constantly. There was also consonance – the teaching staff
worked in similar ways. Joint planning featured prominently. Respondents felt it
exploited the collective educational expertise and ensured consistency and conformity.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 05:57 28 November 2018 (PT)

The socialisation of new staff was rigorous and unyielding. “The staff are very helpful
. . . but they are uncompromising”, said a teacher new one of the schools. All this
expectation of conformance did not stop the teachers being creative, quite the opposite.
It provided a secure framework within which the staff could develop new ideas. “The
structures in school are not designed to imprison, but to allow creativity”, as one
headteacher put it. Consequently, ways of working were not static but were continually
evolving to improve pupil attainment.
Working relationships were secure and straightforward which enhanced the
collective authority of the staff. Communication appeared easy and open and the staff
appeared to be very comfortable with each other. They knew each other’s strengths
and weaknesses, help was given and received easily and members of staff were ready
and willing to share their expertise. Respondents felt that problems and conflicts,
which there were of course, were typically issue-based and not person-based, were
discussed openly and resolved quickly and fairly. There appeared to be a high level of
social mixing and there was no evidence of cliques. From our observations humour
was an important feature of working relationships. Those we spoke to referred to a
sense of fairness, justice and even-handedness in the ways the schools worked and a
strong feeling of mutual accountability, a high level of trust and a spirit of collective
effort. Individual and collective authority appeared to be enhanced by the staff
working together. “The staff have a collaborative strength, said one headteacher as he
tried to capture the notion that collectively, the teaching team was more than the sum
of them as individuals”.
In all the schools, the teaching staff as a group had been carefully built and
sustained. New members were appointed thoughtfully, and despite the requirement to
fit in, were welcomed for the fresh ideas and complementary expertise they brought. A
number of the teachers in the schools had been student teachers on placement, parent
helpers, teaching assistants or nursery nurses in their schools. Generally, staff turnover
was low. Staff did not want to move to other schools because, as we frequently heard in
different schools, they were so happy where they were.
Reflective practice. All those we spoke to in the schools were highly reflective about
their own work, the work of their colleagues, and the school and its context. Their
reflective practice was focused and given purpose by their clear sense of the primary
task, which was their dominant concern:
.
Reflective organising. All the schools were organised to facilitate work on the
primary task and everyone was expected to conform to the agreed systems.
 These procedures had been shaped by the reflections of the staff on their Collaborative
organisational practice – the procedures were thus effective. Organisational practice
matters were none the less continually reflected upon in order to improve them.
We found evidence of numerous examples where procedures were under review.
For example, although there may be a whole school scheme for the management
of pupil assessment, which worked effectively, there would also be plans in place
to improve it. The organisation of the school was thus both secure and adaptable. 549
The schools had well-developed collaborative processes, such as regular
meetings and working groups, for reflecting on current organisational practice
and then jointly deciding how to improve it. Those we spoke to exhibited a high
degree of reflectivity about the ways they worked together.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 05:57 28 November 2018 (PT)

.
Reflective teaching. The schools worked reflectively on their work on the primary
task to ensure that current practice was optimally appropriate and to bring about
future improvement. These reflective practices happened in informal and formal
settings. We witnessed numerous casual conversations about teaching and the
headteachers stressed how the teaching staff liked to talk about their work. In
addition, time was set aside regularly and frequently, typically weekly, to discuss
improvements to teaching. Curriculum planning decisions were typically made
jointly. Decisions about the allocation of resources such as additional classroom
support were made after extensive discussion. New teaching methods were only
adopted if the staff agreed that they would improve existing approaches.

It was clear in all the schools that the teaching staff understood and reflected with
considerable insight on the social, economic and political influences on their practice
and its context. These reflections appeared to underpin their high levels of motivation.
The members of staff were passionately concerned for justice and equity within the
wider social context. They had a powerful desire to help the children to learn because it
would enable the pupils’ social and economic advancement. As one teacher said with
considerable force, “We cannot let these kids down,” a sentiment we heard often. The
primary task was clearly very meaningful to the teaching teams and had deep
significance for them.

The collaborative practice model

In this section, we develop a model of collaborative practice by drawing together the
outcomes of the conceptual analysis and the empirical illustration. There are three
interlinked foundational elements in collaborative practice: collaboration, reflective practice
and a focus on the primary task. In summary, the different elements contribute as follows.

Collaboration
This element of collaborative practice widens opportunities for enhanced reflection in
relation to the primary task through dialogue and discussion with others. Joint
working provides practice and cultural norms, which are shaped by the primary task
and frame reflection in and on action. Collaboration enhances the pool of expertise and
other resources for work on the primary task and legitimises the work on the primary
task. Work on the primary task is thus jointly validated. The high level of inclusivity in
collaboration reduces the possibility of organisational splits and the consequences that
may result.
 JEA A focus on the primary task
We have summarised the primary task in the schools we studied as ensuring effective
45,5 and enriched teaching for learning for all the pupils and improving and further
enriching teaching for learning for all the pupils. A primary task of this kind has two
inter-related dimensions. The first defines “what is to be done” in the present, the
second defines what is to be done to improve the work that is to be undertaken on
550 “what is to be done” in the future. Importantly, the primary task also provides a
purpose and rationale for collaboration.

Reflective practice
In collaborative practice, reflective practice – reflection in action and reflection on
action – is undertaken in relation to the primary task which has both “current
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 05:57 28 November 2018 (PT)

effectiveness” and “future improvement” dimensions. Reflection in action allows

current practice and efforts to improve future practice to be optimised. Reflection on
action enables the evaluation of, and learning from, current practice. It also enables the
evaluation of attempts to improve future practice, and learning from attempts to
improve future practice. The relationship between the two forms of reflection and a
primary task with current and future practice dimensions is shown in Table I. By
engaging reflectively on their improvement practice, collaborative practitioners can
come to know their individual and collective change and development processes.
All three elements of collaborative practice are important. Reflective practice and
collaboration without a focus on the primary task may result in anti-task behaviour
(Turquet, 1985). Work on the primary task may be avoided or even actively
undermined, and the collaborating group may adopt basic assumption tendencies
(Bion, 1975; James and Connolly, 2000) and work to meet its own needs rather than
to accomplish the normative primary task. If there is collaboration and a focus on
the primary task with no reflection, practice both in relation to the primary task and
to the practice of collaboration may not be appropriate and may not improve. With
reflective practice and a focus on the primary task without collaboration, the scope
and capacity for reflection will be limited. There will be no institutionally set norms
to shape reflection and no reference points for it, the controls and limits on
reflection will not be set, and there will be less potential for creativity. Resources for
work on the primary task will be limited and the legitimacy of work on the primary
task reduced.
In Figure 1, we have portrayed collaborative practice diagrammatically as three
inter-locking rings, an arrangement which is known as a Borromean knot (Lacan,
1975, p. 112). In a Borromean knot if one of the rings is cut or not present, the other

Purpose and outcome of reflection in Purpose and outcome of reflection in

Table I. Form of reflection relation to current practice relation to future practice
The purpose and the
Reflection in action Optimisation of current practice Optimisation of attempts to improve
outcome of the different
future practice
forms of reflection and
the two dimensions of the Reflection on action The evaluation of current practice and The evaluation of attempts to improve
primary task – current the enabling of learning from, and future practice and the enabling of
practice and future improvement on, current practice learning from attempts to improve
practice future practice
 Collaborative
practice

551
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 05:57 28 November 2018 (PT)

Figure 1.
A Borromean knot
diagram showing the three
elements of collaborative
practice: collaboration:
reflective practice and a
focus on the primary task

two fall away. The three circles signify collaboration, reflective practice and a focus
on the primary task. The central section where the circles overlap represents
collaborative practice. The way the circles are arranged in the knot conveys both
the sense of overlapping “sets” and the importance of all three elements being
present.
We argue that collaboration should dominate in the descriptive title because the
mode of practice is joint working – collaboration – on a primary task in a reflective
way. One important outcome of all three elements being present is the potentially
highly motivating nature of collaborative practice, when the members of a group
collectively do the best work they can on a meaningful task and then seek to do
even better. In the schools we studied, this work had become a compelling shared
vision in practice, “a force in people’s hearts, a force of impressive power” (Senge,
1990, p. 206).

Concluding comments
In this paper, we have developed and modelled collaborative practice which we
consider provides a helpful perspective on organising in schools and colleges. The idea
gives rise to a number of issues and questions for further consideration. For example,
Does collaborative practice require particular forms of leadership and if so what are
they? Is there a “hierarchy” to collaborative practice as there is to the different forms of
reflective practice and if so how might such a hierarchy be characterised? Does
collaborative practice take on different forms in different settings and if so what are
they and how might they be characterised? We are also conscious that we have not
 JEA explored the politics of collaborative practice. Clearly, the development of collaborative
45,5 practice, the way it is sustained and the barriers to it are significant organisational, and
therefore political, issues. A final very significant issue relates to the development of
collaborative practitioners. Given that collaborative practice appears to bring about
substantial benefits in terms of pupil attainment in schools, we argue that it is
important that the characteristics of collaborative practitioners be explored further so
552 that they can be specifically developed.

References
Aubrey-Hopkins, J. and James, C.R. (2002), “Improving practice in subject departments: the
experience of secondary school subject leaders in Wales”, School Leadership and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 05:57 28 November 2018 (PT)

Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 305-20.

Bennett, N., Harvey, J.A. and Anderson, L. (2004), “Control, autonomy and partnership in local
education: views from six chief education officers”, Educational Management,
Administration and Leadership, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 217-35.
Bion, W.R. (1975), “Selections from: experiences in groups”, in Coleman, A.D. and Bexton, W.H.
(Eds), Group Relations Reader 1, A.K. Rice Institute, Jupiter, FL.
Bohm, D. (1965), The Special Theory of Relativity, W.A. Benjamin, New York, NY.
Boud, D., Keogh, R. and Walker, R. (1985), Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning, Kogan
Page, London.
Boud, D., Cressey, P. and Docherty, P. (2005), Productive Reflection at Work: Learning for
Changing Organizations, Routledge, London.
Calderhead, J. (1989), “Reflective teaching and teacher education”, Teaching and Teacher
Education, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 43-51.
Clarke, B.A., James, C.R. and Kelly, J. (1996), “Reflective practice: reviewing and refocusing the
debate”, International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 171-80.
Connolly, M. and James, C.R. (2006), “Collaboration for school improvement: resource
dependency and institutional frameworks of analysis”, Educational Management,
Administration and Leadership, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 69-87.
Day, C. (1999), “Professional development and reflective practice: purposes, process, and
partnerships”, Pedagogy, Culture and Society, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 221-3.
Day, C. (2000), “Effective leadership and reflective practice”, Reflective Practice, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 113-27.
Dennison, B. and Kirk, R. (1990), Do, Review, Learn, Apply: A Simple Guide to Experiential
Learning, Blackwell Education, Oxford.
Dewey, J. (1933), How We Think, DC Heath and Co., Boston, MA.
DfES (2003), A New Specialist System: Transforming Secondary Education, DfES, London.
Dufour, R. and Baker, R.E. (1998), Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best Practices for
Enhancing Student Achievement, National Education Service, Bloomington, IN.
Dunning, G., James, C.R. and Jones, N. (2005), “Splitting and projection at work in schools”,
Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 244-59.
Eraut, M. (1995), “Schon shock: a case for re-framing reflection in action?”, Teachers and
Teaching, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 9-22.
Farrell, T.S.C. (2003), Reflective Practice in Action: 80 Reflection Breaks for Busy Teachers, Sage,
London.
 Freidson, E. (1991), “Nourishing professionalism”, in Pellegrino, E.D., Veatch, R.M. and Langan, Collaborative
J.P. (Eds), Ethics, Trust and the Professions: Philosophical and Cultural Aspects,
Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp. 193-215. practice
Glatter, R. (2003), “Collaboration, collaboration, collaboration: the origins and implications of a
policy”, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Leadership,
Management and Administration Society Kent’s Hill Milton Keynes, September.
Habermas, J. (1971), Knowledge and Human Interests, Heinemann, London. 553
Halverson, R.R. (2003), “Systems of practice: how leaders use artefacts to create professional
community in schools”, Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 11, p. 37.
Hanson, J. (2001), “Morphology and design, reconciling intellect, intuition, and ethics in the
reflective practice of architecture”, paper presented at the 3rd International Space Syntax
Symposium, Atlanta, GA, 7-11 May.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 05:57 28 November 2018 (PT)

Harper, D. (2001), On-line etymological dictionary, available at: www.etymonline.com/index.

php?term ¼ collaborate
Hoyle, E. (1980), “Professionalisation and de-professionalisation in education”, in Hoyle, E. and
Meggary, J. (Eds), The Professional Development of Teachers, World Yearbook of
Education, Kogan Page, London.
Hoyle, E. and John, P. (1995), Professional Knowledge and Professional Practice, Cassell, London.
James, C.R. and Connolly, U. (2000), Effective Change in Schools, Routledge Falmer, London.
James, C.R., Connolly, M., Dunning, G. and Elliott, T.J. (2006), How Very Effective Primary
Schools Work, Sage, London.
Killion, J. and Todnem, G. (1991), “A process for personal theory building”, Educational
Leadership, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 14-16.
Kolb, D. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as a Source of Learning and Development,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Lacan, J. (1975), Encore, Editions de Seuil, Paris.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lawrence, W.G. (1977), “Management development . . . some ideals: images and realities”, Journal
of European Industrial Training, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 21-5.
Leitch, R. and Day, C. (2000), “Action research and reflective practice: towards a holistic view”,
Educational Action Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 179-93.
Loughran, J. (1996), Developing Reflective Practice: Learning about Teaching and Learning
through Modelling, Falmer, London.
Louis, K.S., Kruse, S.D. and Bryk, A.S. (1995), “Professionalism and community: what is it and
why is it important in urban schools?”, in Louis, K.S. and Kruse, S.D. (Eds),
Professionalism and Community: Perspectives on Reforming Urban Schools, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mamede, S. and Schmidt, H.G.S. (2004), “The structure of reflective practice in medicine”, Medical
Education, Vol. 38 No. 12, pp. 1207-330.
Miller, E.J. and Rice, A.K. (1967), Systems of Organisation: The Control of Task and Sentient
Boundaries, A.K. Rice Institute, Jupiter, FL.
Moon, J. (1999), Reflection in Learning and Professional Development: Theory and Practice, Kogan
Page, London.
Nias, J., Southworth, G. and Yeomans, R. (1989), Staff Relationships in the Primary School: A
Study of Organisational Cultures, Cassell, London.
 JEA Obholzer, A. and Roberts, V.Z. (1994), The Unconscious at Work, Routledge, London.
45,5 Quicke, J. (2000), “A new professionalism for a collaborative culture of organizational learning in
contemporary society”, Educational Management and Administration, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 299-316.
Rice, A.K. (1963), The Enterprise and its Environment, Tavistock Publications, London.
Roberts, S. and Pruitt, E. (2003), Schools as Professional Learning Communities, Sage, London.
554 Reynolds, M. and Vince, R. (2004), Organizing Reflection, Ashgate Publishing, London.
Schon, D.A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books,
New York, NY.
Schon, D.A. (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 05:57 28 November 2018 (PT)

Random House, London.

Sergiovanni, T. (2000), The Principalship: A Reflective Practitioner Perspective, Allyn and Bacon,
London.
Smyth, J. (1991), Teachers as Collaborative Learners, OUP, Buckingham.
Tedlie, C., Stringfield, S. and Reynolds, D. (2000), “Context issues within school effectiveness
research”, in Tedlie, C. and Reynolds, D. (Eds), The International Handbook of School
Effectiveness Research, Falmer, London.
Turquet, P. (1985), “Leadership: the individual and the group”, in Coleman, A.D. and Geller, M.H.
(Eds), Group Relations Reader 2, A.K. Rice Institute, Jupiter, FL.
Van Manen, M. (1977), “Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical”, Curriculum
Enquiry, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 205-88.
Van Manen, M. (1991), The Tact of Teaching, State University of New York Press, New York,
NY.
Webb, J. and Maughan, C. (1996), Teaching Lawyers’ Skills, Butterworths, London.
Welsh Assembly Government (2002), Narrowing the Gap in the Performance of Schools, Welsh
Assembly Government, Cardiff.
Welsh Assembly Government (2005), Narrowing the Gap in the Performance of Schools: Phase II
Primary Schools, Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff.
Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Yorke-Barr, J., Sommers, W.A., Ghere, G.S. and Montie, J. (2001), Reflective Practice to Guide
Schools: An Action Guide for Teachers, Corwen, London.

Further reading
Green, T.F. (1984), The Formation of Conscience in an Age of Technology, Syracuse University
Press, Syracuse, NY.

About the authors

C.R. James is a Senior Lecturer in Educational Leadership and Management in the Department of
Education at the University of Bath. He is currently the Chair of the National Council of the
British Educational Leadership Management and Administration Society and until recently he
was the Head of the Educational Leadership and Management Research Unit at the University of
Glamorgan in South Wales. C.R. James can be contacted at: C.James@bath.ac.uk
 G. Dunning is the Head of the Education Division in the School of Humanities, Law and Social Collaborative
Sciences at the University of Glamorgan. During his career, he has been a registered inspector
and a primary school head-teacher. practice
M. Connolly was, until recently, the Head of the School of Humanities, Law and Social
Sciences at the University of Glamorgan. He has published widely in public sector leadership and
management especially at the local authority level and in education.
T. Elliot is the Dean of the Faculty of Education, University of Wales Bangor and Director of
the Development Unit. He is a Registered Inspector (Primary Schools) and is the Lead Assessor 555
for the National Professional Qualification for Headship.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 05:57 28 November 2018 (PT)

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Yuhong Jiang. Solving Dilemmas Through Collaborative Reflection for Pre-service English Teachers
During the Practicum 67-107. [Crossref]
2. Jun Yan, Li Yan. 2016. Individual entrepreneurship, collective entrepreneurship and innovation in small
business: an empirical study. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 12:4, 1053-1077.
[Crossref]
3. CanonigoAllan M., Allan M. Canonigo. 2016. Using a non-coercive process to engage mathematics
teachers in lesson study. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies 5:4, 329-347. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
4. Katrien Vangrieken, Filip Dochy, Elisabeth Raes, Eva Kyndt. 2015. Teacher collaboration: A systematic
review. Educational Research Review 15, 17-40. [Crossref]
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 05:57 28 November 2018 (PT)

5. J.J. Doppenberg, P.J. den Brok, A.W.E.A. Bakx. 2013. Relationships between primary school teachers'
perceived learning outcomes of collaboration, foci and learning activities. Learning and Individual
Differences 28, 1-8. [Crossref]
6. Jannet J. Doppenberg, Anouke W.E.A. Bakx, Perry J. den Brok. 2012. Collaborative teacher learning in
different primary school settings. Teachers and Teaching 18:5, 547-566. [Crossref]
7. J.J. Doppenberg, P.J. den Brok, A.W.E.A. Bakx. 2012. Collaborative teacher learning across foci of
collaboration: Perceived activities and outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education 28:6, 899-910. [Crossref]
8. Patricia Brouwer, Mieke Brekelmans, Loek Nieuwenhuis, Robert‐Jan Simons. 2012. Community
development in the school workplace. International Journal of Educational Management 26:4, 403-418.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Patricia Brouwer, Mieke Brekelmans, Loek Nieuwenhuis, Robert‐Jan Simons. 2012. Communities of
practice in the school workplace. Journal of Educational Administration 50:3, 346-364. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
10. Christopher James, Carolyn Goodhew. 2011. An Analysis of a Subject Department in an English
Secondary School Using the Collaborative Practice Analytical Framework. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership 39:3, 317-332. [Crossref]
11. 이이이, CHOIJINYOUNG. 2010. Collaborative practice for curriculum development: A case study of
elementary teachers. The Journal of Curriculum Studies 28:2, 91-119. [Crossref]
12. Alan J. Daly, Nienke M. Moolenaar, Jose M. Bolivar, Peggy Burke. 2010. Relationships in reform: the
role of teachers' social networks. Journal of Educational Administration 48:3, 359-391. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]