University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Collaboration among interdisciplinary teaching teams: a gap analysis

(USC Thesis Other)

Collaboration among interdisciplinary teaching teams: a gap analysis

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Collaboration Among Interdisciplinary Teaching Teams: A Gap Analysis
by
Katherine Elizabeth McMullen

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2022

© Copyright by Katherine Elizabeth McMullen 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Katherine Elizabeth McMullen certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Lawrence Picus
Artineh Samkian
Darline P. Robles, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
This study aimed to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
facilitate and interfere with middle school content area teachers engaging in collaboration to
design and deliver interdisciplinary units (IDU) at Woodlands International School (WIS) in
Southeast Asia. Clarks and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis provided the conceptual and
methodological framework for this study and aimed to answer the following questions:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that interfere with
the Grade 6 and 7 content area teachers engaging in collegial collaboration to design
and deliver IDUs?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivational, and organizational solutions?
Fourteen content area teachers were interviewed using a semi-structured interview protocol.
Each interview was transcribed, coded, and organized into themes for knowledge, motivation,
and organization. Findings show that the gaps that exist in knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences are intimately interconnected. Based on the findings, solutions offered
to address the challenges were drawn from the research literature. This study begins to help
understand the complexity of interdisciplinary collaboration and how organizations can begin to
fill the gap.

v
Dedication
To my parents, I could not have achieved this without your love and support. Thank you for
instilling a passion for life-long learning. And to my husband, James, my editor in writing and
partner in life.

vi
Acknowledgements
It seems that writing a dissertation is a lot like climbing a mountain. It is not something
you can do on your own. Thank you first to Dr. Darline P. Robles who was my Sherpa, providing
supportive guidance along the way and making sure I had the equipment and resources I needed
to survive. To Dr. Larry Picus and Artineh Samkian, my backcountry leaders, both of whom
provided invaluable guidance and made sure I stayed on the correct path throughout the journey.
To my compass team, the 14 teachers who sat for interviews. Thank you for serving as an
essential part of my research. You provided the inspiration and the roadmap for this project. I
quite literally could not have done this without you.
To my rope team who cheered me on and reminded me that I would make it to the top.
Scott Riley, Darnell Fine, Dr. Betsy Hall, Lauren Merbach, Chris Beingessner, and Chris
Raymakers. Thank you for your ongoing feedback, friendship, and cheerleading.
To my parents, Ruth and Warren Vinz, my first and best teachers. Thank you for your
unconditional love and support. I am who I am because of you. To my sister Trace and brother
Jason for always inspiring me to climb the next mountain.
To my husband, James, who encouraged me along the way, made sure I had space to
focus on my work, and made sure I ate, went on runs, and played with our dogs. Thank you for
your unwavering support through this process and for reading all five chapters.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Importance of Addressing the Problem .............................................................................. 6
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................. 7
Organizational Performance Status ................................................................................... 10
Organizational Performance Goal ..................................................................................... 13
Description of Stakeholder Groups ................................................................................... 13
Stakeholder Group for the Study ...................................................................................... 15
Purpose of the Project and Questions ............................................................................... 16
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .................................................................... 17
Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 17
Organization of the Project ............................................................................................... 18
Interdisciplinary Collaboration ......................................................................................... 20
Effective Teams ................................................................................................................ 24
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 31
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences .............................. 32
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 46
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 48
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .................................................................... 48

viii
Assessment of Performance Influences ............................................................................ 50
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection ............................................................. 57
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 59
Qualitative Data Collection ............................................................................................... 61
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 62
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 62
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 63
Chapter Four: Results or Findings ................................................................................................ 66
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 66
Determination of Assets and Needs .................................................................................. 67
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes .................................................................... 68
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes .................................................................... 80
Results and Findings for Organization Causes ................................................................. 88
Summary of Influences ................................................................................................... 100
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 103
Recommendations to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
Influences ........................................................................................................................ 103
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................................. 129
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 148
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 148
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 149
References ................................................................................................................................... 151
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 161
Questions (With Transitions) for a Teacher Interview ................................................... 161
Closing ............................................................................................................................ 164
Appendix B: Document Analysis Record ................................................................................... 165

ix
Appendix C: Informed Consent/Information Sheet .................................................................... 166
Appendix D: Recruitment Emails ............................................................................................... 168
Appendix E: Sample Survey Items Measuring Kirkpatrick Levels 1 and 2 ............................... 169
Appendix F: Sample Blended Evaluation Items Measuring Kirkpatrick Levels 1, 2, 3, and
4................................................................................................................................................... 170
Open-Ended Questions for Revisiting Levels 1 and 2 .................................................... 170
Five-Point Scale Questions for Evaluating Level 3 Critical Behaviors .......................... 170
Level 4 Indicators and Results Sample Metrics .............................................................. 171

x
List of Tables

Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance
Goals
15
Table 2: Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Stakeholder’s
Ability to Achieve the Performance Goal
37
Table 3: Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Stakeholder’s
Ability to Achieve the Performance Goal
41
Table 4: Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Stakeholder’s
Ability to Achieve the Performance Goal
46
Table 5: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Method of Assessment 52
Table 6: Summary of Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment 54
Table 7: Summary of Organization Influences and Method of Assessment 56
Table 8: Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 100
Table 9: Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 101
Table 10: Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 101
Table 11: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 105
Table 12: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 118
Table 13: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 123
Table 14: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 133
Table 15: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 135
Table 16: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 137
Table 17: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 143
Table 18: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 144

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for a GAP Analysis 49

xii
List of Abbreviations
IDU Interdisciplinary unit
ITT Interdisciplinary teaching team
PLC Professional learning community
UBD Understanding by design
WIS Woodlands International School
1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Collaboration enables teachers to blend their insights and experiences to build a more
robust and more effective curriculum. However, there is a lack of clarity regarding the term
collaboration. While research suggests that schools, teachers, and students benefit from teacher
collaboration (Hargreaves, 2001; Main, 2012). Prain et al. (2020), argue that collaboration
remains under-theorized. Highly collaborative schools focus more on students’ needs, have a
more positive school climate, are more innovative and equity-focused, and foster a culture of
intellectual inquiry (Vangrieken et al., 2015). Determining the key to teacher collaboration is
essential to being a world leader in education, cultivating exceptional thinkers prepared for the
future (Woodlands International School vision).
The challenge of collaboration among teachers lies in the traditional culture of privacy
and autonomy in education (Hackett et al., 2021; Little 1990; Murray, 2020; Tam, 2015;
Vangrieken et al., 2015). Negative attitudes toward teaming, a lack of clarity around the roles,
tasks, and responsibilities of individual teachers, and a fear of exposure can get in the way of
effective collaboration (Prain et al., 2020). To collaborate, one must be willing to expose
underlying beliefs about teaching and learning. This has the potential to lead to disagreement or
conflict. Research has found time must be spent building a team identity (Crow & Pounder,
2000).
The development of a team is a process that takes a substantial amount of time in moving
beyond superficial conversations that focus only on organizational and practical matters. Jonker
et al. (2019) recommend that team members be aware of Little’s (1990) levels of
interdependency to pay attention to the process of collaboration. Such awareness helps teams
evolve to higher levels of interdependency. Jonker et al. (2019) also states the need for teams to
2

clearly state goals and to have a supportive atmosphere. Jonker et al. (2019) highlights the
importance of discussing the rationale of a curriculum redesign before focusing on concrete
activities so that the rationale can serve as a reference point to guarantee cohesion. The focus of
this study is the importance of conversations about philosophies, interdependency, goal setting
and rational for curriculum redesign within interdisciplinary teams.
Background of the Problem
It is a challenge to establish collaborative practice within a group of teachers with
individual preferences, histories, and diverse disciplinary backgrounds. It requires teachers to
change their teaching practice, which is difficult (Havnes, 2009; Main, 2012). Different
understandings of how collaboration on a team is characterized and resistance to collaborative
practice for cultural, pedagogical, experiential, and structural reasons add to the challenge (Prain
et al., 2020). Ultimately, the term “team” refers to a group of people who have a shared vision for
a joint commitment who hold one another mutually accountable (Vangrieken et al., 2015).
To be a team, members have shared values (Prain et al., 2020), goals, and responsibilities.
There must be task cohesion and a shared commitment to this task that acts as a binding force.
There is team identification, or membership, among team members. There is task
interdependence and outcome interdependence. In other words, the task cannot be completed
without the team, and the accomplishment of this goal depends on the success of others on your
team (Vangrieken et al., 2015; Prain et al., 2020). Trust in team members and the flexibility to
modify visions to align with the team are critically important. This can be problematic as
teachers are giving up a piece of their own teaching identity to be a member of a team, making
collaborative work challenging, especially considering the historical norm of independence and
autonomy in education (Little, 1990; Salokangas et al., 2020; Vangrieken et al., 2017).
3

Interdisciplinary education, sometimes times referred to as concept-based inquiry is not a
new phenomenon. It has re-emerged as a 21st century learning priority to enrich learning.
Interdisciplinary connections help students integrate knowledge across subjects, assisting them in
identifying how ideas are connected and increasing retention and engagement. Ultimately, it is
believed that interdisciplinary education better prepares learners for uncertain futures (Pountney
& McPhail, 2017).
International research (Havnes, 2009; Leite et al., 2018; Pountney & McPhail, 2017) has
shown a need to rethink and redesign curriculum to ensure that it is meaningful for students from
different social backgrounds and cultures. Equally important are opportunities for students to
personalize their learning and engage in student-led problem-based investigations. These links
across content disciplines create more meaningful learning experiences (Leite et al., 2018;
Pountney & McPhail, 2017).
Interdisciplinary teaching teams (ITT) intend to transform the traditional individualized
and isolated teaching structure and promote collaboration among teachers, resulting in a
comprehensive education for learners. Collaboration aims to create a community for distributed
decision-making and provide opportunities for shared learning and development of teachers,
resulting in improved student learning. The impact of this work has proven to be inconsistent
across settings and teams (Havnes, 2009; Ibrahim, 2020). Additional research is needed in order
to uncover the factors that lead to success.
Crow and Pounder (2000) have suggested that interdisciplinary teams have higher levels
of social bonding between teachers and classmates, have higher levels of self-concept, and feel
less isolated. Studies have also found increased student achievement and fewer behavioral and
adjustment problems. Curriculum contextualization is essential for student motivation and
4

learning (Leite et al., 2018). Teachers that collaborate on teams report greater motivation,
satisfaction, professional commitment, and efficacy than non-teaming teachers (Crow &
Pounder, 2000). Main (2012) reported many teachers feeling that the workload is reduced
through collaboration, while another teacher felt the curriculum was improved. Teachers feel
supported socially and emotionally when they are not alone in the classrooms. Teaming teachers
are also aware of the loss of discretion and autonomy due to teamwork’s collaborative nature
(Crow & Pounder, 2000).
Teachers accustomed to conventional curriculum may have difficulty designing an
integrative curriculum at first. For this reason, the transition should be incremental as teachers
become more comfortable dissolving disciplinary boundaries and turning more decision-making
responsibilities over to students (Virtue et al., 2009).
A significant amount of research (Aguilar, 2016; Crow & Pounder, 2000; Main, 2012;
Prain et al., 2020) has focused on understanding how effective teams function. Teachers need an
understanding of the benefits they will experience when engaging in collaborative practice. They
must see the value of collaboration for themselves, and they cannot be forced to join a team
(Main, 2012; Prain et al., 2020). A willingness to commit to collaboration, an understanding of
the benefits of teaming, and previous experience working on a team are desirable characteristics
when forming teams (Main, 2012; Prain et al., 2020; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Interpersonal
skills, flexibility, and leadership experience lead to more effective teams (Crow & Pounder,
2000).
Main (2012) suggests that in most instances, teachers lack the skills necessary to
negotiate the demands of a student-centered integrated curriculum, teacher teams, or open space
classrooms because they have not received any training to meet these demands. Teachers lack
5

explicit training in interpersonal skills such as conflict management and communication. Main
(2012) suggests that professional learning that focused explicitly on developing teamwork was
the single most important factor in a teacher’s capacity to team.
Professional learning opportunities are not enough on their own, organizational structures
must also foster collaboration. Collaboration requires a safe environment built on mutual trust
and respect, so that team members can discuss values and deeply held beliefs, share differences
of opinion, and engage in conflict. There must be a shared belief that the environment is safe to
take risks. Risk-taking can refer to tasks as simple as asking questions, seeking feedback,
proposing a new idea, and discussing problems and concerns (Hackett et al., 2021). Shared
leadership and adapting goals and activities to individual member needs is critical (Jonker et al.,
2019).
Organizational structures such as implementing a block schedule, having regularly
scheduled times for meetings, and a common planning time are critical to enhancing
coordination and communication among team members (Crow & Pounder, 2000; Main, 2012).
The physical set-up of classrooms and physical resources, coupled with readily apparent
administrative support and an organizational culture of collaboration, help facilitate team
collaboration (Main, 2012).
When developing team compositions, each team should have members with leadership
and interpersonal skills and experience in the school or with teams (Crow & Pounder, 2000;
Main, 2012). Smaller group sizes (English, math, science, and social studies) reduce the
complexity of coordination, but too small a team may have inadequate expertise to be able to
reach desired outcomes. Group member interpersonal skills, teaching experiences, professional
perspectives, educational philosophies, and leadership skills and styles vary within teams. Some
6

theorize that modest differences in background and experiences are beneficial to teams’
formation, but radical differences are not, especially when thinking about educational
philosophy. Crow and Pounder (2000) found that teams with greater homogeneity regarding
educational philosophy and career stage seem to plan, build consensus, make decisions,
coordinate, and share activities with more ease. However, Zimmerman et al., (2020) write about
the importance of cognitive diversity on a team. Teams that make room for divergent ways of
thinking abandon groupthink, resulting in more innovative and creative solutions. Teams that are
too disparate led to unhealthy conflict, interpersonal process losses, and participation imbalance.
Likewise, Main (2012) found that teams with incompatible personalities, differing pedagogical
beliefs, and different teaching styles engaged in the least amount of collaboration.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The challenge of teacher collaboration in ITTs is essential to solve for a variety of
reasons. This problem impacts the school's mission because in providing students with an
exemplary educational experience, this high-quality, interdisciplinary work depends on teaching
teams that center student learning and engage with one another in a collegial culture (Barth,
2006). Our teaching teams and our team leaders need specific and targeted professional learning
to work together in this way.
Healthy adult communities, built on respect and trust between teachers, serve all
children’s social, academic, and emotional needs. Teams look and feel different as they are made
up of people. While no one formula can build an effective team, our big dreams for transforming
schools depend on educators working together. Crow and Pounder (2000), Leite et al. (2018),
Main (2012), and Pountney and McPhail (2017) show that interdisciplinary connections and
collaboration among teachers not only improve social bonding between teachers and classmates
7

but also reduces feelings of isolation for teachers as well as students. Interdisciplinary
connections enhance the overall curriculum, which increases student motivation and learning.
This problem represents the more significant national/international/societal problem in
education regarding a lack of clarity regarding the term “collaboration” as well as a culture of
isolation and teacher autonomy (Little, 1990; Vangrieken et al., 2015; Vangrieken et al., 2017;
Vangrieken & Kyndt, 2020).
Organizational Context and Mission
This study took place at Woodlands International School (WIS, a pseudonym). WIS is a
large, pre-K–12 international school located in Southeast Asia. The organization’s mission is to
provide each student with an exemplary American educational experience with an international
perspective (WIS website). Collaboration was determined to be central to achieving this mission
during a 21st Century Learning Summit in 2013. “Team trumps talent” was a phrase used by
participants to highlight that well-functioning teams produce better results than individuals
working alone.
In 2014, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) accreditation review
helped WIS incorporate collaboration into employee professional obligations. Now, teachers sign
Institutional Commitments, pledging to build strong interpersonal relationships with our
colleagues while collaborating to accomplish a common goal. Teachers state that they will be
open and receptive to learning from colleagues. They will work collaboratively with others to
ensure all students learn at high levels and value teamwork by leveraging individual strengths.
At WIS, the middle school has made a large school feel small by breaking each grade
level into three teams. Each team comprises two English language arts teachers, one social
studies teacher, one science teacher, one math teacher, one physical education teacher, and one
8

Learning Support teacher. For the last 4 years, these three separate Grade 6 teams have been
expected to plan IDUs collaboratively. Collaboration within and across the grade level teams has
proved to be a challenge in the organizational context of the school.
On its website, WIS’s middle school advertises the collaborative nature of each grade’s
interdisciplinary team of teachers to support all students’ academic, social, and emotional needs.
According to the WIS website, the middle school has over 900 students. Each grade level is
divided into three teams or ‘sides’ to help students connect with their classmates and teachers.
The teams of roughly 100 students each are referred to as A, B, and C sides, and each side has an
interdisciplinary team of teachers. In 2015, WIS middle school published their recommendations
from the 3-year research and development (RnD) study. The final recommendation was to
strengthen middle school instructional programming to help students see the connection between
concepts across disciplines. The goal was to connect the core curriculum through a scope and
sequence of universal themes such as identity, change, and power within and across the middle
school grades. Through each thematic study, teachers and students explore issues related to these
themes in their core classes. Units culminate in student creations for an authentic audience,
resulting in a deeper understanding of content while they act as creative, collaborative, and
confident problem solvers.
To make this collaboration a reality, RnD recommended facilities innovation that allowed
for flexibility to group and regroup students as needed. In 2017, WIS renovated one of the sixth-
grade team spaces to create a more flexible learning environment. In the summer of 2018, the
other two sixth grade sides were renovated to provide teachers with physical space to collaborate
and personalize student learning experiences. The renovated floor plans were meant to encourage
the flexible groupings of students and the flexible use of space and time. Breakout rooms were
9

added to allow for student collaboration, and as venues for reteaching or extending lessons.
Flexibility was also designed to allow the teaching team to bring the grade level team together in
a single space for large group activities such as learning celebrations or whole group
presentations.
Teams are encouraged to think about time in a more flexible way as well. Rather than
sticking with the traditional dedicated blocks of time for core classes, teams are encouraged to
reorganize the use of time to align with student learning needs. For example, core classes might
be shortened to allow students to seek out individual teachers’ support or extension. When
working on IDUs, core teachers might divide their core class in half, focusing on content in one
portion and interdisciplinary projects in the other. This flexible use of time provides students
voice and choice in their learning, but requires a high degree of teacher collaboration.
When teachers work together in an interdisciplinary setting, they are embedded in the
concepts, content, and skills taught throughout all disciplines, encouraging a common language
that helps students see connections between subjects. When teachers work together as a team,
teachers feel a collective sense of responsibility for student learning.
In 2021, the Campus Upgrade Project (CUP) Design Brief reflects the middle school’s
vision of flexible learning environments and ITTs. In the design brief, the redesigned WIS
middle school will be built for 990 students, 330 students per grade. Each grade will be divided
into four learning communities of approximately 83 students and a core group of teachers.
Movable walls will allow the space to be used flexibly throughout the day.
WIS crafted ten design principles based on adolescents’ unique learning needs and the
vision of interdisciplinary learning communities. Principles 1, 2, 6, and 7 specifically address
learning communities and inquiry.
10

1. Inquiry is at the heart of learning and sets the conditions for the learning environment.
2. The learning environment will provide the flexibility for every student to develop
agency to personalize their learning.
6. Break down the scale of the middle school community into smaller communities of
teachers and students, each with a suite of varied and flexible learning spaces.
7. Learning communities will support the construct of collective responsibility of
student learning and well-being and shared ownership of environment.
Organizational Performance Status
Currently, collaboration within and between ITTs continues to be a struggle from
observations of team and grade-level meetings, and in conversations with newly hired faculty
and instructional coaches. Based on this data collected from stakeholders, WIS continues to
refine interdisciplinary work.
In May 2019, the sixth-grade teams met to celebrate the year’s successes and reflect on
students, administration, parents, and teachers’ feedback. Teachers reported successes ranging
from student learning outcomes to teacher flexibility to try new instructional strategies and work
together in new ways. The Grade 6 core-subject teachers then engaged in a data carousel to
reflect on data from student and parent surveys, leadership walkthroughs, and teacher open-
ended questionnaire data. Teachers were asked to reflect using the protocol, “What, So What,
Now What?” During the “What?” portion of the protocol, teachers were asked to notice the data.
Moving on to “So What?,” teachers shared possible theories or factors for the data, and during
the third round, “Now What?” teachers shared possible next steps in response to the data.
Student surveys conducted in April 2018, November 2018, and May 2019 showed
inconsistent perceptions regarding sense of community, feelings that teachers know what they
11

are learning in other subjects, that students can tell their teachers plan learning activities together,
and that they have opportunities to make connections between different subjects across the three
teams of sixth grade.
Perception data collected from teachers on interdisciplinary teams at Woodlands
International School (WIS) in 2019 and 2021 focused on the most recent IDU and centered on
what worked well, what caused stress, and what new systems might be needed. Nineteen out of
the 21 teachers responded to the five open-ended questions. Of those who responded, the flexible
use of time, grouping of students, and interdisciplinary connections were the unit’s highlights.
The amount of time spent in meetings, ambiguity, hurt feelings, decision making across teams,
and the lack of interpersonal skills were themes in the feedback about what caused stress.
Teachers offered feedback about systems that might better facilitate interdisciplinary work.
Trends from this feedback prioritized the need for clear decision-making protocols, agreements
on cross-team communication, and defining the parameters of tight and loose expectations.
In November 2019, data was gathered from students, parents, and teachers reflecting on a
recently completed IDU. Student data reveals their favorite part of the unit, while parent data
represents feedback from the culminating exhibition. Overall, parent feedback was warm, having
enjoyed the opportunity to hear students share their learning. Teachers were also surveyed to
capture their reflections. Only six out of 21 teachers responded. While uncertain of the exact
reason, one can predict this nonresponse would likely be due to survey fatigue, as the
organization is a survey-heavy environment. Additionally, even when anonymous surveys are
used, not all faculty trust that it is anonymous. This mistrust means that stakeholders may not be
honest with their feelings regarding interdisciplinary collaboration (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
Another factor might be the fatigue felt after an IDU may also account for the nonresponse. Data
12

from the teacher survey captured teacher perceptions of what should be kept, tweaked, or tossed
for next year’s unit. Teachers reflected on the data together and collectively crafted next steps
regarding the culminating exhibition, the unit’s pacing, logistics of interdisciplinary and
disciplinary standards and expectations, parent engagement, future perception data collection
techniques, and ways to reduce the stress of coordination and logistics of IDUs.
Data from 2021 reflects themes relating to the importance of being comfortable with
ambiguity, personal flexibility, an equal division of labor, organizing who is responsible for
what, open communication and decision making, trust within teams, and a desire for more
explicit expectations from the administration.
The current status at WIS regarding ITTs impacts the organization’s mission of providing
each student an exemplary American educational experience with an international perspective. A
high-quality, interdisciplinary curriculum is dependent on teaching teams that center student
learning and engage with one another in a collegial culture (Barth, 2006; Murray, 2020).
Aguilar (2016) argues that healthy adult communities, built on respect and trust between
teachers, serve all student’s social, academic, and emotional needs. All teams look and feel
different as they are made up of people. While no one formula can build an effective team, our
big dreams for transforming schools depend on educators working together. So much more is
possible when collaborating, deeply caring, and getting stuff done. A team’s health allows them
to go deep into individual and shared learning, challenge each other, push each other's thinking,
celebrate learning and growth, and encourage each other to go deeper (Aguilar, 2016). If this
problem is not solved, teachers are not satisfied with their work, and student learning is
negatively impacted.
13

Organizational Performance Goal
The WIS middle school goal is that by June 2024, all middle school content area teachers
will have the skills to engage in collegial collaboration to design and deliver IDUs. This goal was
established by using the schoolwide Institutional Commitments of healthy educational culture
and professional learning communities. This goal’s achievement will be measured through data
collected from teacher perception interviews, observations of teacher collaboration in teams
using identified targets from the Institutional Commitments, and document analysis. This goal
was set by conferring with the WIS middle school administration to gain their support.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The stakeholders include the WIS middle school students, parents, core-subject teachers,
interdisciplinary team leaders, the three middle school instructional coaches, the middle school
leadership, and the senior leadership team. For this study, the stakeholders central to the
achievement of the organization’s goal of increasing collegial collaboration between teachers on
ITTs are the core-subject teachers, the interdisciplinary team leaders, the middle school
instructional coaches, and the middle school leadership team.
The core-subject teachers are central to achieving this goal because they engage in the
collaborative behaviors that will ultimately lead to success. Collaboration enables teachers to
blend their insights and experiences into building a more robust and more effective curriculum
(Prain et al., 2020).
With the help of instructional coaches, interdisciplinary team leads can help alleviate any
negative attitudes toward teaming and ensure clarity around the roles, tasks, and responsibilities
of individual teachers (Prain et al., 2020). Team leads need to foster a climate where feelings of
psychological safety are high that they might reduce the fear of exposure that could get in the
14

way of effective collaboration (Hackett et al., 2021; Prain et al., 2020). Team leaders can also
foster the climate to reduce competition, loss of autonomy, and feelings of enforced conformity,
as well as navigate conflicts, as these are the real challenges teams of teachers will face when
collaborating (Vangrieken et al., 2015). Team leaders, with the help of instructional coaches, can
help establish team roles and goals.
The middle school instructional coaches and the middle school leadership team are
critical contributors to collaboration with their role in building greater capacity for collaboration
by creating the culture, climate, systems, and structures that support the collaborative work that
teachers will engage in. When team vision, expectations, roles, and responsibilities on a team are
unclear, tensions arise (Main, 2012). Instructional coaches, administration, and team leaders need
to know how to help teams establish these key elements of functioning as a team. Table 1 shows
the organizational mission and stakeholder goals.

15

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational mission
Woodlands International School’s mission is to provide each student an exemplary American
educational experience with an international perspective.
Middle school organizational performance goal
The WIS middle school goal is that by June 2024, all middle school content area teachers have
the skills to engage in collegial collaboration to design and deliver IDUs.
Teacher goal Team leader goal Instructional coach
goal
Middle school
administration goal
By March 2023,
content area
teachers will
engage in
collegial
collaboration to
design and deliver
IDUs as
evidenced by
analysis of end-of-
unit survey data
that is collected
by the
organization.
By November 2023,
team leaders will
cultivate a
supportive,
trusting
collaborative
culture. This will
be measured
through artifact
analysis,
observations of
team meetings,
and through
interviews with
team members.

By August 2022,
instructional coaches
will support team
leaders in facilitating
work with their
teams to develop
units that utilize
high-impact
instructional
practices. This will
be measured through
artifact analysis,
observations of team
meetings, and
through interviews
with team members.

By August 2022,
Middle school
administration will
support team leaders
in facilitating work
with their teams to
develop units that
align to the
guaranteed, viable
curriculum. This will
be measured through
artifact analysis and
through interviews
with administration.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
While all stakeholders’ joint efforts will contribute to the achievement of the overall
organizational goal of collegial collaboration to design and deliver IDUs, it is essential to
understand where the gaps in the organization cause the gap in the knowledge and motivation of
16

individual teachers engaging in collaborative teaming. For this reason, the stakeholders of focus
for this study will be the core subject teachers on interdisciplinary teams.
Teachers are essential stakeholders to achieving this goal because team building takes
time. Having a team members that understands the importance of establishing team goals,
expectations, roles, and a common mission and vision, is critical. Investing the time to develop
trusting relationships built on both a shared history and open communication enables
collaboration (Main, 2012), as does being able to experiment, share perspectives, and reflect
(Hackett et al., 2021). These vital elements of team performance are modelled and facilitated by
the team leaders and instructional coaches, and then carried forward by team members.
The risk to the organization’s goal if the stakeholder’s goal is not achieved is that teacher
relationships risk being harmed. If team members are unsure of team processes like goal setting,
roles, rules, and protocols, and if teachers have limited or ineffective means for dealing with
conflict, team progress is inhibited, and the ability to work together professionally is impacted
(Main, 2012). Ultimately, if teachers are not able to work together, student learning will suffer.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this qualitative study was to conduct a gap analysis based on Clark and
Estes (2008) to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that facilitate
and interfere with middle school content area teachers being able to engage in collegial
collaboration to design and deliver IDUs. Clark and Estes (2008) propose that performance gaps
can be understood, and solutions proposed based on the careful analysis of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational root causes. In this study, the Clark and Estes framework was
adapted as a promising practice study to examine the knowledge, motivations, and organizational
factors that influence the organization’s goal.
17

The analysis begins by generating a list of possible or assumed interfering influences that
were examined systematically to focus on actual or interfering influences. While a complete gap
analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholders to be focused
on in this analysis are the interdisciplinary core teachers.
The questions that guided the gap analysis study that addresses knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organization causes and solutions for this study are as follows:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that interfere with
the Grade 6 and 7 content area teachers engaging in collegial collaboration to design
and deliver IDUs?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivational, and organizational solutions?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that clarifies
organizational goals and identifies the gap between the actual performance level and the
preferred performance level within an organization, will be implemented as the conceptual
framework. The methodological framework is a qualitative case study. Assumed influences of
knowledge, motivation, and organization that interfere with organizational goal achievement
were generated based on personal knowledge and related literature. These influences were
assessed by document analysis, interviews, literature review, and content analysis. Research-
based solutions are be recommended and evaluated comprehensively.
Definitions
Collegiality: a precondition to collaboration. Educators talk with one another about their
practice, share craft knowledge, observe one another, and cheer for each other’s success (Barth,
2006).
18

Concept-based inquiry: brings together inquiry-based learning, learning that uses
questioning to drive learning, and concept-based learning, learning organized around transferable
concepts (Marschall & French, 2018).
Interdisciplinary teaching team (ITT): An ITT is a social structure where teachers across
disciplines plan interdisciplinary teaching and coordinate subject-specific teaching, teaching
practices, and pedagogical challenges. Teams collaborate to create a community of distributed
decision-making and provide opportunities for shared learning and development of teachers
(Havnes, 2009).
IDU: Interdisciplinary unit. Teachers from two or more disciplines collaborate to help
students see connections across disciplines.
KMO: Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences assessed during a gap
analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Team: A group of people who come together to work interdependently for a shared,
meaningful purpose (Aguilar, 2016).
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about the importance of, and
struggles with teacher collaboration in interdisciplinary learning communities. The
organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders, and the initial concepts of gap analysis, were
introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of the current literature surrounding the scope of the
study. Topics of interdisciplinary education, flexible learning environments, collegial
collaboration, and the conceptual framework of Clark and Estes (2008) will be addressed.
Chapter Three details the assumed influences and methodology when it comes to choice of
19

participants, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and
analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and literature, for closing the perceived
gaps as well as recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.
20

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter will first introduce readers to the research behind interdisciplinary
collaboration among teams of teachers, sharing what the research says about the benefits to
students and teachers. It will go on to discuss the development of the teaching teams that are
essential for interdisciplinary collaboration to take place. Next, it will describe the characteristics
of an effective team and the organizational and historical barriers that can make collaboration
challenging. It will then share what the research says needs to be in place to develop and
maintain collaborative teaching teams. After that, I will review the role of middle school content
area teachers engaging in interdisciplinary teaming, followed by the explanation of the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences’ lens used in this study.
The second part of the chapter introduces the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes,
2008). The framework provides a structure for examining the possible knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences and complete the chapter by presenting the conceptual framework.
Interdisciplinary Collaboration
Interdisciplinary education is not a new phenomenon. It has recently re-emerged as a
priority for all levels of education, particularly in middle schools, in order to create small
communities of learners engaging in an integrated curriculum that will enrich and enhance
knowledge production and learning (Main, 2012; Virtue et al., 2009). It is meant to help students
integrate knowledge across disciplines, allowing them to see how ideas are connected, thus
increasing retention and engagement. It also transforms the historically individualized teaching
structure and promotes collaboration among teachers (Havnes, 2009; Main, 2012; Pountney &
McPhail, 2017).
In an interdisciplinary curriculum—often times referred to as concept-based inquiry--
concepts, vocabulary, and skills are reinforced across the school day as students move between
21

classes, blurring the curricular boundaries between subjects. Teachers organize the curriculum
around common learning so that the skills and concepts are embedded within the disciplines
(James et al., 2007). Another critical element of interdisciplinary learning is for students to
engage in authentic, real-world problem-solving. Since interdisciplinary teaching and learning
centers collaboration, and because students integrate information, tools, perspectives, and
concepts from multiple disciplines, it is that believed that interdisciplinary education improves
student learning and better prepares learners for uncertain futures (Havnes, 2009; James et al.,
2007; Pountney & McPhail, 2017; Virtue et al., 2009).
Interdisciplinary Teaming
In order to offer an interdisciplinary education, you must have ITTs. ITTs are a social
structure where teachers across disciplines plan interdisciplinary teaching and coordinate subject-
specific teaching, teaching practices, and pedagogical challenges. Teams collaborate to create a
community of distributed decision-making and provide opportunities for shared learning and
development of teachers, ultimately improving student learning (Havnes, 2009).
While ITTs hold great progress for school reform (Crow & Pounder, 2000),
interdisciplinary teaching requires that teachers make changes in their teaching practices.
Teachers placed on interdisciplinary teams must learn how to negotiate the stages of team
development (Tuckman, 1965) with little, if any, professional guidance (Main, 2012). While
interdisciplinary teaming requires a culture shift for teachers, the benefits to students and
teachers appear to be worth it.
Benefits to Students and Teachers
Interdisciplinary grade level teams are organized around students rather than around
academic disciplines, leading to positive outcomes for students (Crow & Pounder, 200; Leite et
22

al., 2018; Main, 2012; Vangrieken et al., 2015; Virtue et al., 2009). Research has found that
students are not the only beneficiaries of interdisciplinary collaboration. There are also many
positive outcomes for teachers as well (Crow and Pounder, 2000; Main, 2012; Vangrieken et al.
2015).
Crow and Pounder (2000) have reported that students who are members of
interdisciplinary teams have higher levels of social bonding with both their teachers and
classmates. These students report having higher levels of self-concept and feel less isolated.
Leite et al. (2018) and Vangrieken et al. (2015) found increased student achievement and fewer
behavioral and adjustment problems when teachers collaborate. This is believed to be because
the curriculum contextualization that comes from interdisciplinary teaming is important for
student motivation and learning. Interdisciplinary learning experiences are thought to be more
meaningful and relevant to students, especially when teachers tap into local and community
resources (Virtue et al., 2009).
Crow and Pounder (2000) and Vangrieken et al. (2015) found that teachers engaged in
collaborative teams report greater motivation, satisfaction, professional commitment, and deeper
knowledge beyond their content area than non-teaming teachers. Teachers on teams also know
more about their colleagues, which facilitates collaboration efforts. Crow and Pounder (2000)
report that interdisciplinary teaching allows for greater involvement of school faculty in school
restructuring efforts, flexibility in scheduling instructional time, and in the grouping of their
students. Perhaps most importantly, teachers tend to know much more about their students’
personal and academic lives.
Main (2012) and Vangrieken et al. (2015) reported teachers feeling both that the
workload is reduced through collaboration and that curriculum was improved. Teachers reported
23

feeling better supported socially and emotionally as they were no longer alone in the classroom.
Main (2012) also found that collaboration benefited both novice and experienced teachers,
encouraging them to learn more when they are working together than when teaching in isolation.
Collaboration has been found to improve teacher technology skills, instructional strategies
become more student-centered, and teachers develop more connections across disciplines
(Vangrieken et al., 2015). Teaming teachers are also aware of the loss of discretion and
autonomy due to the collaborative nature of teamwork (Crow & Pounder, 2000).
Unfortunately, the impact of this work for students and teachers alike has shown to be
inconsistent across settings (Crow & Pounder, 2000; Pountney & McPhail, 2017; Vangrieken et
al., 2015) and teams. It is a challenge to establish collaborative practice within a group of
teachers with individual preferences, histories, and diverse disciplinary backgrounds. For
teachers new to interdisciplinary collaboration, changing their traditionally autonomous teaching
practice is a challenging task (Crow & Pounder, 2000; Havnes, 2009; Main, 2012; Vangrieken et
al., 2015, 2017). Interdisciplinary work can be difficult or impossible if organizational and
structural constraints are in the way (Virtue et al., 2009). In order to be successful, effective
teaching teams must first be established and then continuously maintained.
Collaborative Teaching Teams
A belief in teacher collaboration is needed for school change and improvement.
Collaboration provides teachers with learning opportunities when teachers can observe other
teachers’ practice and discuss and reflect with one another (Brookfield, 2017; Jonker et al., 2019;
Vangrieken et al., 2015). When groups of people work together, they can achieve more than
individuals working alone (Main, 2012). Given the strong-rooted culture of autonomy,
24

individualism, and independence in education (Crow and Pounder, 2000; Little, 1990;
Vangrieken et al., 2015), what is an effective team, and how are they developed and maintained?
Effective Teams
A teacher team is a collection of individual teachers with shared goals, vision, and
responsibility, and a common commitment to the tasks, and mutual accountability (Vangrieken et
al., 2015, 2017). The collaboration that takes place on a team exists on a continuum from
storytelling and scanning for ideas at the independent end of the continuum, to aid and
assistance, sharing, joint work, and teamwork at the interdependent end of the continuum (Little,
1990). Jonker et al. (2019) recommend that team members are aware of Little’s (1990) levels of
interdependency and explicitly pay attention to the process of collaboration as such awareness
fosters collaboration and helps teams evolve to higher levels of interdependency.
The development of a team is a process that takes a substantial amount of time to move
beyond superficial conversations that focus on organizational and practical matters (Jonker et al.,
2019). Likewise, it takes time and stability of team membership to move through Little’s (1990)
levels of interdependency and Tuckman and Jensen’s (1977) phases of group development to
move toward what Vangrieken et al. (2017) have termed team entitativity.
Team entitativity, or the degree to which a collection of individual teachers functions as a
team as defined by Vangrieken et al. (2017), has three main features to bind members together:
(a) shared goals and responsibilities, (b) cohesion, and (c) interdependence among team
members.
Developing teaching teams has profound implications for teaching and learning as it
impacts the professional lives of teachers, challenges the norms of professional autonomy, and
adds shared accountability (Crow & Pounder, 2000; Main, 2012). Team development will not
25

happen on its own. Individual characteristics, team structure, and organizational characteristics
will impact a team’s ability to engage in deep collaboration instead of contrived collegiality
(Vangrieken et al., 2015).
Individual Characteristics
Individual group member attitudes, capacities, and personalities need to be considered
when forming teams. Team members should have complementary skills to support one another
and address diverse student abilities (Crow & Pounder, 2000; Prain et al., 2020; Vangrieken et
al., 2015). Participant teachers must be flexible in order to adapt to curricular and pedagogical
changes (Prain et al., 2020; Vangrieken et al., 2015).
Individual teachers must want to be a part of a collaborative team. Main (2012) found
that an individual’s attitude toward teaming was found to either positively improve or negatively
hinder team performance. A commitment to collaboration, an understanding of the benefits of
teaming, and previous experience working on a team are desirable characteristics when forming
teams (Prain et al., 2020; Vangrieken et al., 2015).
Deep collaboration requires teachers to examine their underlying beliefs which might
lead to conflict and loss of autonomy (Vangrieken et al., 2015), so knowledge of conflict
management and team processes such as planning, meeting, and setting goals, as well as open
and honest communication is essential for effective collaboration (Main, 2012). In order to be
effective, the team members must undertake tasks, team, and relationship processes
simultaneously (Prain et al., 2020).
Team Structure
Team size, time spent developing and maintaining a supportive atmosphere and personal
and professional relationships, mutual trust, conflict management, interdependence, flexibility in
26

thinking, and a focus on learning outcomes and collaborative processes are all important
elements of a team’s success.
Crow and Pounder, (2000) found that smaller group sizes (English, math, science, and
social studies) reduce the complexity of coordination, but too small a team may have inadequate
expertise to reach desired outcomes. Group member interpersonal skills, teaching experiences,
professional perspectives, educational philosophies, and leadership skills and styles vary within
teams. Crow and Pounder, (2000) theorize that some differences in background and experiences
are beneficial to the formation of teams, but not radical differences, especially when thinking
about educational philosophy. Zimmerman et al., (2020) write about the importance of cognitive
diversity on a team. Teams that make room for divergent ways of thinking abandon groupthink,
resulting in more innovative and creative solutions. Diversity on a team is not without its
challenges, and a homogeneous group may feel more comfortable, but when members can move
beyond censoring ideas teams will make better decisions (Rock et al., 2016). Teams with greater
homogeneity regarding educational philosophy and career stage seem to plan, build consensus,
make decisions, coordinate, and share activities with more ease, whereas teams that are too
disparate can lead to unhealthy conflict, interpersonal process losses, and participation
imbalance, however according to Achinstein (2002), communities with high consensus and little
dissent engage in groupthink. While diverse teams may work at a slower pace (Rock et al.,
2016), teams benefit when different ways of thinking are shared and discussed, as it leads to
better ideas and more creative and innovative solutions (Phillips, 2014). This does require a
culture shift, where reaching consensus quickly is no longer seen as a good thing, and a high
degree of psychological safety (Reynolds & Lewis, 2017) so that disagreements are not seen as
being unkind or being difficult.
27

It is important that teams spend time building team identity (Crow & Pounder, 2000) as
strong interpersonal relationships are essential in order to develop strong professional
relationships (Main, 2012). Developing trusting relationships built on a shared history and open
communication enables collaboration (Main, 2012). Being able to experiment, share
perspectives, and reflect are vital elements of team performance (Hackett et al., 2021). Taking
the time to build team identity will increase the psychological safety, needed to take risks
(Aguilar, 2016; Hackett et al., 2021, Main, 2012). Team and relationship processes are critical at
the early stages as teams are forming and storming (Tuckman, 1965). During this time poor
interpersonal relationships can negatively impact professional relationships (Main, 2012).
Hackett et al. (2021) writes about the need for psychological safety as a key feature of
adults working together. Psychological safety is a feeling of security and the ability to make
changes. It is the ability to take interpersonal risks because you know it will not result in ridicule,
shame, or embarrassment. This level of comfort enables people to connect, engage, change and
learn. In teamwork, this means a shared belief that the environment is a safe one in which to take
risks. This can refer to tasks as simple as asking questions, seeking feedback, proposing a new
idea, and discussing problems and concerns. According to Edmondson et al. (2004),
psychological safety means that one believes the others will give you the benefit of the doubt
when you take risks. Trust is related to giving the other person the benefit of the doubt when they
take risks. Both psychological safety and trust are critical to interdisciplinary teamwork. In the
work we are engaging in with interdisciplinary teams, the outcome is unknown, and success is
not guaranteed. A culture of experimentation, supportive relationships, and psychological safety
are critical to interdisciplinary teaming’s success (Hackett et al., 2021).
28

Like cognitive diversity, psychological safety is critical for innovative solutions,
managing differences, and challenging the status quo. According to Frazier et al. (2017), teams
with psychological safety are more likely to make mistakes, share ideas, ask for and receive
feedback, and experiment. In a psychologically safe environment, team members know each
other inside and outside of work, goals are clear, leadership is not fixed, there is equity in talk
time, and team members trust one another making it possible to consider divergent views. Team
members admit mistakes, ask questions, stay curious, reflect regularly, and are aware of verbal
and nonverbal communication.
Team leadership and facilitation are also critical to a team’s success. Jonker et al. (2019)
found that a supportive and inspiring group atmosphere positively contributed to the
collaborative process, whereas individualism negatively determined member experience in the
collaborative process. A focused, effective and efficient, well-structured, and interdependent task
positively influenced collaboration. Conversely, if meetings were unstructured, inefficient, and
were limited to short-term actions, they were valued negatively.
Achinstein (2002) argued that “conflict … offers a context for inquiry, organizational
learning, and change (p. 3). Since constructive conflict is necessary for learning (Hackett et al.,
2021; Jehn and Chatman, 2000) and teamwork (Somech, 2008) to occur, and teachers will have
to negotiate differences while collaborating (Achinstein, 2002), an understanding of conflict is
crucial. Somech (2008) explains that how individuals manage conflict affects whether this
conflict is constructive or destructive, and individual teachers need to be able to approach and
manage conflict to be a productive members of a team. Without conflict, a community is a
pseudocommunity according to Peck (1988). A pseudocommunity looks productive, but they are
just going along to get along. A team members’ ability to bring up problems or challenging
29

issues and ask other members for help is critical for team success (Hackett et al., 2021). Lencioni
and Stransky (2002) writes about the destructive potential of back-channel attacks that become
personal if differences are not openly debated. Lencioni and Stransky go on to write that team
members must acknowledge that conflict is necessary and productive. As many teams ignore and
avoid conflict, it is important to note that, “great teams are not characterized by an absence of
conflict” (Senge, 1990, p. 249) but rather conflict leads to better ideas and solutions.
Equally important is an understanding of the impact that task, team, and relationship
processes have on the effectiveness of the team (Main, 2012). Knowledge of how to establish
team goals, expectations, roles, and rules, as well as a common mission and vision is critical for
success (Main, 2012). When roles on a team are unclear, tensions arise (Main, 2012).
Competition, loss of autonomy, unhealthy conflict, an increase in workload, and feelings of
conformity are real challenges teachers will face when collaborating (Vangrieken et al., 2015).
Teacher teams require deep-level discussions of teaching practice and pedagogical beliefs
(Vangrieken et al., 2017) in order to establish clear and attainable goals (Vangrieken et al., 2015;
Prain et al., 2020). The roles of self and others on the team need to be clear (Main, 2012). The
team’s activities, results, approaches, and conflict management affect the level of collaboration
(Jonker et al., 2019).
Organizational Characteristics
Organizational characteristics that facilitate teacher collaboration on ITTs emphasize the
importance of professional learning that is ongoing and embedded. Providing teachers with both
individual as well as common plan time, and ongoing administrative support and monitoring of
collaboration will protect collaboration from turning into contrived collegiality. The culture
needs to not only be safe to take risks and make mistakes but also be non-competitive.
30

Lave and Wenger (1991) argue that changing practice is learning, so engaging in
professional development together as a team is beneficial (Havnes, 2009). Professional
development does not only need to occur before teams are formed. Teams need ongoing and
embedded professional development in order to meet their potential (Hargreaves, 2001). Crow
and Pounder (2000) recommend that after two years of working together, teams need
professional development about interpersonal process issues regarding coordination and
communication and curricular coordination. Main (2012) reported that the most critical factor in
a teacher’s capacity to work with others on a team was professional learning that focused
explicitly on developing teamwork and interpersonal skills. Professional learning opportunities
to build teamwork skills that explicitly teach the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of effective team practices are
essential. Teams need training on task implementation and relationship processes. Hargreaves
(2001) adds to the argument for professional development that shared learning continues to build
team identity and social identity. Havnes (2009) adds that professional development as a team
facilitates the development of team-talk and ‘we-ness.’
Block scheduling, regularly scheduled times for meetings, and common planning time is
critical to enhancing coordination and communication among team members (Crow & Pounder,
2000; Lipscombe et al., 2020; Main, 2012). Prain (2020) writes that a precondition to effective
collaboration is sufficient planning time, as the successful integration of subjects requires
considerable plan time as well as time for critical reflection.
Administrative support is not only shown through the prioritization of block scheduling,
professional development, and meeting time. Support is also shown through encouragement and
presence. Hargreaves (2001) argues that there is a difference between administrative support for
collaboration and collaboration as a top-down tool used to control. It is important that leadership
31

empower, encourage, and engage teachers in collaboration, not simply mandate collaboration.
Lipscombe et al. (2020) add the importance of leadership supporting the collaborative culture of
the school through modeling and being present. Collaboration among teaching teams can only
succeed with support from leadership (Prain et al., 2020).
In order for teachers to collaborate, the culture must be one in which it is safe to take
risks and make mistakes. It cannot be a competitive culture. Somech (2008) adds that uncertainty
and competition decreases the effectiveness of the team. Teachers learning to engage in
collaboration need their workplace to be psychologically safe to take risks and make mistakes, as
this is a precondition needed for learning (Hackett et al., 2021). Jonker et al. (2019) echo the
need for a supportive and inspiring climate in order to collaborate. Kelchtermans (2006) argues
that without trust and safety teachers will not be willing to engage in collaborative practices as it
might likely threaten their professional beliefs since collaboration requires teachers to discuss
values and deeply held beliefs. While researching teacher emotions in relation to collaboration,
Löfgren and Karlsson (2016) share the humiliation associated with being ridiculed by colleagues,
thus supporting that a safe, supportive and stable teaching environment that is free from
colleague scrutiny as they gain confidence as a team (Prain et al., 2020).
Hackett et al. (2021) reminds us that educational organizations need teachers to engage in
team learning, and must provide a culture that recognizes that experimentation involves both
success and failure. It must be a safe environment to take risks and make mistakes without fear
of punishment or ridicule.
Conceptual Framework
The Clark and Estes (2008) framework is suited to study stakeholder performance within
an organization as it fosters deep analysis into the root cause of an issue rather than hastily
32

jumping to solutions. Clark and Estes (2008) propose that performance gaps appear in three
categories: knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational barriers. This problem-solving
process is based on two key elements: understanding stakeholder goals with regard to the
organizational goal and identifying assumed performance influences in the areas of knowledge,
motivation and organization based on general theory, context-specific literature and an existing
understanding of the organization.
In this study, the Clark and Estes (2008) framework will be adapted as a needs analysis
for organizational structures, such as professional learning opportunities, that are needed to
facilitate team building on ITTs. In the next section, I will describe the stakeholder-specific
knowledge, motivation and organizational (KMO) assumed influences.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Knowledge and Skills
Clark and Estes (2008) report that performance gaps are likely the result of barriers
around knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational factors. When knowledge and skill
barriers are present, stakeholders may not know how to achieve the set goal(s). As is common in
education, we often rush to solutions before understanding what is at the root of a performance
gap. I seek to understand the various causes for the gap before implementing a solution (Rueda,
2011). To begin, this study will identify and assess the knowledge and skill influences of
content-area classroom teachers, specifically seeking to understand declarative factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge and skills (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Conceptual Knowledge Influences
Krathwohl (2002) writes about conceptual knowledge as the interrelationship of basic
elements. For example, this includes the knowledge of classification and categories, principles
33

and generalizations, and models, structures, and theories. With this in mind, in order for teachers
to collaborate, teachers must understand the rationale for collaboration and see the value of
collaboration. They need to know how to develop and maintain personal as well as professional
relationships with their team members, and they need to know and be able to share their personal
pedagogical beliefs. When working with teachers in these areas, using metacognitive strategies
to facilitate learning (Baker, 2006) and modeling to-be-learned strategies or behaviors improves
self-efficacy, learning, and performance (Denler et al., 2006).
Teachers Know the Rationale for and Value of Collaboration. Teachers need to know
the rationale for and value of collaboration. To begin, collaboration facilitates a greater insight of
instructional matters and curriculum (Crow & Pounder, 2000; Leite et al., 2018; Vangrieken et
al., 2015). There is also the potential for greater discretion in grouping students for instruction
and scheduling instructional time, as well as recontextualizing the curriculum to focus on
concepts rather than solely content, which increases student motivation (Crow & Pounder, 2000;
Leite et al., 2018; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Collaboration has shown to enhance professional
growth for both experienced and novice teachers, decreases individual workload, and reduces
feelings of isolation (Main, 2012; Vangrieken et al., 2015).
Teachers Know How to Develop and Maintain Personal and Professional
Relationships. Teachers need to know how to develop and maintain personal and professional
relationships. Interpersonal and communication skills impact the development of trust and for the
effectiveness of a team (Crow & Pounder, 2000; Main, 2012; Vangrieken et al., 2015, 2017).
Positive relationships between team members fosters psychological safety, which is needed to
authentically collaborate and share mistakes (Hackett et al., 2021).
34

Teachers Know How to Articulate Their Personal Pedagogical Beliefs. Teachers need
to know and be able to articulate their personal pedagogical beliefs and engage in deep-level
discussions of practice and motives to improve instructional practice and teacher learning
(Vangrieken et al., 2017). The sharing of beliefs helps establish a shared vision and develop new
pedagogies that expand each member’s vision on inquiry and curriculum (Jonker et al., 2019;
Prain et al., 2020).
Procedural Knowledge Influences
Procedural knowledge refers to how to do something, the methods or techniques
(Krathwohl, 2002). The procedural knowledge teachers need in order to collaborate on a team is
the understanding of procedure to develop team identity, form trusting relationships, establish
team mission, vision, and goals, and how to manage and engage in constructive conflict. In order
to help teachers become more comfortable with engaging in conflict, modeling to-be learned
strategies or behaviors improved self-efficacy, learning, and performance (Denler et al., 2006),
and continued practice promotes automaticity (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).
Teachers Know How to Tackle Team, Task, and Relationship Processes
Simultaneously. Teachers need to be able to tackle tasks, team, and relationship processes
simultaneously (Prain et al., 2020). This means they need to know how to build team identity and
strong, trusting personal relationships, and be able to establish team goals (Crow & Pounder,
2000; Jonker et al., 2019; Main, 2012; Vangrieken et al., 2015), clear teacher roles (Havnes,
2009; Jonker et al., 2019; Main, 2012; Vangrieken et al., 2015), and norms (Crow & Pounder,
2000; Vangrieken et al., 2015, 2017), as well as a shared vision (Jonker et al., 2019; Vangrieken
et al., 2015).
35

Teachers Know How to Manage Conflict Constructive Conflict. It is not just the
presence of conflict, but how team members approach and manage conflict that is important.
Conflict can either be constructive or destructive to teams. Team members need to be able to
manage and accept constructive conflict (Hackett et al., 2021; Jonker et al., 2019; Main, 2012;
Vangrieken et al., 2015), as dealing with conflict is an essential part of team dynamics (Havnes,
2009; Main, 2012). Conflict is critical to disrupt the status quo and move beyond superficial
collaboration and progress through Tuckman’s (1965) phases of group development (Jonker et
al., 2019). While conflict is important, it is often avoided or not managed properly (Vangrieken
et al., 2015) so that it does not turn into prolonged and escalated conflict that becomes hostile,
reducing team effectiveness and increasing team member stress (Somech, 2008).
Conflict can result in positive outcomes such as determining important ideas, re-
evaluating and clarifying goals, creating new ideas, and strengthening the team (Somech, 2008).
Constructive conflict can cultivate trust by airing different perspectives and experiences and
ultimately promote team effectiveness (Somech, 2008).
Metacognitive Knowledge
Metacognitive knowledge is the awareness of one’s own cognition and cognitive
processes (Anderson et al., 2001 as cited in Rueda, 2011). Krathwohl (2002) adds that
metacognitive knowledge includes strategic knowledge, knowledge about cognitive tasks, and
self-knowledge. When learning to engage in a new skill, it is important to remember that
learning and motivation are enhanced when learners set goals, monitor their performance, and
evaluate their progress toward achieving those goals (Mayer, 2011). It is also important to
remember that modeling to-be-learned behaviors improves self-efficacy, learning, and
performance (Denler et al., 2006).
36

Teachers Know Why and When Collaboration Is Needed. Teachers not only need to
know what collaboration is and how to do it. They also need to know why and when to
collaborate with their team members (Rueda, 2011). Teams can work interdependently as well as
independently. A good indicator of trust in teams is knowing what work can be done individually
or in pairs, and what needs to be done collaboratively (Aguilar, 2016).
Teachers Know How to Reflect Individually and Collectively. In order to collaborate
on a team, teachers need to know how to reflect on their participation in collaborative tasks.
Regular reflection leads teachers to modify their practices to align to the team more effectively
(Prain et al., 2021) by talking about what team members learn from working together and to
monitor team practices and effectiveness (Lipscombe et al., 2020; Vangrieken et al., 2015).
When risk, uncertainty, and vulnerability are central to ongoing reflection with a colleague,
students and teachers benefit (Brookfield, 2017).
Clark and Estes (2008) state the importance of determining that people know how to
achieve their performance goal. There are many aspects of knowledge from declarative factual
knowledge to conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge. The knowledge teachers
need in order to successfully collaborate in teams is complex, especially since traditional
education programs do not teach essential skills for collaboration such as conflict management
and interpersonal skills (Main, 2012; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Table 2 shows a summary of the
assumed knowledge influences on stakeholders’ ability to achieve the performance goal.

37

Table 2
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Stakeholder’s Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal
Assumed knowledge influences Research literature
Declarative conceptual
Teachers need to know how to
develop and maintain personal
and professional relationships.

Teachers need to know their
personal pedagogical beliefs.

Crow & Pounder, 2000; Hackett et al., 2021; Main,
2012; Vangrieken et al., 2015, 2017

Jonker et al., 2019; Prain et al., 2020; Vangrieken et al.,
2017
Procedural
Teachers need to know how to
tackle tasks, team, and
relationship processes
simultaneously.

Crow & Pounder, 2000; Havnes, 2009; Jonker et al.,
2019; Main, 2012; Prain et al., 2020
Teachers need to know how to
manage constructive conflict.
Achinstein, 2002; Hackett et al., 2021; Havnes, 2009;
Jonker et al., 2019; Main, 2012; Peck, 1987; Phillips,
2014; Reynolds & Lewis, 2017; Senge, 1990;
Somech, 2008; Vangrieken et al., 2015

Metacognitive
Teachers need to know how to
reflect on their participation in
collaborative tasks.

Brookfield, 2017; Jonker et al., 2019; Lipscombe et al.,
2020; Prain et al., 2021; Vangrieken et al., 2015

Motivation
Whether it is an issue of skill or will is often a question heard in schools. There is a close
relationship between knowledge and motivation. Just because someone knows how to
collaborate does not mean they want to or will work with others. Schunk et. al (2009) as cited in
38

Rueda (2011) name three common indicators that are related to motivation: mental effort, active
choice, and persistence. Mental effort is defined as the amount of mental energy needed to apply
new learning. Active choice is the ability to choose one activity over another. Persistence refers
to the commitment that is needed to stick with an activity over time, despite distractions and
challenges. Learning and motivation are enhances if the learner values the task (Eccles, 2006).
Additionally important to remember when planning learning experiences, is that learning and
motivation are enhanced when learners have positive expectancies for success (Pajares, 1996),
goals motivate and provide direction for learners (Pintrich, 2003), and positive emotional
environments support motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Stakeholder Factors
Motivation is the internal process that gets us started, keeps us moving, and helps us get
jobs done (Schunk, 2020). Starting and maintaining motivation are influenced by both internal
and external factors (Rueda, 2011). One internal influence is self-efficacy, or one’s beliefs about
his or her capabilities to take action and succeed (Bandura, 1986 as cited in Rueda, 2011). Self-
efficacy impacts an individual’s choice of task, persistence with the task, how much effort they
put forth, and the acquired skills Bandura, 1986 as cited in Schunk, 2020).
Task Value
The more important an individual believes a task to be, the more likely he or she will
choose, engage, and persist (National Research Council, 2004 as cited in Rueda 2011). Teachers
need to value collaboration and need to want to be a part of a team (Main, 2012).
Since in many, if not most instances, traditionally trained teachers have not received
explicit training in interpersonal skills such as conflict management and communication, teachers
39

need to value what collaborative practices have to offer (Main, 2012). Seeing value in team
teaching enhances a teacher’s learning and engagement (Main, 2012; Prain et al., 2020).
Self-Efficacy
Simply put, self-efficacy refers to one’s judgment about their capabilities to perform a
task, and it is especially important when engaging in a task that is perceived to be challenging
(Bandura, 1986 as cited in Rueda, 2011). Research from Bandura (1977) supports that
individuals with higher self-efficacy will outperform those with lower self-efficacy (Johnson &
Voelkel, 2021). Teachers need to have confidence that they are a productive and valued member
of a team (Main, 2012; Prain et al., 2020; Vangrieken et al., 2015).
The attitudes of teachers toward collaboration as well as their experience and confidence
in contributing to a team are essential characteristics (Main, 2012). Marks et al. (2001) state that
team effectiveness depends in part on each individual’s self-efficacy and commitment to the
team. Research (James et al., 2007; Slavit et al., 2011; Williams, 2010) shows that teacher
efficacy increases through collaboration, so it is unclear what degree of efficacy is needed as a
prerequisite for successful participation on a team.
In 1977, Bandura noted that the assurances a person places in his or her team affects the
overall performance of the team (Donohoo, 2018). In schools, when teachers believe in their
combined ability, the academic achievement of students increases (Bandura, 1993). Conversely,
Erez and Somech (1996) found that when there was uncertainty in team goals and roles
interpersonal biases, hostility and damaged trust resulted, impacting the effectiveness of the
team.
40

Goals
Goals reflect purpose and help provide aim for one’s actions, and can enhance learning
and performance as they can provide insight into progress, self-efficacy, and self-evaluation
(Schunk, 2020).
Clear goals help team members know where they are going, what they need to be
prepared to do, and allows them to reflect on their performance (Aguilar, 2016; Katzenbach &
Smith, 2008). Teams need to have shared goals that are determined together so that all members
have a voice and feel valued (Bovbjerg, 2006). Determining group goals helps to build
community (Brouwen, 2011; Kelchtermans, 2006) as teachers work together to make decisions,
negotiate, and communicate clearly (Prain, et al., 2021).
Affect
Affect refers to the emotions surrounding a task or event. Positive emotions will enhance
learning, motivation, and performance. Consequently, teachers need to feel positive about
working with others to attain a team goal (Main, 2012).
When team members have positive beliefs about the team’s capabilities, they are more
successful (Kim & Shin, 2015 as cited in Donohoo, 2018). Through the process of exchanging
knowledge, experiences, and searching for solutions to problems they are facing, team members
build collective efficacy (Wenger, 2009). Positive feelings about working with others comes in
part from a shared and strong commitment to getting the jobs done in a distributed way
(Katzenbach & Smith, 2008).
Rueda (2011) reminds us that motivational causes are context-specific and are based on
perceived conditions or events. Hence, two individuals experiencing the exact same situation
may have very different perceptions resulting in different levels of motivation. Table 3 shows a
41

summary of the assumed motivation influences on the stakeholder’s ability to achieve the
performance goal.

Table 3
Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Stakeholder’s Ability to Achieve the Performance
Goal
Assumed motivation influences Research literature
Task value
Teachers need to value
collaboration and want to be a
part of a team.

Main, 2012; Prain et al., 2020
Self-efficacy
Teachers have confidence in
their contributions to the team,
and in their team.

Bandura, 1993; Donohoo, 2018; Erez & Somech,1996;
James et al., 2007; Main, 2012; Marks et al., 2001;
Slavit et al., 2011; Wenger, 2009; Williams, 2010

Goals
Teachers have clear goals for
their collaboration.

Aguilar, 2016; Brouwen, 2011; Katzenbach & Smith,
2008; Kelchtermans, 2006; Prain, et al., 2021
Affect
Teachers need to feel positive
about working with others to
attain a team goal.

Kim & Shin, 2015 as cited in Donohoo, 2018; Main,
2012; Wenger, 2009

42

Organization
Teams play an important role in the education system’s goal to improve the effectiveness
of teaching. Thus, there are organizational arrangements that can promote team effectiveness. At
times, there are elements of an organization such as how resources are allocated, policies,
procedures, and practices, and the organizational culture that may impede their performance
(Rueda, 2011).
Cultural Setting
Organizational culture can be observed in interactions, espoused values, climate, rituals
and celebrations, and group norms (Rueda, 2011). When considering the cultural setting of an
organization engaging in team collaboration, teachers need a supportive and inspiring group
atmosphere and ongoing administrative support in order to collaborate successfully (Main,
2012).
Teachers need a cohesive, supportive atmosphere that is inspiring as that positively
contributes to collaboration (Jonker et al., 2019; Lipscombe et al., 2020; Prain et al., 2021).
Leaders can facilitate the creation of this environment by setting expectations for formal and
frequent teacher collaboration, and creating high levels of trust for collaboration to take place by
providing collaborative structures to build common understandings (Donohoo, 2018). Donohoo
(2018) state that school leaders must also foster effective team interactions by modeling and
building emotional intelligence, collective teacher efficacy, and psychological safety.
Teachers need administrative support throughout the teaming process, from team
formation and establishment, to maintenance (Hargreaves, 2001; Jonker et al., 2019; Lipscombe
et al., 2020; Main 2012; Prain et al., 2021). This includes support for the whole team, even when
teamwork is strong (Main, 2012). Lipscombe et al. (2020) found that the principal plays a
significant role in creating the conditions and collaborative culture of the school, supporting the
43

professional development for teams, and creating the necessary conditions, routines, and
resources to support team effectiveness.
Cultural Models
There is also the organizational culture that is not as easily observed. Rueda (2011)
describes cultural models as what shapes the way the organization is structured, impacting the
values, policies, and practices, and are usually so familiar to those who hold them, that they are
invisible. Cultural models are particularly important to investigate as they can be helpful in
identifying targeted solutions to barriers (Rueda, 2011). Kelchtermans (2006), as cited by
Vangrieken et al. (2015), found that collegiality and collaboration is determined by the
organizational culture of the school.
The School Culture Supports Taking Risks and Learning From Mistakes. The
deprivatization of one’s teaching practice involves a level of risk (Fullan, 2007). There needs to
be psychological safety, or the feeling that when taking an interpersonal risk it will not result in
shame, ridicule, or embarrassment (Edmondson et al., 2004; Hackett et al., 2021). Hackett et al.
(2021) explains that safety enables people to connect, engage, learn, and change when there is a
shared belief that the environment is safe for risk-taking.
Psychological safety is also important as differences of opinion will likely happen. These
differing opinions, values, and competition can lead to conflict (Jonker et al., 2019;
Kelchtermans, 2006; Löfgren & Karlsson, 2016; Vangrieken et al., 2015). The understanding
that healthy conflict is important, as well as how to manage conflict (Bovbjerg, 2006; Main,
2012) is critical to the environment of an effective team.
Team interactions, especially those that involve debate or managing conflict require
strong and trusting relationships (Lipscombe et al., 2020). Non-participation from team
44

members, resistance to change, pessimism, and conflict avoidance will be harmful to
collaborative efforts (Jonker et al., 2019; Vangrieken et al., 2015).
The School Culture Is Not Competitive. Somech (2008) found that teams working in
conditions that are incongruent, such as high task interdependence and low goal interdependence
are unstable and uncertain. Team members in this setting are more likely to engage in
competitive behaviors and increased conflict among team members. Conversely, teams working
in congruent conditions where there is high task interdependence and high goal interdependence,
team members will work together to achieve goals rather than attempting to outdo one another
(Somech, 2008).
Jehn and Chatman (2000) found that competition within teams had a damaging effect on
the quality of interactions and team achievement. When competition is present, Visone et al.
(2021), suggest that leadership has not cultivated the prerequisite relational aspects, such as
trusting professional relationships, to allow for powerful collaboration to happen at scale.
Resources
Cultural settings also impact the way resources, such as time, money, and people, are
allocated. Teachers need common and individual planning time, to be in close proximity to their
team members, and team membership needs to be stable.
Historically, teaching programs have not taught collaboration. Many teachers new to
engaging in this work feel they were unprepared and had not received the necessary training
(Main, 2012). Teams need to engage in shared professional development (Hargreaves, 2001;
Havnes, 2009). The focus of professional development should be on interpersonal
communication, effective meeting strategies, group decision-making skills, interdisciplinary and
instructional planning, goal setting, and evaluation (Crow & Pounder, 2000). Crow and Pounder
45

(2000) also stress that as teams move through stages of growth and development, the
professional learning needs will shift. Meaning that learning opportunities are not just as teams
are forming, but are ongoing and embedded (Hargreaves, 2001).
Somech (2008) adds that as most educators fear the destructive outcomes of conflict, they
avoid it. Professional development to support conflict management is critical as conflict should
not be destructive to teams, nor should conflict be minimized. When conflict is managed, team
function is improved whereas if there is continuous conflict, team performance is hindered.
Training teams to express ideas, feelings and positions, while learning how to listen, can help
teams integrate differing viewpoints. Administrative encouragement for debate of essential
issues within teams can help to normalize conflict (Somech, 2008). See Table 4.

46

Table 4
Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Stakeholder’s Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal
Assumed organization
influences
Research literature
Cultural setting
Teachers have a supportive
group atmosphere with
ongoing administrative
support.

Donohoo, 2018; Hargreaves, 2001; Jonker et al., 2019;
Lipscombe et al., 2020; Main 2012; Prain et al., 2021
Cultural models
Teachers have a culture that
supports taking risks and
learning from mistakes.

Bovbjerg, 2006; Edmondson et al., 2004; Frazier et al.,
2017; Fullan, 2007; Hackett et al., 2021; Jonker et al.,
2019; Kelchtermans, 2006; Lipscombe et al., 2020;
Löfgren, 2016; Vangrieken et al., 2015
Teachers have a culture that is
not competitive.

Jehn and Chatman, 2000; Somech, 2008; Visone et al.,
2021
Teachers have ongoing
professional development.
Crow and Pounder, 2000; Hargreaves, 2001; Havnes,
2009; Main, 2012

Conclusion
Interdisciplinary education is not a new phenomenon, nor is collaboration among
teachers. Despite the numerous benefits to students as well as teachers, the historical norms of
isolation and teacher autonomy in education make collaboration among teachers on
interdisciplinary teams a challenge. Chapter 2 begins exploring the elements that make an
effective team, from individual member characteristics to team structural needs and
organizational support.
47

The second half of Chapter 2 investigated the potential root causes in knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that may impact teachers’ ability to collaborate on
teams, using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework which seeks to highlight teacher
knowledge, motivation, and organizational structures that facilitate or inhibit collaboration. The
Clark and Estes framework (2008) will be the foundation for how data is collected.

48

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this qualitative study was to conduct a gap analysis based on Clark and
Estes (2008) to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that facilitate
and interfere with Woodland International School (WIS) middle school content area teachers
being able to engage in deep collegial collaboration to design and deliver IDUs. Clark and Estes
(2008) propose that performance gaps can be understood and solutions proposed based on the
careful analysis of knowledge, motivation, and organizational root causes. In this study, the
Clark and Estes framework is adapted to determine the levels of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences in the promising practices of the current study. The questions that
guided this gap analysis are listed next:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that interfere with
the Grade 6 and 7 content area teachers engaging in collegial collaboration to design
and deliver IDUs?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivational, and organizational solutions?
Concepts from research about collaboration, teamwork, interdisciplinary education, and
the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis were used to guide the development of my interview
protocol for middle school content area teachers. This chapter addresses the research design by
presenting the methodology I used to collect and analyze data.
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The Clark and Estes (2008) framework is suited to study stakeholder performance within
an organization. It fosters deep analysis into the root cause of an issue rather than hastily
jumping to solutions. This problem-solving process is based on two key elements: understanding
stakeholder goals concerning the organizational goal, and identifying assumed performance
49

influences in knowledge, motivation, and organization based on general theory, context-specific
literature, and an existing understanding of the organization.
In this study, the Clark and Estes (2008) framework was adapted as a needs analysis for the
organizational structures such as professional learning opportunities that are needed to facilitate
team building on ITTs. In the next section, I will describe the stakeholder-specific knowledge,
motivation, and organizational (KMO) assumed influences. See Figure 1.

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework for a Gap Analysis

Note. GAP Analysis Process to determine root causes of gaps between current achievement and
organizational goals before implementing and evaluating solutions.

50

Assessment of Performance Influences
Often in education, we jump to solutions without fully examining the problem.
Interdisciplinary teacher team collaboration is a practice that WIS already has in place. If we
want to provide students with an equitable educational experience, we need to make sure teams
of teachers work together at the deepest level of collaboration. This gap analysis helped
determine teacher knowledge and the motivational and organizational factors that inhibit teacher
collaboration on interdisciplinary teams.
Knowledge Assessment
In this study, knowledge was assessed primarily through interviews. Observations of
team meetings and document analysis of team documents were originally planned but given the
emotional toll of COVID-19, I did not want to place additional stress on teachers. (Maxwell,
2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Lochmiller & Lester; 2017) and get the clearest picture of
knowledge influences. As Clark and Estes (2008) point out, people are often unaware of their
lack of knowledge and skills. They may also be unwilling, especially in a competitive
environment, to disclose weaknesses or deficits. There are many different types of knowledge
(Anderson et al., 2001). For the purpose of this study, I examined declarative factual knowledge,
declarative conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge.
Declarative Conceptual
Anderson et al. (2001) writes about declarative conceptual knowledge as more complex,
organized knowledge. Conceptual knowledge is the foundation for the push for interdisciplinary
education so that students have a deep understanding and see connections across disciplines. To
assess factual knowledge, I will primarily use interview questions.
51

Procedural
According to Anderson et al. (2001), procedural knowledge is knowledge of specific
techniques and methods and the ability to determine when to use one procedure over another. To
assess procedural knowledge, my interview protocol included questions on planning of IDUs and
conflict management. I did not assess these influences with observations of team meetings given
the emotions and physical toll of COVID-19, deciding it was best not to add to the stress of
teachers.
Metacognitive
Metacognitive knowledge, Anderson et al. (2001) explain, is strategic knowledge, self-
knowledge, and knowledge of one’s cognition. Metacognitive knowledge is assessed through
interviews. Table 5 shows the summary of the knowledge influences and the methods of
assessment.

52

Table 5
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed knowledge influences Interview items
Declarative conceptual
Teachers need to know how to
develop and maintain personal and
professional relationships.

If you had to explain what needs to be in place for
teachers to engage in interdisciplinary
collaboration to someone, what would you say?
Tell me about ways your team has built trust, if any.
What are some examples, if any, of how flexibility
plays a role in interdisciplinary team development?
Suppose you have a new teacher joining your team.
What are the things you would do to bring them on
board? What are some things your team would do?
Teachers need to know and be able
to discuss their personal
pedagogical beliefs.
If you had to explain your personal pedagogical
beliefs to a team member, what would you say?
Procedural
Teachers need to know how to
tackle tasks, team, and relationship
processes simultaneously.

Walk me through the steps your team takes when
planning an IDU.
Teachers need to know the steps in
how to manage constructive.
conflict.

Describe a time there was conflict on your team. How
was it handled, if at all?
Metacognitive
Teachers know why and when
collaboration is needed.

Tell me about a time when collaboration was helpful
if any.
Tell me about a time collaboration was unnecessary,
if any.
Teachers need to know how to
reflect on their participation in
collaborative tasks.

Tell me about the last time you reflected on your
team's collaboration, if at all.

53

Motivation Assessment
Like knowledge, motivation is assessed through multiple means to triangulate data
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Lochmiller & Lester; 2017) and get the clearest
picture of motivation influences. As Clark and Estes (2008) point out, motivational causes for
gaps are complex and critical to getting our jobs done. Originally, I had planned to observe team
meetings in addition to interviews but given the physical and emotional toll of COVID-19, only
interviews were conducted. For this study, I examined task value, self-efficacy, goals, and affect
to identify any motivational causes for gaps.
Task Value
Schunk (2020) writes that value is the perceived importance or belief about why one
should engage in a task. The value of a task is based on four components: attainment value,
intrinsic value, utility value, and cost value. Task value was assessed through interviews.
Self-Efficacy
Bandura (1993) defines self-efficacy as one’s beliefs about their ability to produce the
desired effect and determine how people think, feel, and motivate themselves. When one has
positive expectations for success, motivation, learning, and performance are enhanced. There
will be questions about success, challenges, and confidence in their contributions to the team in
the interviews to assess self-efficacy.
Goals
Individuals are motivated and guided by clear and challenging goals (Bandura, 2005).
Attaining a goal that one has been pursuing increases self-efficacy. This indicator was assessed
through interviews. Observations of team meetings was originally planned, but given restrictions
regarding COVID-19, only interviews took place.
54

Affect
Efficacy beliefs impact whether one thinks pessimistically or optimistically, which
impacts goals, aspirations, motivation, and performance (Bandura, 2006). Open-ended interview
questions assessed this indicator. Table 6 summarizes the motivation influences and methods of
assessment.

Table 6
Summary of Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed motivation influences Interview items
Task value
Teachers need to value
collaboration and want to be
a part of a team.

What do you see as the value of collaboration with your
team members, if any?
Some might say that “the juice is not worth the squeeze”
when collaborating with team members. What are your
thoughts?
Self-efficacy
Teachers have confidence in
their contributions to the
team and in their team.

Tell me about a time when you felt successful in the work
with your team. What led to that success? How did this
success influence your confidence in future team
collaboration, if at all?
Tell me about a time when you felt challenged in your
work with your team. How did you approach the
situation?

Goals
Teachers have clear goals for
their collaboration.

What did you perceive to be the goals of IDU?

What are your thoughts on how clear the goals are when
you meet as a team?

Affect
Teachers need to feel positive
about working with others to
attain a team goal.

When you know that an IDU is approaching, what is your
emotional reaction? What elements of IDUs cause that
reaction, specifically?
55

Organization/Culture/Context Assessment
The final barrier to desired organizational performance is the organization itself. Like
knowledge and motivation, organizational influences were assessed through multiple means to
triangulate data (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Lochmiller & Lester; 2017) and get
the clearest picture of organizational influences. Clark and Estes (2008) state that when
knowledge and motivational indicators can be ruled out, organizational barriers are the cause.
Alternatively, organizational barriers may cause a gap in knowledge or motivation. Interviews
and document analysis were used to analyze the organizational culture and resources. For the
purpose of this study, I examined cultural settings, cultural models, resources, and policies,
processes, and procedures.
Cultural Setting
Gallimore and Goldberg (2001) explain cultural settings as times when people come
together to engage in something they collectively value. For this study, I will assessed the
cultural setting through the interviews and organizational document analysis such as professional
development artifacts.
Cultural Models
Cultural models, Gallimore and Goldberg (2001), are engrained and invisible values that
create a lens through which experiences are collectively interpreted. Cultural models are tied to
an organization’s mission. Cultural models were assessed through interviews.
Resources
To be a culture of learners, resources such as time, energy, and money must support
learning experiences. Schein (2010) writes that a learning culture must value reflection,
experimentation, and learning resources. Resources assessed were professional development
56

opportunities (Main, 2012; Jonker et al., 2019; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Table 7 summarizes the
organizational influences and methods of assessment.

Table 7
Summary of Organization Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed organization influences Interview items
Cultural setting
The school provides a supportive
group atmosphere with ongoing
administrative support.

How often, if ever, is an administrator present at your
team meetings? Tell me about the role, if any, your
administrator plays on your team?

Cultural models
The school provides a culture that
supports taking risks and
learning from mistakes.

Some may say that our “culture of excellence” inhibits
teachers from trying new things for fear that they will
not be perfect right away. What are your thoughts?

Teachers have a culture that is not
competitive.
Resources
Teachers have ongoing
professional development.

Describe the professional learning opportunities about
team collaboration you have been offered.
Some may say that they do not feel they have had
enough professional development to engage in
interdisciplinary teaming. What are your thoughts?
Describe the ideal training program for collaborating
on an ITT.

57

Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
The stakeholder group of focus for this paper will be middle school content area teachers.
WIS middle school consists of three ITTs per Grades 6, 7, and 8. Each team of teachers consists
of two (ELA) English language arts teachers and one math, science, social studies, physical
education, and learning support teacher.
Interview Sampling
Relying on Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and Lochmiller and Lester (2017), this work is
qualitative and not meant to be generalizable. I cannot include everyone in my research, I used
purposeful sampling to select individuals that represent diverse perspectives. I wanted to hear
from teachers with various experiences and willingness to engage in team collaboration and time
spent at WIS and a range of subjects, grade levels, and team members leaders.
Criterion 1: Grade 6 or Grade 7 Content Area Teacher
Teachers are content area teachers in WIS’s middle school. The purpose of this study was
to explore presumed KMO influences that facilitate and inhibit collaboration on an ITT, and
interdisciplinary teams are solely composed of content area teachers. Grade 8 is not included in
this study as they are not currently expected to design and deliver IDUs.
Criterion 2: Diversity of Content Area Represented
Interviewees represented the different content areas that make up an ITT. For example,
certain content area teachers may feel differently about interdisciplinary collaboration due to
pressures within their department or feelings that their standards do not align to IDUs. By
ensuring variation in this area, one subject will not be overrepresented in the data.
58

Criterion 3: Taught at WIS in 2020–21 or Before
Teachers with a range of experience on ITTs was an important factor to consider when
developing my interview sample to get a wide range of experience and viewpoints about
collaboration on an interdisciplinary team. By ensuring variation in this area, a certain level of
experience with teaming will not be overrepresented in the data.
Recruitment
For this study, I recruited teachers for interviews and for team meeting observations. The
recruitment strategy for interviews and observations took place using email.
Interviews
For interviews, the sampling strategy recruited participants by emailing the 42 WIS
middle school faculty that are content area teachers asking for those willing to volunteer to be
interviewed (see Appendix D).
Once I received responses, I ensured that core teachers from each grade level and content
area were represented as well as teachers from a diverse level of experience with
interdisciplinary teaming. I recognized that based on availability and willingness to participate,
that this might not be possible. Based on the responses I received, I was able to interview 14
teachers, seven from each Grade 6 and seven from Grade 7. Teachers interviewed spanned all
content area subjects of math, ELA, science, social studies, learning support, and physical
education. Interviewees represented a range of experience from one year of experience
collaborating on an interdisciplinary team to more than five years of experience. Years of
experience does not mean their team composition has been the same for those five years.
59

Document Analysis
For document analysis, I sought permission from the organization to analyze internal
documents such as survey data, and professional development artifacts.
Instrumentation
Interview Protocol Design
Interviewing allows us access to the observations and perspectives of others, providing
access to where we would not otherwise have been able to see (Maxwell, 2013, Patton, 2015), it
is a “conversation with a purpose” (Dexter, 1970, p. 136 as cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Interviewing is critical to qualitative research as we cannot observe all behaviors, feelings, and
interpretations of situations and settings. Interviews invite us into events of the past that cannot
be recreated (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The interview protocol (see Appendix A) begins with introducing the study’s goals and
interview process. There were 14 open-ended questions in the protocol that connect to the
possible knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences on the problem of practice.
Questions were written to connect with KMO influences on the conceptual framework. These
include questions about knowledge, such as factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge. Questions about task value, self-efficacy, goals, and affect are included to
understand motivational influences better. Questions about the cultural setting, models,
resources, and policies and procedures are included to uncover organizational influences. The
interview protocol was a semi-structured format to maintain consistency across interviews while
also allowing for natural conversation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and included a list of probing
questions for each of the questions. Some probes for questions are scripted to maintain continuity
60

through interviews and to maintain alignment with KMO influences. Still, some probes are
crafted as sentence stems to support follow-up questioning.
Document Analysis Design
As both interviewing and observation run the risk of altering the setting or behavior of
participants, document analysis will also be important to my data collection and analysis
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Originally, I had planned to ask team members if I could use their
meeting agendas, minutes, and IDUs for document analysis, but as previously mentioned I did
not want to add to the stress faculty members were feeling due to COVID-19. As such,
organizational documents such as professional development session artifacts were analyzed to
help uncover gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. These ready-made
artifacts were easily accessible.
Documents and artifacts analyzed existed before my research began are stored on a
shared platform and are readily available. I accessed these documents on my laptop, as they are
stored in the WIS Google Drive. I named and numbered the documents in coordination with my
data collection spreadsheet and coded documents based on the research question they addressed
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
Document analysis is an important additional piece of data as it provides additional
descriptive information that helped uncover additional categories and verified emerging
hypotheses. Most importantly, with document analysis, my presence as a researcher does not
alter what I am studying (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
As I analyzed documents, when the contents aligned with my conceptual framework, I
recorded my observations of content and themes related to my research questions on my
password-protected record (see Appendix B).
61

Qualitative Data Collection
Following University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval,
I solicited participants for interviews through email (see Appendix D).
Interviews
With audio recording per interviewee consent, in-person interviews conducted by the
researcher took place in a private location on campus, followed COVID-19 safe distancing
protocols set by the school, and lasted approximately 60 minutes. The researcher saved the audio
recordings in a password-protected folder on a password-protected computer.
To collect data for this study, I interviewed 14 participants. As I planned interviews, I
kept in mind as Lochmiller and Lester (2017) remind us, the interview's aim and purpose should
be the primary consideration. It informed the protocol used for the interviews. The interview
approach was a semi-structured interview protocol, as it provides flexibility in asking follow-up
and clarifying questions and is more conversational, allowing for unexpected understandings
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). All interviewees were deidentified to maintain confidentiality.
Questions were written to ensure that they are open-ended, are framed without bias, do
not reveal an answer I am hoping to hear, and are not double-barrelled, asking two questions in
one (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
Document Analysis
Documents that were used for this study include past teacher perception survey results
from the first three years of interdisciplinary implementation. These surveys are from 2017–18,
2018–19, 2019–20 and remain relevant because there was little teacher turnover in these years,
and survey data shows a pattern of needs requested. There was no survey data available for the
62

2020–21 or 2021–22 school years. Further document analysis was professional development
materials beginning in 2017–18 to the present 2021–22 school year.
Data Analysis
Interviews
For interviews, reflective reviews and transcription occurred soon after each interview
using the App, “Otter Pro.” As soon as the recordings were transcribed, the researcher deleted
them. Until recordings were deleted, they were on a password-protected device in a password-
protected folder. The interview protocol was aligned to the conceptual framework to assess
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences and transcripts were coded with that
framework in mind.
Document Analysis
For documents, organizational documents aligned with my conceptual framework and
helped answer my research questions, I analyzed them for content and themes using a template
(see Appendix B).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility and trustworthiness measure the quality of a qualitative research study.
Credibility references the quality of the study’s findings, while the processes used by the
researcher during data collection and analysis impact the study’s trustworthiness.
My experience as a member of an interdisciplinary learning community is a bias that I
had to check regularly while examining data to ensure I was not letting my own experiences and
expectations shape how I think teams should be functioning. I am reminded by Strauss (1987), as
cited in Maxwell (2013), that my experiential knowledge cannot and should not be ignored.
63

Instead, my experiences in interdisciplinary learning communities at WIS potentially holds gold,
which adds to the credibility of my research.
I have worked with many of these teachers for the last six years. Even though we are a
large community, we know or think we know a lot about one another. As such, I will have to
check my implicit biases about individual team members based on past interactions, experiences,
and stories. To face these biases, I did as I do with my teaching practice. I used reflective
journaling throughout the process to recognize how my beliefs impact my practices, behaviors,
and interpretations of data (Hammond, 2015).
As someone active in the community, I had to be aware of the likelihood of reactivity, or
my influence, on the individuals I am studying. While eliminating my influence is impossible,
according to Hammersley and Atkinson (1995; as cited in Maxwell, 2013), I must understand my
influence and use it productively. I must be aware of how I influence what my subjects say and
do (Maxwell 2013).
Being a former member of an interdisciplinary learning community, who is now in a
coaching role that supports teams, I know how hard collaboration on a team can be. I also know
how rewarding it can be, which is what motivates me in this study. My personal and professional
goals (Maxwell, 2013) for this study were to help teams function at their highest level to provide
an equitable educational experience for all students. The trust and respect that teachers have for
each other impacts student learning.
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of this study involve the nature of teamwork. Teams are not built nor
fixed overnight. Teamwork is powerful but challenging and allusive in most organizations,
despite how much it has been researched since teams consist of imperfect humans (Lencioni &
64

Stransky, 2002). I had limited time to gather and analyze data, and COVID-19 regulations along
with the physical and emotional impact of COVID-19 were additional limitations. Also, I must
consider reactivity regarding those interviewed. Are they honest, or are they telling me what they
think I want to hear? For this reason, I wanted to also gather data through observation and data
analysis to triangulate. Generalizability is an additional limitation as WIS offers a unique
context, so findings may not be easily transferable to another school.
As a teacher, instructional coach, and researcher, I continue to rely on Milner’s (2007)
framework as I research myself, my relation to others, engage in ongoing reflection and
representation, and contextualize my understanding of the more extensive system.
As I interrogate my power and positionality concerning my study, I reflect on my seven
years at Woodlands International School. In this time, I have served in several formal and
informal leadership positions that have placed me in perceived positions of power that I needed
to acknowledge as I embarked on my study. I am a former member of a Grade 6 ITT, which adds
to my biases about how collaborative teams can and should look. Now, as an instructional coach
supporting the teams I am aiming to study, there is perceived positional power.
Adding on to the formal and informal leadership positions, I am a white, able-bodied, cis-
gender, heterosexual female from an upper-middle-class family. My parents are college
professors at prestigious institutions. I have several degrees and am currently a doctoral student
that works at a respected international school. All of this adds to who I am as a professional, how
I show up to spaces, and potentially adds to my perceived positional power.
Returning to Milner (2007), as I continue to research myself, I am continuously
developing my awareness of the seen, unseen, and unforeseen issues, epistemologies, and
perspectives I hold to avoid misrepresenting those I am studying. Throughout my study, I
65

reflected on the multiple roles, positions, and identities my research participants and I bring to
the process. I worked to ensure that the voices of the researched are represented. It is essential to
think about my research in a broader systemic context.
Hammond (2015) reminds me that I can never take myself out of the equation as a
teacher or researcher. Instead, I have to stay committed to my self-reflection journey, be
cognizant of my social-emotional awareness, check my implicit biases, and hold an inquiry
stance regarding the impact of my interactions on colleagues as I shifted into the role of a
researcher.
One delimitation in the triangulation of data collection and analysis to increase
credibility. Another delimitation is the clarity of the researcher’s positionality within WIS and
within the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

66

Chapter Four: Results or Findings
The assumed causes were chosen based on literature regarding collaboration and
interdisciplinary education. These assumed causes and their results were then categorized under
knowledge, motivation, and organization challenges. Qualitative data was obtained from
interviewing 14 teachers who are currently engaging in interdisciplinary collaboration.
Document analysis was also conducted in order to triangulate this data, to validate assumed
causes, and to better understand the knowledge, motivation, and organization challenges teachers
encounter as they engage in interdisciplinary collaboration at Woodlands International School.
Document analysis was conducted after interviews. Documents were coded and analyzed
through the lens of the organization's influence of the “resources” outlined in Chapter 3. The
original proposal called for observations of team meetings and analysis of team documents to
assess knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, but given the physical and
emotional toll COVID-19 has taken on teachers, I did not feel these were reasonable requests.
Interviews were conducted in November and went through multiple rounds of coding to analyze
the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences that act as assets or as barriers to
interdisciplinary collaboration.
Participating Stakeholders
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders will contribute to the achievement of the overall
organizational goal of collaborating to design and deliver IDUs, it is essential to understand
where the gaps in the organization cause the gap in the knowledge and motivation of individual
teachers engaging in collaborative teaming. For this reason, the stakeholders of focus for this
study were core subject teachers on interdisciplinary teams.
67

Fourteen of forty-two teachers engaging in interdisciplinary collaboration volunteered to
be interviewed. Those interviewed spanned all core subjects, all six teams, and ranged both in
years of experience teaching and in time at Woodlands International School. Of the 14
stakeholders interviewed, three act as interdisciplinary leaders for their teams, three are math
teachers, three social studies teachers, five English language arts teachers, one learning support
teacher, one science teacher, and one physical education teacher.
Determination of Assets and Needs
A total of 14 teachers were interviewed. Seven from each grade level, sixth and seventh.
These teachers spanned all core content area departments and had a range from one full year to
more than five years of experience at WIS. Organizational documents were also sources of data
to help triangulate organizational influences. These documents included professional learning
agendas and resources created by instructional coaches to respond to team needs and planning.
Data was triangulated by interviewing multiple teachers per team, across grade levels,
and across departments. Interviews and document analysis were used to triangulate data related
to organizational influences and to resources. Data from document analysis was collected from
internal professional development slide decks and resources created by instructional coaches to
support teams as they developed IDUs.
By interview number seven, themes were emerging that may have justified stopping
interviews, but since teachers were eager to be interviewed and share their experiences, I
interviewed all fourteen of those that signed up to be interviewed.
To determine an influence as a “need,” six or more teachers either stated it as a need or
were not able to provide examples with prompting. To determine an influence as an asset, eight
68

or more teachers were able to share positive examples of that influence in their collaborative
work.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
In this study, knowledge was assessed through interviews to get a clear picture of its
influences. However, people are often unaware of their lack of knowledge and skills or may be
unwilling, especially in a competitive environment, to disclose weaknesses or deficits. For the
purpose of this study, I examined declarative conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and
metacognitive knowledge.
Conceptual Knowledge
Declarative conceptual knowledge is more complex, organized knowledge. Conceptual
knowledge is the foundation for the push for interdisciplinary education so that students have a
deep understanding and see connections across disciplines. To assess conceptual knowledge, I
used interview questions.
Influence 1: Teachers Need to Know How to Develop and Maintain Personal and Professional
Relationships.
Interpersonal and communication skills impact the development of trust and the
effectiveness of a team. In order to engage in interdisciplinary collaboration, teachers need to
know how to develop and maintain personal and professional relationships.
Interview Findings. The data from interviews suggests that teachers understand the
importance of trusting relationships, the significance of norms and routines that positively impact
climate, and the importance of welcoming new members onto teams. The COVID-19 restrictions
that have been in place since January 2020 have impacted the ability to develop relationships
69

outside of school. This has especially affected new hires and their connection to their teams and
the faculty at large.
Relationships. All teachers interviewed were able to speak to the importance of
developing trusting relationships with their colleagues in order to engage in successful
collaboration. Teacher 9 stated,
Teams need a functioning dynamic built on trust, a shared commitment to the work, a
sense of purpose for why you are in the room. Teams need a willingness to show up for
their people and a willingness to do the work.
Teacher 13 added, “You have to have trust. You are teaching in front of others, so trust has to be
present before you begin.” While Teacher 1 stated, “Trust is essential in order to be able to
authentically collaborate with one another. You certainly cannot do this work if you actively
distrust someone.” Teachers interviewed also shared the importance of constant communication
in order to maintain trust. Participant 12 shared, “We need communication norms—sometimes
there are meetings that are organic and not everyone is there. We need a way to loop everyone
into the conversations.”
Norms and Routines That Positively Impact Climate. All those who were interviewed
talked about the need for the climate to be a comfortable community to contribute and share and
talked about the importance of norms to hear all voices. Norms were also mentioned as an
important way to maintain trust in working groups, but only one team appears to refer back to
them to reflect regularly. Inclusion activities were also regularly referenced as ways to build
community within meetings. Based on interviews, it appears inclusion activities are used
consistently through teams.
70

New Hires. Onboarding new team members and honoring the previous experiences and
insights that they bring was an insight shared by most teachers interviewed. Teacher 9 shared,
With a new member joining the team, I sit down with them and show them key
documents and share historical context, challenges, and successes. I want them to
contribute their experiences and insights and find out what questions, insights, and
experiences they have.
Teacher 14 mentioned that with new hires joining the team next year, they will act as a citizen
facilitator who can ask naive questions, or ask the questions people should be thinking about.
While it is commonly understood that team building takes time, COVID-19 restrictions
have created challenges to developing relationships with new team members. Teacher 3
remarked, “We have not been able to do team building work as new people have joined the
team.” Teams need to be a good working group built on personal connections.
Summary. As all 14 teachers were able to share the importance of trusting relationships,
norms, routines, and have strategies for developing relationships with new team members this
influence is an asset. COVID-19 restrictions have greatly impacted the ability to develop
relationships outside of school. This has especially impacted new hires and their connection to
the WIS community, and is a need to be addressed.
Influence 2: Teachers Need to Know and Be Able to Discuss Their Personal Pedagogical
Beliefs and Collaboration Needs.
The sharing of beliefs helps establish a shared vision and develop new pedagogies that
expand each member’s vision of inquiry and curriculum. Being able to articulate personal
pedagogical beliefs and engage in deep-level discussions of practice and motives improves
instructional practice, teacher learning, and facilitates collaboration.
71

Interview Findings. From interviews, it is apparent that only one team has had
conversations about pedagogical beliefs.
We have members of our team that are like self-described behaviorists. This creates a
tension with those who value inquiry and constructivist approaches. That tension has
come up a lot when talking about pedagogy and IDU, so we revisit the inquiry cycle and
talk about those tensions (Teacher 2).
The majority of teachers interviewed were able to talk about work teams had done at the
beginning of the year to learn more about their team members. Twelve of the teachers
interviewed were able to share conversations on teams using the Clifton Strengthsfinder, which
is an online talent assessment that helps individuals discover what they do best, develop
strengths, and provide a greater context around why people show up the way they do and how
they operate as people. The data suggests that if conversations about beliefs are had, they only
occur once a year and not as an ongoing conversation. Teacher 3 remarked, “We did introductory
stuff, get to know you sessions, we learned some things about each other, but only in the very
beginning. Since then, no work has taken place.” Likewise, Teacher 4 stated, “I felt that was a
barrier for me as a teacher. We didn't have time or carve out time to have those kind of co-
teaching pedagogical conversations about what do we believe and how do we get there?”
Teacher 9 remarked, “we haven't talked around philosophy of our educational approach,
which obviously can be a really big source of tension if it's not aligned, or people aren't aware
and supportive.”
Pedagogical Beliefs. All teachers interviewed shared that there is a need for ongoing
discussions about pedagogical beliefs. There was a significant request for support from the
instructional coaches to help teams build in time to help facilitate and discuss personal
72

pedagogical beliefs every year, especially when new people join the team, and to revisit these
discussions multiple times throughout the school year. While those interviewed expressed the
importance of these discussions, only one team regularly had conversations about beliefs.
Teacher 1 shared, “It is hard. Beliefs are deeply ingrained so it is really tricky because people's
philosophies are deeply ingrained in people's beliefs.” Teacher 13 shared thoughts about the
importance of discussing pedagogical beliefs with your teaching team.
You have to talk about your philosophies, teaching styles, your negotiables, and non-
negotiables. We did this before we started working as an interdisciplinary team, but then
we’ve never revisited it even though our team has had three new members since then.
Collaboration Styles and Needs. All teachers interviewed shared that there is a need for
ongoing discussions about collaboration styles and needs. Teachers spoke about the need for
ongoing conversations to occur around Strengthsfinder and the Compass Points protocol from
School Reform Initiative to understand preferences in group work, and to build trust and
understanding by talking about values, assumptions, and beliefs as teachers and as people. Only
one teacher spoke about ongoing conversations about collaboration needs. “It’s important to take
time and understand how one another works. We all have different processing speeds. Not
having these explicit conversations about what we believe and what we need in order to
collaborate definitely creates tensions” (Teacher 12). These tensions, when not addressed, lead to
conflict.
Summary. While the foundation for having important conversations about beliefs, styles,
and needs has been laid, the interview data from all 14 teachers clearly points out that while
individuals know it is important to have conversations about pedagogical beliefs and
73

collaboration needs, teams are not having these ongoing conversations. Therefore, this influence
is a need.
Procedural Knowledge
Procedural knowledge is knowledge of specific techniques and methods and the ability to
determine when to use one procedure over another. Procedural knowledge is important when it
comes to how to plan IDUs and how to engage in healthy conflict. Procedural knowledge was
assessed through interviews.
Influence 1: Teachers Need to Know How to Tackle Tasks, Team, and Relationship Processes
Simultaneously.
Teachers need to be able to tackle tasks, team, and relationship processes simultaneously.
This means they need to know how to build team identity and strong, trusting personal
relationships, and be able to establish team goals, clear teacher roles, norms, and a shared vision.
Said another way, teachers need to know how to work together to plan IDUs.
Interview Findings. Based on interview data, 11 of 14 teachers interviewed expressed
the need for support in how to plan a unit, how to flexibly work together to bring their ideas to
life, and how to bring all content areas into units.
Planning. With the exception of three of those interviewed, teachers interviewed did not
feel like they know how to plan IDUs. Teacher 12 shared that “when we are planning, we look
for curricular connections and themes and think about what it might look like throughout
disciplines, then we think about what we are looking for at the end.” Teacher 2 was able to
elaborate and go into a bit more depth for how his team plans, stating,
We start with the grounding philosophy of what and why concepts are important. Then
we talk about why interdisciplinary units are meaningful, what inquiry is, and what
74

meaningful inquiry looks like. Then we move to discipline and interdisciplinary unit
standards and talk about facts, topics, and concepts. We have ongoing meetings to plan
daily lessons and activities.
The other 11 teachers shared how planning units was an area of need. Teacher 3 shared,
“We need to be taught how to plan. We need support in planning units and with ongoing
reflection.” Teacher 13 discussed a specific way her team needed support in planning. “We often
jump to planning without foundations.” Teacher 11 spoke about how his team had been taught
multiple ways to plan units which lead to greater uncertainty as these two methods, backward
planning (PBL) and inquiry planning “feel like conflicting ways to plan.” There was a trend in
most conversations that when planning, teams jumped to planning activities rather than focusing
on disciplinary standards, and spent most of their time on logistics, activities, and the unit
calendar.
Flexibility. Another theme centered on needing support in how to work together as a
team when planning. Sometimes this need for flexibility when working with others is focused on
timelines. Teacher 11 brought up the fact that “flexibility is extremely important. Not everyone
or every discipline will work on your timeline.” Teacher 12 spoke to the need to step away from
the status quo. “There has to be flexibility to change and not have a tight grip on what has been
done before.” Teacher 10 brought up the issue of flexibility in lesson design. “How do you get
staff to be flexible with their lesson plans?” Teacher 8 focused on communication and the need
to get others on board while remembering and honoring that team members are pulled in many
different directions that create stress and tension. “How to communicate with team members
without stepping on toes and breaking them in order to make them fit?”
75

Including Math and PE. Including all disciplines was another common challenge
expressed in interviews. Referring primarily to math and PE. Teacher 6 brought up that “it has
been a challenge to incorporate math and PE.” From a PE perspective, it feels like they are being
asked to “serve two masters” (Teacher 14) as they work to fit what they are teaching into the
concepts of IDUs. “It feels like a struggle to make authentic connections.” Adding to that
challenge is the lack of proximity of the math and PE teachers to the rest of the core teams. math
and PE are often outside the team learning community which reduces the psychological safety to
participate, as they are not with their teammates as often as the rest of the team.
To help math fit into an IDU, they are commonly asked to incorporate statistics, which is
one of their standards, but it is a relatively minor standard. Teacher 1 said,
We're expected to cover X, Y, and Z standards, and statistics is supposed to be a small
part, but that part is growing and growing, but then you have got to take it from
somewhere. If you try to make the connections beyond statistics, I find them to be
tenuous at best.
Adding to that tension is that the WIS community places a great deal of pressure on math.
Teacher 12 mentioned, “If a kid's math scores go down because I haven’t hit all the standards I
was supposed to, parents are pissed, and I am the one who has to deal with that.” Teacher 8
stated, “because math is a step by step process. It is sometimes more difficult for us to move
topics around because I cannot move fractions behind equations necessarily without making it
more complicated for students.”
Teacher 10 feels like they can adapt if they have enough time to mold and make things fit
because math is integral to everything, but when a teacher is trying to match their PLC and their
IDU team expectations, it’s hard. “We have these demands and a course that has been developed
76

and now with a new interdisciplinary unit, it is a constraint or add-on. There are opportunities to
join if there is flexibility on all teams.” What this teacher is getting at is that it is not necessarily
the teacher that's inflexible, it can also be the PLC or IDU team that's inflexible which leads to
tensions.
Summary. How to collaboratively plan IDUs is an area of need. Not only do teams need
support in how to plan a unit, but they also need support in how to work together and be flexible
to bring their ideas to life. Math and PE departments need additional support to help them see
their units through conceptual lenses so they can fit within units and still cover the standards they
are expected to cover.
Influence 2: Teachers Need to Know the Steps in How to Manage Constructive Conflict.
While conflict is important, it is often avoided or not managed properly resulting in
prolonged and escalated conflict that becomes hostile, reducing team effectiveness and
increasing team member stress. Team members need to be able to manage and accept
constructive conflict as an essential part of team dynamics.
Interview Findings. While conflict is natural, many people avoid it even though we
know we should not. Those interviewed were able to name many sources of conflict within their
teams. Managing conflict is an area of need, as only three of the teachers interviewed had some
strategies for helping when conflict arose, and all but one teacher interviewed is conflict
avoidant.
While all faculty members interviewed were able to name sources of conflict that ranged
from different needs of team members such as different processing times, the need for direction
and decisions, the need for perfection that is based on internal or perceived external pressure
from communications, or different philosophical beliefs, all but two teachers acknowledge they
77

steer away from addressing the growing elephant in the room. Conflict occurs when people are
overwhelmed and not feeling heard, when a team member is inflexible with ideas, when there is
ineffective communication, or when expectations are not clear such as whether or not teachers
are supposed to prioritize their disciplinary standards or IDU work. When sharing about conflict
on their teams, teachers shared, “One of our biggest conflicts really came down to what we're
doing is more important than what you are doing in your classroom. So, you need to throw
everything out to do it my way” (Teacher 12). Teacher 10 said, “ our biggest conflict was last
year and was mostly because we weren't on the same page about what the expectations were.”
Conflict arises when team members do not take into account the fact that not everyone
has the same level of flexibility within their department. Conflict also arises because most
disciplines do not see all of their students every day which is a source of tension with those who
do. Teacher 1 remarked, “I'm tied to my department, we give common assessments on a common
day. I don’t have the flexibility to just change my plans, and people don’t always understand
that.” Teacher 14 stated, “there's always tension and conflict with IDU. Departments that don’t
see their students every day like ELA get frustrated when they are asked to give up their class
time for IDU.”
Another source of conflict is that not all faculty members understand or believe in the
importance of the inquiry cycle. Teacher 1 shared, “We use protocols to discuss disagreements
with the inquiry cycle and to help build buy-in. There is a tension as some teachers want a
screwed-down product and step-by-step plans.” The redesigned learning communities are also a
source of conflict. Teacher 2 said, “Learning community spaces are great for proximity, but you
become handcuffed to the philosophies of other teachers and that is a challenge when you don’t
align.”
78

With all of the conflict that is present, teachers engage in a lot of conflict avoidance.
Teacher 6 mentioned, “At times we agree to disagree, and I am wondering if protocols minimize
conflict, or reduce the ability to surface conflict. I am also wondering if we are going along to get
along.” Those interviewed acknowledged that conflict that is not handled will end up with a
blow-up. As a result of conflict avoidance, teacher 9 discussed how in some areas, there are
“simmering tensions that are holding the team back. Conflict is impacting the ability to feel
comfortable. People are non-responsive and passive-aggressive.”
Three interviewees were able to share how they try to navigate conflict on their teams.
Teacher 12 said,
When there is conflict, I try to take other people into account. We have to remember and
acknowledge the perspectives of others and broaden our view to see all those involved, so
I try to bring perspective. We have to seek to understand, not to be understood.
Teacher 6 reported that frequent communication with team members helps reduce conflict, while
Teacher 2 shared, “Trust ebbs and flows, having a third point to prompt us to think and wonder,
and not just ideate is helpful. Also keeping the conversations focused on data makes
conversations that are no longer personalized.”
As evidenced by the responses of those interviewed, teachers are conflict avoidant.
Healthy conflict needs to be normalized so that it does not grow to become unhealthy conflict.
Teacher 14 replied, “We need support in dealing with conflict. We need to know how to name
and discuss the elephant in the room.” Working on communication would also reduce conflict so
that teachers do not feel that team members are “stepping on toes and breaking them in order to
fit” (Teacher 8). When asked about how his team navigated conflict, Teacher 13 simply stated,
“We don’t. We pretend it doesn’t exist.”
79

Summary. Conflict is natural, especially in a high-stress environment where you are
collaborating with a team. Managing conflict is an area of need. In environments like that, it is
essential that team members are able to address and manage conflict. Conflict is an area of need.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Metacognitive knowledge is strategic knowledge, self-knowledge, and knowledge of
one’s cognition. Metacognitive knowledge was assessed through interviews.
Influence 1: Teachers and Teams Need to Know How to Reflect on Their Participation in
Collaborative Tasks
In order to collaborate on a team, teachers need to know how to reflect on their
participation in collaborative tasks. Regular reflection leads teachers to modify their practices to
align with the team more effectively. When team members talk about what they learn from
working together they become more effective.
Teachers interviewed at WIS say they believe in the importance of reflection, but time
was regularly mentioned as a barrier. While all those interviewed shared the belief that reflection
is important, and most teams do reflect at the end of an IDU, overall, there is not a system for
teams to reflect on their collaboration on a regular basis. Most teachers interviewed shared that
their teams reflect at the end of the unit. Teachers also stated that they know, based on how
faculty meetings are modelled, that they should reflect at the end of meetings, but feel there is
not enough time in meetings to reflect. Teacher 5 stated, “The last 12 minutes are the productive
minutes of the meeting and then the kids are coming into the room.” Comments about lacking
the time to reflect were common throughout 12 of the 14 interviews. Teacher 4 mentioned, “Our
goal as a team is to reflect more, so far we haven’t done that.” Another theme that emerged was
the need for guidance in how to reflect. Teacher 9 noted, “We reflect on the work with the unit,
80

but not on our collaboration. As a team, how do you do that?” Teacher 14 brought up the need
for reflection on action. “We don’t discuss processes, we don’t ask ourselves, how are we doing
with putting ideas on the table?”
Summary
While it is an asset that teachers say they know it is important to reflect, the need exists to
systematize reflection so that it is a part of regular routine.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
Like knowledge, motivation is assessed through interviews in an attempt to get the
clearest picture of motivation influences. Motivational causes for gaps are complex and critical
to getting our jobs done. For this study, I examined task value, self-efficacy, goals, and affect to
identify any motivational causes for gaps.
Task Value
Task value is the perceived importance or belief about why one should engage in a task.
Task value was assessed through the interviews.
Influence 1:Teachers Need to Value Collaboration and Want to Be a Part of a Team.
Since many traditionally trained teachers have not received explicit training in
interpersonal skills such as conflict management and communication, teachers need to value
what collaborative practices have to offer. Seeing value in team teaching enhances a teacher’s
learning and engagement.
Thirteen of the 14 teachers interviewed value interdisciplinary work and see the benefit
for both students and teachers for a variety of reasons ranging from real-world problem solving
to ongoing professional development. Even though IDU work creates stress, anxiety, and not all
81

disciplines feel like they fit into units, it is valued by almost all of those teachers who were
interviewed.
Benefits for Students. Teachers named multiple benefits for engaging in
interdisciplinary learning. IDUs help students transfer skills and big ideas from one content area
to the next. Teacher 12 expressed that “As teachers, we can see across subjects so that we can
make anecdotal ties across classes and can reference and build on one another to help students
see connections between disciplines.” Teachers also shared that IDU has real-world connections
and helps kids see that everything is interrelated, which makes school feel more meaningful
because they are addressing real-world issues. Several teachers interviewed felt that it just makes
more sense to teach this way since “skills don’t exist in isolation and kids need these
connections” (Teacher 13). Math teachers who were interviewed shared that, at times, IDU gives
more meaning to math because it gives an authentic purpose so that students were not just doing
math for the sake of math. Several teachers also noted that another benefit to students is that
when teachers collaborate it models collaboration for students, a skill that students are expected
to demonstrate.
Benefits for Teachers. Some would argue that collaboration on an interdisciplinary team
is the best coaching model, and is seen as ongoing professional development. “You are always
learning from each other, and you learn to think outside your lane” (Teacher 7). Teacher 14
explained, “Teachers get different ideas and perspectives, it helps create forgiveness, and leads to
better student products.” Said another way by Teacher 11, “This work sharpens our sword by
making us see other perspectives and ways of doing things.” Those interviewed saw
interdisciplinary collaboration as a way for teachers to refine their thinking by regularly sharing
with others what they are doing and how they are doing it.
82

Teachers also spoke about the excitement for IDU outweighs the trepidation that comes
with the amount of work these units entail. Excitement came from designing curriculum to
making connections across subjects. Some spoke about being energized by all the possibilities
and cool topics. Another important aspect of interdisciplinary teams is the support network that
is created. Planning and implementing IDUs is hard, time-consuming work that comes with
stress. Teacher 13 commented, “Everyone falls apart at different times and there are others there
to pick you up.”
While IDUs are valued, some disciplines feel their connection to the interdisciplinary
concepts is tenuous. Teacher 1 stated, “I have mixed feelings about IDU. Math and PE feel
tacked on at times, and the connection may be forced. There is also a conflict with being able to
cover all our standards.”
Summary
Thirteen teachers interviewed value interdisciplinary work and see the benefit for both
students and teachers that range from real-world problem solving to professional development.
As such, this area is seen as an asset. Even though IDU work creates stress, anxiety, and not all
disciplines feel like they fit into units, it is valued by those teachers who were interviewed.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to one’s beliefs about their ability to produce the desired effect and
determine how people think, feel, and motivate themselves. When one has positive expectations
for success, motivation, learning, and performance are enhanced. Self-efficacy was assessed
through interviews.
83

Influence 1: Teachers Have Confidence in Their Contributions to the Team and in Their
Team.
The attitudes of teachers toward collaboration as well as their experience and confidence
in contributing to a team are essential characteristics that impact collaboration. Data from
interviews suggests while teachers value IDUs, only a few feel that you get better at them by
doing them. Many believe they will feel more successful engaging in interdisciplinary work if
they had clarity and more professional development opportunities to understand how to fit all
their standards into the year while adding something to their work. Unit timing and concepts
were also themes related to teacher confidence in the successful implementation of IDUs.
Teacher 1 explained, “Your confidence in doing IDU grows from doing IDU. It won’t be
perfect and that is okay,” and Teacher 12 feels “excited because of the value-added when kids
have a chance to take the learning they are doing elsewhere and connect it with their learning in
math.” Overall, based on interviews with teachers, there are needs related to self-efficacy to
address.
Clarity. Several teachers expressed concerns regarding not being able to cover all the
standards they are meant to within a school year. Teacher 11 specified, “I am worried if I am
covering what they’ll need for next year and beyond to set them up for success, or am I just
giving them cool experiences that may disadvantage them down the road?” The lack of clarity is
leading teachers to feel pulled in different directions between their department PLC and their
IDU team, thus making them feel they are not contributing fully to both commitments.
Ambiguity is also a factor when planning a unit with six other teachers. Anecdotally, some
teachers seem to be more comfortable with ambiguity than others.
84

Seven teachers expressed that in order to feel more successful in this work, they needed
help to understand the what, why, and how of IDU. Teacher 5 indicated that “I think it goes back
to just wanting to know what we're building towards and not knowing.”
Units. Five teachers expressed concerns regarding a unit they believe lacks clarity and
feels scattered, leading some in the grade level to wonder if it is the right unit. Similarly,
questions were raised regarding when and how topics and concepts change? They were all
seeking clarity around who drives that change, while also expressing the need for a system for
choosing concepts and making modifications since not all units are expansive.
The timing of units was also a factor that was consistently named as a factor that leads
teachers to question their confidence in collaborating across disciplines. Teacher 4 expressed that
The one thing I think is so hard is that it's the first unit. We've got new teachers and
students who are still trying to figure out where the bathroom is and learn the schedule
and then you throw in an IDU. If it was the second unit of the year that would give
everybody some planning time in advance. It would kind of let us get to know the kids.
Summary
It is an asset that teachers value interdisciplinary collaboration, and that value will help
address the needs of clarity, professional development, and unit timing and concepts that are
impacting self-efficacy.
Goals
Individuals are motivated and guided by clear and challenging goals. Attaining a goal that
one has been pursuing increases self-efficacy. This indicator was assessed through interviews.
85

Influence 1: Teachers Have Clear Goals for Their Collaboration.
Clear goals help team members know where they are going, what they need to be
prepared to do and allow them to reflect on their performance. Based on interview data, teachers
do not feel the organization has provided clear goals for IDUs, and therefore it feels like an add-
on. The lack of clarity also leads to tension and conflict between PLCs and IDU teams.
It is an asset that teachers value interdisciplinary collaboration. However, based on
interview data, teachers do not feel the organization has clear goals for interdisciplinary
collaboration, and because of the lack of clarity, IDUs feel like an add-on to what teachers are
expected to do. As the organization does not have clear goals, neither do the teachers. Teacher 9
commented, “IDU feels like an add-on and an additional stressor, It takes away from what I was
going to do. How do I do both? How can we do it all?”
When asked about the organization’s goals for IDU, responses were vague. Some said
IDU was meant to make students’ lives easier, others said that the goal isn’t stated. Teacher 3
stated “it’s just an expectation that if you teach Grade 6 you do this work.” Teacher 8 bluntly
commented, “I don't know. So, therefore, the goals are not clear.” Teacher 6 shared that the value
of IDU is shared externally, on the website and blog posts, but not internally communicated to
faculty once you're here. “It's not clear, and there's a wondering about if the goal is to eventually
move towards a full year of interdisciplinary learning? Is that where we're going? I know it's
valued, but I don't know concrete goals.” That same message repeated throughout interviews.
The goals and success criteria are not clear. Teacher 14 remarked, “What is the success criteria?”
Neither is the expectation as to what comes first as a priority, disciplinary standards or IDU?
Teacher 9 asked, “What are the expectations with standards, what takes priority, standards or
IDU?” The uncertainty this creates for teachers and teams, and particularly for those teachers
86

who are also members of a lock-step PLC, creates tension that leads to conflict. Teacher 11
noted, “Conflict occurs when people are not on the same page with the expectations.” As there is
no clarity, Teacher 4 remarked, “Currently, IDU is a buzzword. We need to develop units that
are built on natural connections.”
Summary
Teachers at WIS do not feel they have clear goals for interdisciplinary collaboration, and
therefore it feels like an add-on that leads to tension and conflict between PLCs and IDU teams,
and is therefore a need. As clear goals are essential, this influence is a need.
Affect
Affect impacts whether one thinks pessimistically or optimistically, which impacts goals,
aspirations, motivation, and performance. Open-ended interview questions were used to assess
this indicator.
Influence 1: Teachers Need to Feel Positive About Working With Others to Attain a Team
Goal.
When team members have positive beliefs about the team’s capabilities, they are more
successful. Positive feelings about working with others comes in part from a shared and strong
commitment to getting the jobs done in a distributed way.
Based on interview data, feelings related to upcoming IDUs are mixed. Thirteen of the 14
teachers interviewed look forward to the possibilities these units bring, and four appreciate the
sense of team that comes with collaboration. Eleven of the teachers interviewed spoke about the
anxiety they experience when they know an IDU is approaching.
Anxiety around IDUs appears to come from the amount of time and energy it takes to
plan units, and the pace required to engage in collaboration. Teacher 13 lamented,
87

It’s exhausting. There is so much prep, you always take home more work at night, you’re
spending more time with adults, how do I take care of myself during these units while
also trying to get everyone on the same page?
Teacher 8 remarked that, “Collaboration should minimize workload, instead, it leads to burnout.”
Other teachers spoke about the time and energy that is spent on planning the launch, which is
only the first day of the unit, and wondered how to keep the excitement and momentum through
the whole unit without burning out?
Anxiety also comes from the interpersonal conflict that is present in some teams. Teacher
7 remarked, “I get anxious and fearful when an IDU unit is approaching. I am always worried
someone will be offended.” Some of this anxiety arises from different collaboration styles and
needs. Teacher 12 spoke about how overwhelming it can feel when ideators start to rally, while
others shared how there are times they disengage when feeling bullied or pushed in a direction
by the loudest voice. Tensions between department PLC and IDU are an additional source of
anxiety as IDUs are approaching. Teacher 4 explained, “Depending on your department, you
really feel pulled in two directions. Do I follow my department PLC or my IDU team?” This was
a question echoed by most interviewees.
COVID-19 and the restrictions that go with COVID-19 have also taken an emotional toll
that has impacted the excitement teachers once felt. Teacher 13 wondered, “How do we get
excited about this when no one is excited? COVID-19 has taken such an emotional toll.”
Summary
Based on interview data, feelings related to upcoming IDUs are mixed. Some look
forward to the possibilities these units bring. Others appreciate the sense of team that comes with
collaboration. But for many teachers, there is also a lot of anxiety when teachers know an IDU is
88

approaching. As such, this is an area of need. Anxiety coupled with COVID-19 fatigue has
definitely taken its toll.
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
The final barrier to desired organizational performance is the organization itself. Like
knowledge and motivation, organizational influences were assessed through multiple means to
triangulate data and get the clearest picture of organizational influences. When knowledge and
motivational indicators can be ruled out, organizational barriers are the cause. Alternatively,
organizational barriers may cause a gap in knowledge or motivation. Document analysis, in
addition to interviews, was helpful to assess organizational influences. For the purpose of this
study, I examined cultural models, cultural settings, and resources.
Cultural Models
Cultural models are engrained and invisible values that create a lens through which
experiences are collectively interpreted. Cultural models are tied to an organization’s mission.
Cultural models were assessed through interviews.
Influence 1: The School Provides a Culture That Supports Taking Risks and Learning From
Mistakes.
The deprivatization of one’s teaching practice involves a level of risk so there needs to be
psychological safety to engage in interdisciplinary collaboration. After analyzing interviews,
there were mixed feelings from teachers regarding the willingness or the safety to take risks and
make mistakes. While some felt that there is safety in numbers, others shared that they were not
convinced that WIS is a safe place to take risks for a variety of reasons ranging from fear of
being unfairly criticized by classroom visitations to fear of changing the way you have always
shown up as a teacher.
89

There were a variety of factors shared as to why teachers did not feel they were able to
take risks. Two teachers interviewed felt that their team is too comfortable being told what to do,
so prefer to not take risks, “my team is really comfortable being told what to do. They're not
interested in taking risks (Teacher 7). Another teacher mentioned the new PLC coach initiative
and Office of Learning drop-ins reduce a willingness to take risks for fear of being unfairly
criticized. Teacher 9 remarked, “The new coaching framework from the Office of Learning is not
conducive to having us take risks. You're constantly getting feedback but no ability to talk about
the context” A third teacher (Teacher 13) named the tensions created when you are tied to
timelines of other teams as a barrier for taking risks.
It is really frustrating when you are tied to what another side wants to do. It gets in the
way of you taking risks and trying new things. Even something as simple as having
parents in, or going on field trips. If another side doesn’t want to, you can’t.
A theme that emerged from interviews was the competitive nature of WIS and elements
of status quo, gender and race issues, and teachers who are resistant to IDU. The competitive
nature of the school creates an environment where teachers lack the psychological safety needed
to take risks. Teacher 12 specified, “I know the school always has the message that they want us
to take risks. I don't necessarily always believe that. I want to, but does the school really have my
back if a parent gets upset?” Adding on to the fear of parents, some teachers shared their views
of the impact our COVID-19 regulations and meeting architecture impact on the psychological
safety of teachers. Teacher 14 remarked, “Our meeting architecture does not allow us to make
eye contact with one another, or see body language. Teachers don’t want to appear naive, and do
not know how to have vulnerable conversations.”
90

Another theme that emerged impacting the willingness of teachers to take risks focused
on WIS Communications and the feeling that they only show the positive, aspirational side of the
work, not the dynamic nature of learning. This leads people to doubt themselves when their
experiences don’t match the image that is produced. Even the messaging from middle school
administration about having a “Gold Medal Year” was mentioned as a way the school presents
this image of itself and only shows the really positive, aspirational things, not an actual dynamic
view of the organization. The size of units was another factor that feeds a fear of making
mistakes. When units are ten weeks there is a need to be flashy because it is going to be in the
publication. Teacher 5 commented, “We want it to look like it was worth 10 weeks of everybody
working together. That's for the families, for the school, for the admin, but also for ourselves.”
Connected, is the feeling that there is a really wide gap between aspirations and reality.
This puts a lot of pressure on students and teachers. Despite the narrative, WIS is a traditional
organization with the teacher still holding control and power in assessment and pedagogy.
Teacher 9 remarked, “We were sold a different school. What do we really value as a school?” In
many classrooms, everything has to run through the teacher; there is little to no transfer of
ownership and power to students. There also seems to be an overreliance on assessment and
feeling like you need traditional summative data in the grade book. Teacher 4 reflected, “All
these pressures make the idea of an interdisciplinary unit potentially scary when you haven't
made some of those important shifts towards standards-based teaching, inquiry, getting out of the
way, and allowing students to do the heavy lifting.”
Summary
From the interviews, one can glean that there were mixed feelings from teachers
regarding the willingness or the safety to take risks and make mistakes. While some felt that
91

there is safety, others shared that they were not convinced that WIS is a safe place to take risks
for a variety of reasons ranging from fear of being unfairly criticized by classroom visitations to
resistance to changing the way one runs their classroom. This is an area of need as more than
eight teachers expressed concerns around this influence.
Cultural Settings
Cultural settings are times when people come together to engage in something they
collectively value. For this study, the cultural setting is assessed through interviews.
Influence 1: The School Provides a Supportive Group Atmosphere With Ongoing
Administrative and Coach Support.
Teachers need a cohesive and supportive atmosphere. Leaders can facilitate the creation
of this environment by setting expectations for formal and frequent teacher collaboration.
Teachers need support throughout the teaming process, from team formation and establishment
to maintenance, even when teamwork is strong.
Based on interviews with teachers, there are many administrative assets that help faculty
feel supported by the responsive nature of their administration from the creation of frameworks
to allow for greater autonomy to shuffling team members to balance gender and personalities,
and finding additional time to provide teams to plan together. Even with the responsive nature of
the WIS administration, there are some areas of need around providing clarity and reducing the
gap between the current state and the desired state.
Throughout the interviews, faculty at WIS feel their administration is responsive to the
needs of teachers and teams. The development of IDUs has been an iterative process based on
the feedback from teachers to administration and instructional coaches. At the beginning of IDU
work, all three Grade 6 teams, 21teachers, tried to plan a unit together. This proved to be a
92

challenge, so autonomy via a “Tight-Loose” framework was designed. Using the “Tight-Loose”
Framework, teams are tied to using the same disciplinary standards and the same assessment
tool. All other components of the unit are up to individual teams to plan and implement.
Autonomy across teams led to a lack of clarity for some faculty members. Teacher 9 remarked,
“It is great that there is autonomy across sides, yet where is the calibration of experiences across
sides as students are getting very different experiences. Are they all equal and how do we
know?”
Another theme that showed the responsiveness of the administration is the work they
have been doing to balance teams over the last few years with intentional hiring and thoughtful
in matching team members. Teacher 7 described that
Administration is really working to balance teams. When there was a team that was
predominantly male. I felt like there were some gender dynamics going on. It feels like
that is really something they are trying to fix and avoid in the future.
That said, several teachers expressed the importance of having existing team members on the
interview committees. Teacher 13 contended, “I think it all comes down to trust and you can't
manufacture that. There's an assumption that trust could be there immediately, and that only can
happen through experience.” Teacher 2 had a similar sentiment,
Being part of the hiring process can help that trust along a little bit because you have a
voice and a stake in who that person is that you hired, you want to see their success. You
already have an investment.
Administration has also been responsive when it comes to finding additional time for
teams to plan together. Teacher 7 shared that pull-out time to work with teams has been really
93

helpful since “the confines of the 20 to 30-minute meeting that you have, that's when the
decisions are made, but it doesn’t leave a lot of time for ideating, discussing, and collaborating.”
While there are many assets to the WIS administration team, there were also themes
related to needs that arose from interviews with teachers. Needs-related themes involve questions
about providing clarity, the ability of team members to opt-out of an IDU, and reducing the gap
between the current state and the desired state.
Clarity. As addressed in the “Goals” section, there is a desire for clarity around the what,
why, and how of IDUs. Those themes continued to emerge as an organizational need. Teacher 10
mentioned that “there needs to be clarity from our administrations. The lack of clarity results in
tensions in departments when some grade levels do not hit all the standards they have been
assigned because of IDU.” All teachers interviewed brought up the fact that some departments
and PLCs are very lockstep which creates tension and conflict. When teachers have sought
clarity around what is tight and loose, the message has differed depending on which
administrator was approached. Teacher 2 noted,
Adding to the confusion, there are degrees of disagreement even amongst the leadership
team of how tight things need in terms of disciplines assessing standards at roughly the
same time because then they're PLCs, they have to be able to actually look at those
standards.
Thirteen of the fourteen teachers interviewed reiterated the need for clear parameters, goals,
success criteria, guiding principles, and seeing good examples of this work in action.
Ability to Opt-In/Out. In an early attempt to ease teams into IDUs, administration and
coaches introduced “Spiciness Levels,” which were meant to allow some teachers or disciplines
to opt-out of participating in IDUs. While the intention of this sounds like it was meant to ease
94

tensions, it appears to have done the opposite. Teacher 10 remarked, “On one hand, I appreciate
the spiciness levels, however, it makes it unclear what the actual expectations are.” Other
teachers, when sharing their experiences with “Spiciness Levels” discussed how they not only
added to conflict on teams but that it was not actually an option to opt-out. Teacher 5 stated, “
Everyone would be horrified if I said, I'm not going to do it this year. I don't even know how
school would work if that happened.” When team members did state they were opting out,
tensions and resentment festered.
Espoused Values Versus Reality. Teachers interviewed who have been at WIS for 5
years or less shared the feeling that “We were sold a different school” (Teacher 9), and asked the
question, “What do we really value as a school?” When asked to elaborate on how they were
sold a different school, teachers talked about the traditional structures that are in place in the
school such as lockstep disciplines and PLCs. For example, math is doing the same lesson on the
same day across all sides leading up to the exact same test that they're all taking. Teacher 2
observed, “this makes it really difficult for any subject following that model to re-imagine or
recreate or reconstruct those in a collaborative fashion with that kind of horizontal
interdisciplinary team because they're just pulled in too many directions.”
Teachers also shared the need to rethink what assessment looks like. Teacher 9 stated, “It
doesn’t always need to be that formations lead to a summative. This is very traditional thinking.”
Along those same lines is the push for assessment to be authentic. Teacher 8 remarked, “The
more focus on evaluation we put on something the less authentic it will actually be, but it has
been hard to get team members to recognize that there's value in not assessing everything.”
95

Summary
Interviews showed there are many administrative assets that help faculty feel supported
by the responsive nature of their administration and instructional coaches. There are areas of
need around providing clarity, the option to opt-out of an IDU, and reducing the gap between the
current state and the desired state.
Resources
To be a culture of learners, resources such as time, energy, and money must support
learning experiences. A learning culture must value reflection, experimentation, and learning
resources. Resources to be assessed in this study includes time for ongoing and embedded
professional development that supports interdisciplinary collaboration and was assessed through
interviews and organizational document analysis.
Influence 1: Teachers Have Ongoing Professional Development.
Teams need to engage in shared professional development on interpersonal
communication, effective meeting strategies, group decision-making skills, interdisciplinary and
instructional planning, goal setting, and evaluation. Professional development to support conflict
management is also critical. When conflict is managed, team function is improved, whereas if
there is continuous conflict, team performance is hindered.
Interview Findings. From interviews with teachers, there is one asset relating to
resources that stands out. The instructional coaches are seen as invaluable to supporting
interdisciplinary collaboration. There are several professional development needs that emerged
from interviews. Teachers named support with ongoing conversations about pedagogical beliefs
and collaboration styles, how to engage in healthy conflict, understanding the what, why, and
how of planning inquiry units, how to lead teams, and how to refine assessment practices.
96

Coaches. Almost all interviewees spoke about the importance of the instructional coaches
in preparing their teams for interdisciplinary collaboration, and credit them for the ongoing
support. The widespread belief is that the coaches support and help build confidence to lead.
Teacher 4 noted that “ the coaches are just the secret sauce of our school. They bring ideas to life
and make them happen. They're good critical friends. They're good cheerleaders. They wear
whatever hat is necessary.” Other teachers mentioned that the coaches steer direction, help de-
escalate emotions, act as a neutral voice, support the IDU leaders, facilitate discussion as needed,
provide responsive support based on the needs of individuals and teams, and support IDU
development. Teacher 13 reflected, “We would not be able to do this work without the support of
the instructional coaches doing the heavy lifting.”
While there is support in place, there are still areas where support is needed. Helping
teams share pedagogical beliefs and collaboration styles, learning how to manage conflict,
growing understanding of how to plan IDUs, and what it means to engage in inquiry, as well as
developing our teacher leaders are the themes that rose to the top from interviews.
Pedagogical Beliefs and Collaboration Styles. As teams were preparing to move into
interdisciplinary learning communities, instructional coaches facilitated activities and
discussions about pedagogical beliefs and collaboration styles. None of the teachers interviewed
have continued those conversations throughout the years, even when new teachers have joined
the teams. As much of this work occurred once and not in an ongoing way, it is possible that it
has not been seen as something that needs to be revisited throughout the school year. Teacher 1
remarked, “We do not have discussions about underlying philosophies, and I can see how that
results in some of the conflict we experience.”
97

As stated earlier, only one person interviewed feels comfortable navigating difficult
conversations and conflict, and the majority of those interviewed expressed that this was an area
for professional learning. Teacher 11 reflected, “We need support in dealing with conflict. We
don’t address things until it is a problem.” Likewise, teachers asked for support in how to plan
IDUs. Teacher 10 noted, “We need structured plan time where we know what decisions need to
be made, when and where to collaborate versus working alone, and to map out the bones of the
unit.”
Inquiry. Teachers also expressed that teams are missing the deeper why in how this work
is important. Teacher 1 named that “We need to revisit the inquiry process rather than
perpetuating unempowered student work.” Twelve of the teachers interviewed shared that a
crash course in the what, why, how, of IDU, and to get training to understand the overall
thinking and evidence that supports IDU would be helpful in moving their implementation
forward. Without that additional support, “It feels like we are winging it” (Teacher 9).
Leadership. A final need that arose from interviews is the need to build capacity for
teacher leaders. It can be a challenge to get teachers to be Interdisciplinary Team Leaders and
that might be because the capacity for this type of leadership has not been built. Teacher 4
expressed that “I don't know how to lead this work. The school needs to build capacity for
teacher leaders.” While others referenced how challenging it is to have a team member take on
the role of IDU leader. Teacher 7 stated, “No one wants to take on that role because they don’t
know how to do it.” Similarly, some teachers mentioned the need to refresh training in leading
effective meetings. Teacher 8 remarked, “We can have more training on how to conduct a more
effective meeting. Everyone can use that reminder and frequent training on how to run an
effective meeting.”
98

Assessment Practices. Teachers expressed a need to revisit assessment practices as a
school in order to develop a common understanding. Teacher 6 asked, “How can I effectively
assess students in a different way and effectively? If not with a test, what would that look like?
And how would that be graded?” While Teacher 8 felt that with his current assessment practices
“to make the IDU work, you're creating two assessments so we need help to see how we can be
more streamlined.”
Document Analysis. While analyzing organizational documents for resources related to
professional development in interdisciplinary learning communities, it is clear that many
supports have been ongoing since the 2017–2018 school year, and that administration has been
responsive to the feedback from teachers, students, and parents. In the document, “Flexible
Learning Environments: Reflections, Adjustments, and Gathering Evidence Thus Far,” responses
to feedback are summarized. Coaches and administration were embedded with teams to support
curricular change, additional professional development was offered to frontload the move into an
FLE (Flexible Learning Environment), teachers were provided with extra professional
development days to work together on curriculum development, and structures were put in place
to support team dynamics.
During to 2019–2020 school year, Grade 6 had three sessions with instructional coaches
in September, November, and December. The first session focused on tight and loose team
expectations, predictable dynamics: the four tensions of working groups, and thinking about the
first unit’s concept and enduring understanding. The second session looked at perception data
from teachers, students, and parents upon completion of the first IDU. This data shows that the
students enjoyed the first unit, and felt that they learned a lot about identity. Parents shared
feedback on the final exhibition, and teachers reflected on what they would keep, tweak, and toss
99

for the next iteration of that unit. The third session, based on the slide deck, was a quick logistics
meeting for quarter four. During the 2020–21 school year, there was one professional
development session which focused on generating ideas for the first IDU of the year.
According to the side decks from December 10, 2021, January 19, 2022, instructional
coaches began designing professional development sessions for Grade 6 and Grade 7 teams that
focused on designing concept-based inquiry units using understanding by design (UBD).
Instructional coaches also created several resources such as the document “Suggested IDU
Planning Steps” and a website of concept-based inquiry resources to support teams in planning
their interdisciplinary units.
Summary
From interviews, one resource asset stands out. The instructional coaches are seen as
invaluable to supporting interdisciplinary collaboration. Several professional development needs
emerged from interviews ranging from support with ongoing conversations about pedagogical
beliefs and collaboration styles, how to engage in healthy conflict, understanding the what, why,
and how of planning inquiry units, how to lead teams, and how to refine assessment practices.
Based on document analysis, the professional development over the last three years has been a
shallow dive into how to plan IDUs and has not contained any learning about how to develop
and maintain teams. Comparing data from document analysis with data from interviews, teams
need more support in using UBD and concept-based inquiry to plan their units. Teams need
support in assessment practices, conflict management, and other team building skills, as there
was no evidence of these topics in the professional development resources I analyzed.
100

Summary of Influences
Table 8, 9, and 10 show the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences for this
study and their determination as an asset or a need.

Table 8
Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed knowledge influences Asset or
need
Declarative conceptual
Teachers need to know how to develop and maintain personal and
professional relationships.

Teachers need to know and be able to discuss their personal pedagogical
beliefs.

Asset

Need
Procedural
Teachers need to know how to tackle tasks, team, and relationship processes
simultaneously.

Need

Teachers need to know the steps in how to manage constructive conflict. Need
Metacognitive
Teachers need to know how to reflect on their participation in collaborative
tasks.

Need

101

Table 9
Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed motivation influences Asset or need
Task value
Teachers need to value collaboration and want to be a part of a team.

Asset
Self-efficacy
Teachers have confidence in their contributions to the team and in their team.

Need
Goals
Teachers have clear goals for their collaboration.

Need
Affect
Teachers need to feel positive about working with others to attain a team goal.

Need

Table 10
Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed organizational influences Asset or
need
Cultural setting
The school provides a supportive group atmosphere with ongoing
administrative support.

Need
Cultural models
The school provides a culture that supports taking risks and learning from
mistakes.

Need
Resources
Teachers have ongoing professional development.

Need

102

This chapter included an analysis of the knowledge, motivational, and organizational
assumed influences. Chapter Five will identify the recommended knowledge, motivational, and
organizational recommendations WIS might implement to effectively engage in interdisciplinary
collaboration.

103

Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of this qualitative study was to conduct a gap analysis based on Clark and
Estes (2008) to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that facilitate
and interfere with middle school content area teachers engaging in collaboration to design and
deliver IDUs. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that performance gaps can be understood, and
solutions proposed based on the careful analysis of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
root causes. In this study, the Clark and Estes framework was adapted as a promising practice
study to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influence the
organization’s goal.
The analysis began by generating a list of possible or assumed interfering influences that
were examined systematically to focus on actual interfering influences. While a complete gap
analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholders in this analysis
are the core teachers on ITTs.
The questions that guided the gap analysis study addressing knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organization causes and solutions for this study are as follows:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that interfere with
the Grade 6 and 7 content area teachers engaging in collegial collaboration to design
and deliver IDUs?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivational, and organizational solutions?
Recommendations to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
This section consists of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Each part
contains a brief overview, including a rationale for prioritizing the causes, a table with the
104

causes, and the priority to achieve the performance results. Following Table 11 is a detailed
discussion for each high priority cause, the principle, the solution, and literature-based evidence.
Knowledge Recommendations
In this study, knowledge was assessed through interviews to get a clear picture of its
influences. Declarative conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive
knowledge were examined. For declarative conceptual knowledge, two influences were
examined. Influence one, that teachers need to know how to develop and maintain personal and
professional relationships, is an asset based in interview data. Influence two, that teachers need
to know and discuss their personal pedagogical beliefs and collaboration needs is a
recommended area of need. Procedural knowledge also contained two influences for evaluation.
Influence one, that teachers need to know how to tackle tasks, team, and relationship processes
simultaneously is a recommended area of need. Influence two, that teachers need to know how to
manage constructive conflict is a recommended area of need. Metacognitive knowledge was the
third knowledge influence evaluated and contained one influence. Teachers need to know how to
reflect on their participation in collaborative tasks, which is a recommended area of need.
Table 11 lists the causes, priorities, principles, and recommendations. Following the table
is a detailed discussion for each high priority cause and recommendation, and the literature
supporting the recommendation is provided.

105

Table 11
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
knowledge
influence
Asset or
need
Priority

Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
Conceptual
Teachers need to
know how to
develop and
maintain
personal and
professional
relationships.

Asset,
but an
ongoing
need

High

How individuals organize
knowledge influences
how they learn and
apply what they know
(Schraw & McCrudden,
2006).
The use of metacognitive
strategies facilitates
learning (Baker, 2006).

Revise team building
professional
development

Develop a scope and
sequence for team
activities before,
during, and after
interdisciplinary
work
Differentiate support
based on team
needs

Teachers need to
know and be
able to discuss
their personal
pedagogical
beliefs.
Need High Modeling to-be-learned
strategies or behaviors
improves self-efficacy,
learning, and
performance (Denler et
al., 2006).
Develop activities
for teams to
develop an
awareness of their
team members’
beliefs

Procedural

Teachers need to
know how to
simultaneously
tackle tasks,
team, and
relationship
processes.

Need High Modeling to-be-learned
strategies or behaviors
improve self-efficacy,
learning, and
performance (Denler et
al., 2006).

Continued practice
promotes automaticity
and takes less capacity
in working memory
(Schraw & McCrudden,
2006).

Adopt the UBD
(Wiggins &
McTighe, 2008)
framework for how
to plan, train PLC
and IDU leads as
well as faculty
Help teams develop
a clear meeting
structure (i.e.,
every fourth
meeting is a long
term planning
meeting) with
norms and
expectations that
106

Assumed
knowledge
influence
Asset or
need
Priority

Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
are reflected on
monthly
Develop clarity
around decision-
making
Encourage constant
communication and
rotation of meeting
locations to
deprivatize practice
Build an
understanding of
the inquiry process
Build an
understanding of
assessment
practices
Build understanding
of concept-based
inquiry to include
all disciplines
(especially math
and PE)

Teachers need to
know how to
manage
constructive
conflict.
Need High Modeling to-be-learned
strategies or behaviors
improves self-efficacy,
learning, and
performance (Denler et
al., 2006).
Continued practice
promotes automaticity
and takes less capacity
in working memory
(Schraw & McCrudden,
2006).
The use of metacognitive
strategies facilitates
learning (Baker, 2006).
Professional
development to
build awareness of
giving and
receiving feedback

Build understanding
of the importance
of conflict and
cognitive
differences and
ways of knowing
Build understanding
of how to navigate
conflict when it
appears
Metacognitive
Teachers need to
know how to
reflect on their

Need

Medium

Learning and motivation
are enhanced when
learners set goals,

Professional
development on the
importance of
107

Assumed
knowledge
influence
Asset or
need
Priority

Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
participation in
collaborative
tasks.
monitor their
performance, and
evaluate their progress
toward achieving those
goals (Mayer, 2011).
Modeling to-be-learned
strategies or behaviors
improve self-efficacy,
learning, and
performance (Denler et
al., 2006).
Continued practice
promotes automaticity
and takes less capacity
in working memory
(Schraw & McCrudden,
2006).

reflection is
periodically
revisited
throughout the
school year.
Middle school
leadership
(administration and
instructional
coaches) will model
reflection and be
transparent in using
reflection to modify
behavior and
practices.
Practice is needed to
make a new skill a
habit.
Reflection will be
built into meeting
structures.

Conceptual Knowledge Solutions
All knowledge causes are a high priority. However, teams that do not have relationships
built on trust and understanding as people and teachers who cannot productively engage in
collaborative planning and conflict will not be healthy. Therefore, influence one, that teachers
need to know how to develop and maintain personal and professional relationships, is the highest
area of need, even though it was assessed to be an asset in Chapter 4. This is because there will
be 18 new teachers joining the WIS middle school next year, and team members are being
shuffled to new teams. This influence is a critical element to collaboration. I will also argue that
the five knowledge influences are so interconnected and essential that they must be supported in
108

a systematic and embedded fashion that is responsive to the needs of individual teams. The
principles selected for this influence are how individuals organize knowledge influences, how
they learn, and how they apply what they know (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006), and the use of
metacognitive strategies that facilitate learning (Baker, 2006). I chose these three principles
because reducing the cognitive load for learners is a sound practice, especially when many of the
learners are new to the organization and taking in so much all at once. How individuals then
organize the information will impact how it is used, if at all, and metacognitive practices are
essential to take learning and apply it into a new and novel context.
To address this within the organization I recommend the middle school leadership team,
consisting of administration and instructional coaches, revise the team-building professional
development plan so that it is a year-long, monthly scope and sequence that contains learning
around building a team identity (Crow & Pounder, 2000), the importance of trust, the need for
psychological safety and safety in team learning (Edmondson, 1999, 2004; Frazier et al., 2017;
Hackett et al., 2021), building and maintaining interpersonal trust (Bryk and Schneider, 2002),
understanding different ways of knowing (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2018), the
impact of trust violations (Fraser et al., 2010), building emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995),
discussing beliefs (Zimmerman et al. 2020), how to make decisions (Aguilar, 2016; Garmston &
Wellman, 2016), and phases of group development (Tuckman, 1965).
It is important to build in time for teams to develop their team identity (Crow & Pounder,
2000) as strong interpersonal relationships are essential in order to develop strong professional
relationships (Main, 2012). Developing trusting relationships built on a shared history and open
communication enables collaboration (Main, 2012). Taking the time to build team identity will
109

increase the psychological safety needed to take risks (Aguilar, 2016; Hackett et al., 2021, Main,
2012).
Team members should be aware of the need for psychological safety, as it is a key feature
of adults working together (Edmondson, 1999, 2004; Hackett et al., 2021). In teamwork, this
means a shared belief that the environment is a safe one in which to take risks. This can refer to
tasks as simple as asking questions, seeking feedback, proposing a new idea, and discussing
problems and concerns. In the work WIS is engaging in with interdisciplinary teams, the
outcome is unknown, and success is not guaranteed. As such, a culture of experimentation,
supportive relationships, and psychological safety are critical to interdisciplinary teaming’s
success (Hackett et al., 2021).
Professional development does not only need to occur before teams are formed. Teams
need ongoing and embedded professional development in order to meet their potential
(Hargreaves, 2001). Crow and Pounder (2000) recommend that after two years of working
together, teams need professional development about interpersonal process issues regarding
coordination and communication and curricular coordination. Main (2012) reported that the most
critical factor in a teacher’s capacity to work with others on a team was professional learning that
focused explicitly on developing teamwork and interpersonal skills. Professional learning
opportunities to build teamwork skills that explicitly teach the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of effective
team practices are essential. Teams need training on task implementation and relationship
processes. Hargreaves (2001) adds to the argument for professional development that shared
learning continues to build team identity and social identity. Havnes (2009) adds that
professional development as a team facilitates the development of team-talk and ‘we-ness.’ We
cannot expect teamwork to be implemented and flawless after a single professional development
110

session at the beginning of the school year. It has to be embedded throughout the entire year, and
continue in years to come.
Built into the scope and sequence for developing and maintaining interpersonal trust are
discussions about educational beliefs and values. This connects to influence number two,
teachers need to know and be able to discuss their personal pedagogical beliefs. These values and
beliefs drive decisions, actions, and perceptions. Teams are comprised of professionals from
diverse backgrounds and experiences. Destructive conflict emerges when differences are seen to
be discordant, but when teams have taken the time to share their beliefs and values, team
members better understand one another (Achinstein, 2002; Phillips, 2014; Zimmerman et al.,
2020).
Along with monthly whole faculty meetings that contain elements of team building, I am
recommending the development of a community of practice for the IDU leaders. A community
of practice is a group of individuals who engage in collective learning around a shared concern
or passion (Wenger, 2009). IDU leaders will meet once a month to discuss problems of practice,
share out implementation successes, and learn from and support each other. I recommend that
half of these monthly meetings are spent sharing and learning from one another and the other
half is engaging in new learning together. A scope and sequence for these monthly meetings
must be established by the leadership team but should start with building leader identities since
our identities as leaders impact how we show up and facilitate meetings. This would include
building the emotional intelligence of IDU leaders (Aguilar, 2016).
In addition to the monthly meetings, I am recommending that each of the IDU leaders
engage in a leadership coaching cycle with one of the instructional coaches in order to have
responsive support. Coaches would help IDU leaders analyze the current reality of their teams,
111

set goals together, identify strategies to meet goals, and provide support in order to meet the
stated goals (Knight, 2018).
Procedural Knowledge Solutions
For procedural knowledge, there were two influences that are of equal importance. One,
teachers need to know how to tackle tasks, team, and relationship processes simultaneously.
Two, teachers need to know how to manage constructive conflict. Both of these influences are
absolutely essential and interconnected. If teams cannot manage conflict, they cannot work
together to effectively plan and implement an IDU. Likewise, teams will not be able to
collaboratively plan and implement a unit if they are not able to navigate conflict.
At the heart of the first influence is the ability of teams to collaboratively plan IDUs. For
this influence, modeling to-be-learned strategies improve self-efficacy, learning, and
performance (Denler et al., 2006), and continued practice promotes automaticity and takes less
capacity in working memory (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). How to develop units, and
processes for making decisions as a team needs to be modelled and practiced in order to improve
performance.
Successful collaboration takes a lot of time, effort, planning, forethought, and flexibility.
Everyone has to have a role, and know where they fit within the unit. Looking at some of the
teams that have been successful, having agreed upon meeting times with a clear structure, along
with norms and expectations for constant communication, rotating rooms for meeting locations,
and having a designated IDU coach who really understands the inquiry process helps create
transparency and set teams up for success.
To address this within the organization, I recommend the middle school leadership team,
consisting of administration and instructional coaches, adopt the UBD framework (Wiggins &
112

McTighe, 2008). UBD is a framework for planning using backward design, beginning with the
learning goals for skills and knowledge, then determining assessments, and finally planning how
to teach the content. Each faculty member should receive a copy of the book as well as the
workbook before the end of the 2021–22 school year so they can begin reading over the summer
holiday. Copies of these texts should be sent to the new faculty joining WIS for the 2022–23
school year. I recommend that the WIS leadership team add UBD learning opportunities into the
scope and sequence for building and maintaining teamwork.
UBD should also be embedded into the scope and sequence for the IDU leader
community of practice. I am also recommending that the PLC leader meeting be reconfigured to
match the structure for IDU leaders. That means PLC leader meetings would take place once a
month. Half of each meeting would be time for leaders to share their problems of practice and
implementation successes. The other half of the meeting should be targeted professional learning
around UBD.
IDU leader meetings, in addition to support regarding implementation of UBD, should
also contain strategies to develop a clear and equitable meeting structure (i.e. every 4th meeting
is a long-term planning meeting, and rotating the meeting location to different classrooms to help
deprivatize practice) with norms and expectations.
In order to support growth in this influence, I also recommend that teams develop clarity
about decision-making procedures. Decision-making moments can strengthen or weaken trust
among group members, so it is essential to be intentional about decision-making moments
(Aguilar, 2016). To make effective decisions as a team, everyone needs to be clear that it is a
decision-making moment. Teams need to know what decisions are theirs to make, where they fit
in the decision-making process, what decision-making processes will be used, how decisions will
113

be communicated, and the right people need to be involved (Aguilar, 2016; Garmston &
Wellman, 2016). In both faculty meetings as well as in IDU leader meetings, I recommend
administration and instructional leaders be transparent in what decision-making protocols are
used, and how they are used, in order to build clarity around using decision-making processes.
Decision-making grids that sort options based on impact and effort; Fist to Five, fist showing
strong disapproval to five showing total agreement; and Mutivoting, a priority ranking tool are
several processes that teams can be introduced to. I recommend decision-making processes be
modelled for faculty in order to normalize them. When a decision-making process has not been
named, the ideal state is that a team member would ask, “What decision-making process will be
used to make our decision?”
I also recommend that IDU leaders and instructional coaches engage in professional
learning to understand concept-based inquiry as a way to help all disciplines on their team see
how they fit into IDUs. For this professional development, I recommend an outside provider for
an eight-week online course to provide a shared experience for leaders and for the instructional
coaches to support implementation.
For influence two, knowing how to manage constructive conflict is essential for
teamwork to take place, modeling to-be-learned strategies and behaviors improves self-efficacy,
learning, and performance (Denler et al., 2006), continued practice promotes automaticity and
takes less capacity in working memory (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006), and the use of
metacognitive strategies facilitates learning (Baker, 2006). These principles were chosen because
12 of the 14 teachers interviewed remarked they did not know how to engage in conflict and so
they avoided it altogether. How to engage in healthy conflict needs to be modelled, practiced,
and reflected upon regularly.
114

It is not just the presence of conflict, but how team members approach and manage
conflict that is important. Conflict can either be constructive or destructive to teams. Team
members need to be able to manage and accept constructive conflict (Hackett et al., 2021; Jonker
et al., 2019; Main, 2012; Vangrieken et al., 2015), as dealing with conflict is an essential part of
team dynamics (Havnes, 2009; Main, 2012). Conflict is critical to disrupt the status quo and
move beyond superficial collaboration and progress through Tuckman’s (1965) phases of group
development (Jonker et al., 2019). While conflict is important, it is often avoided or not managed
properly (Vangrieken et al., 2015) so that it does not turn into prolonged and escalated conflict
that becomes hostile, reducing team effectiveness and increasing team member stress (Somech,
2008).
Psychological safety is also important as differences of opinion will likely happen. These
differing opinions, values, and competition can lead to conflict (Jonker et al., 2019;
Kelchtermans, 2006; Löfgren, 2016; Vangrieken et al., 2015). The understanding that healthy
conflict is important, as well as how to manage conflict (Bovbjerg, 2006; Main, 2012) is critical
to the environment of an effective team. When conflict is managed, team function is improved,
whereas if there is continuous conflict, team performance is hindered. Training teams to express
ideas, feelings, and positions, while learning how to listen, can help teams integrate differing
viewpoints. Administrative encouragement for debate of essential issues within teams can help to
normalize conflict (Somech, 2008).
To address this within the organization, I recommend the middle school leadership team,
consisting of administration and instructional coaches, connect the importance of sharing beliefs
and values (Zimmerman et al., 2020) and trust violations (Fraser et al., 2010) to understanding
conflict through whole faculty professional learning sessions. I also recommend learning
115

activities to help faculty see conflict as inquiry, and as a way to improve ideas (Achinstein, 2002;
Garmston & Wellman, 2016; Senge, 1990, Somech, 2008). An appreciation for cognitive
diversity (Phillips, 2014) and the downside of groupthink (Achinstein, 2002) needs to be
developed. Along with that, faculty need to be taught strategies for responding to conflict
(Achinstein, 2002; Edmondson, 2012; Reynolds, 2014) but also develop their ability in
perspective taking (Johnson & Voelkel, 2021; Williams, 2012). As mentioned in the previous
section, developing emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995) is essential and will also help when
managing conflict.
In addition to the whole faculty learning about conflict, I also recommend that this
learning is added to the scope and sequence for IDU leader meetings to support implementation.
In order to do this, I recommend modeling activities IDU leaders can take back to their teams. To
begin, modeling how to reflect on one’s comfort with cognitive diversity and conflict. For
example, to what degree does a team embrace or avoid differing perspectives? From there,
introducing third points to IDU leaders that they can use with their teams about the benefits of
cognitive diversity and conflict will help team members begin to understand that conflict should
not be avoided. Discovering and unpacking implicit biases, reflecting upon and naming how
conflict makes us feel, reframing our definition of conflict, and using protocols that scaffold
setting aside judgment in order to listen should also be modelled for IDU leaders to use with
teams.
Building an understanding of Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano's (2018) different
ways of knowing will help team members understand why team members prioritize certain
things and will lead to more genuine communication as team members begin to support one
another based on their ways of knowing. Knowing that a member of your team is an instrumental
116

knower, will help you support them when they are concerned about rules and clear definitions.
Likewise, knowing that another team member identifies as a self-authoring knower will provide
perspective on the way they prioritize staying true to their values (Drago-Severson, 2009).
Metacognitive Knowledge Solutions
For metacognitive knowledge, there was one influence, teachers need to know how to
reflect on their participation in collaborative tasks. For this influence, the principle from Mayer
(2011), that learning and motivation are enhanced when learners set goals, monitor their
performance, and evaluate their progress toward achieving their goals will guide my
recommendations. This principle is important because it helps establish a purpose for reflection.
When there is a purpose that people understand, they are more likely to engage in the practice.
To address this within the organization I recommend the middle school leadership team,
consisting of administration and instructional coaches, model reflective practices on a regular
basis, and share more about the importance of reflection as well as how reflection helps them.
Regular reflection leads teachers to modify their practices to align to the team more effectively
(Prain et al., 2021) by talking about what team members learn from working together and
monitoring team practices and effectiveness (Lipscombe et al., 2020; Vangrieken et al., 2015).
Through faculty meetings, I recommend sharing reflections to model vulnerability along
with third points about the importance of reflection. Modeling and third points will help faculty
see that a group too busy to reflect is too busy to improve (Zimmerman et al 2020) and regular
reflection increases psychological safety (Frazier et al., 2017).
Motivation Recommendations
Like knowledge, motivation was assessed through interviews in an attempt to get the clearest
picture of motivation influences. Motivational causes for gaps are complex and critical to getting
117

our jobs done. Task value, self-efficacy, goals, and affect were studied to identify any
motivational causes for gaps. Task value has one influence, that teachers need to value
collaboration and want to be a part of a team. Self-efficacy had one influence, that teachers have
confidence in their contributions to the team and in their team, which was determined to be a
need linked to the next influence related to goals, which is also determined to be a recommended
need, that teachers have clear goals for their collaboration. Affect also contained one influence,
that teachers need to feel positive about working with others to attain a team goal, which is a
recommended area of need.
Table 12 lists the motivation causes, priority, principles, and recommendations.
Following the table, a detailed discussion for each high priority cause and recommendation and
the literature supporting the recommendation is provided.

118

Table 12
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed motivation
influence
Asset
or
need
Priority

Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
Task value
Teachers need to
value collaboration
and want to be a
part of a team.

Asset

High

Learning and
motivation are
enhanced if the
learner values the
task (Eccles, 2006).

In onboarding of new
team members include
rationales about the
importance of
collaboration.
Periodically throughout
the school year remind
faculty of the what,
why, and how of
teacher collaboration.
Share student perspective
of teacher collaboration
Self-efficacy
Teachers have
confidence in their
contributions to
the team and in
their team.

Need

High

Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
learners have positive
expectancies for
success (Pajares,
1996).

Clear goals articulated
for IDU
Goals
Teachers have clear
goals for their
collaboration.

Need

High

Goals motivate and
direct learners
(Pintrich, 2003).

Specifically name and
unpack the goals of
interdisciplinary
collaboration as a
middle school
What do these goals look
like, sound like, feel
like? How do they
align with the strategic
plan?
Affect
Teachers need to
feel positive about
working with
others to attain a
team goal.

Need

High

Positive emotional
environments support
motivation (Clark &
Estes, 2008).

Avoid competitive
structures (Goette et al.,
2012)
119

Task Value
For task value, there was one influence, teachers value collaboration and want to be a part
of a team. For this influence, the principle that learning and motivation are enhanced if the
learner values the task (Eccles, 2006) guided my recommendations since in many, if not most
instances, traditionally trained teachers have not received explicit training in interpersonal skills
such as conflict management and communication, which teachers need to value what
collaborative practices have to offer (Main, 2012). While this area is an asset, there are 18 new
teachers joining the middle school in the 2022–23 school year, so the value of collaboration
needs to be included in teacher onboarding.
To address this within the organization I recommend the middle school leadership team
consisting of administration and instructional coaches include rationales about the importance of
collaboration in the onboarding of new team members. I also recommend that throughout the
school year faculty will share experiences with collaboration to help establish a shared
understanding of the what, why, and how of teacher collaboration. Along with that, regularly
sharing student perspectives of teacher collaboration to highlight student voice increases the
value. Seeing value in team teaching enhances a teacher’s learning and engagement (Main, 2012;
Prain et al., 2020).
Self-Efficacy Solutions
Self-efficacy had one influence, teachers have confidence in their contributions to the
team and in their team. The principle guiding recommendations for self-efficacy is that learning
and motivation are enhanced when learners have positive expectancies for success (Pajares,
1996).
120

The attitudes of teachers toward collaboration as well as their experience and confidence
in contributing to a team are essential characteristics (Main, 2012). Marks et al. (2001) state that
team effectiveness depends in part on each individual’s self-efficacy and commitment to the
team. Simply put, self-efficacy refers to one’s judgment about their capabilities to perform a
task, and it is especially important when engaging in a task that is perceived to be challenging
(Bandura, 1986 as cited in Rueda, 2011; Goddard, Hoy & Hoy, 2000) as self-efficacy will
impact persistence and effort. John Hattie (2015) identified “collective teacher efficacy” as the
most important impact on student achievement. Teachers need to have confidence that they are
productive and valued members of a team (Main, 2012; Prain et al., 2020; Vangrieken et al.,
2015), and work together to build coherent knowledge and increase student achievement (Hattie,
2015).
To address this within the organization I recommend the middle school leadership team,
consisting of administration and instructional coaches, should define clear goals for IDU that are
articulated to faculty alongside embedded supports for developing teams, engaging in conflict,
concept-based inquiry, and how to develop units, teacher confidence will increase.
Goals
Goals contain one influence, teachers have clear goals for their collaboration. To guide
recommendations for this influence the principle that goals motivate and direct learners (Pintrich,
2003) guided my recommendations. Clear goals help team members know where they are going,
know what they need to be prepared to do, and allow them to reflect on their performance
(Aguilar, 2016; Katzenbach & Smith, 2008). Teams need to have shared goals that are
determined together so that all members have a voice and feel valued (Hargreaves, 2001).
121

Determining group goals helps to build community (Kelchtermans, 2006) as teachers work
together to make decisions, negotiate, and communicate clearly (Prain, et al., 2021).
To address this within the organization I recommend that the middle school leadership
team specifically name, and unpack the goals of interdisciplinary collaboration as a middle
school. Together, there needs to be an understanding of what these goals look like, sound like,
feel like, and how they align with the strategic plan.
Once the organization is clear on the goals for IDUs, teams can develop their own goals
for how they work together. Goals reflect the purpose and help provide aim for one’s actions,
and can enhance learning and performance as they can provide insight into progress, self-
efficacy, and self-evaluation (Schunk, 2020).
Affect
Affect contained one influence, teachers need to feel positive about working with others
to attain a team goal. The principle guiding my recommendations comes from Clark and Estes
(2008), positive emotional environments support motivation. Affect refers to the emotions
surrounding a task or event. Positive emotions will enhance learning, motivation, and
performance. Consequently, teachers need to feel positive about working with others to attain a
team goal (Main, 2012). When team members have positive beliefs about the team’s capabilities,
they are more successful (Kim & Shin, 2015 as cited in Donohoo, 2018). Positive feelings about
working with others come in part from a shared and strong commitment to getting the jobs done
in a distributed way (Katzenbach & Smith, 2008).
As the data from interviews showed that teachers enjoy collaborating with one another
despite some of the challenges they face. To address this within the organization, I recommend
the middle school leadership team prioritize the organizational barriers discussed below that
122

create the challenges teams face when collaborating, such as setting clear goals for
interdisciplinary collaboration.
Organization Recommendations
When knowledge and motivational indicators can be ruled out, organizational barriers are
the cause. Alternatively, organizational barriers may cause a gap in knowledge or motivation.
Document analysis, in addition to interviews, was helpful to assess organizational influences. For
the purpose of this study, I examined cultural models, cultural settings, and resources. Cultural
Models contained one influence, the school provides a culture that supports taking risks and
learning from mistakes. Cultural Setting contained one influence, the school provides a
supportive group atmosphere with ongoing administrative support. Resources contained one
influence, teachers have ongoing professional development. While professional development
opportunities have been ongoing, there is a need for these opportunities to continue with a shift
in focus. As such, this is a recommended area of need.
Table 13 lists the organization's causes, priorities, principles, and recommendations.
Following the table, a detailed discussion for each high priority cause and recommendation and
the literature supporting the recommendation is provided.

123

Table 13
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
organization
influence
Asset
or
need
Priority

Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
Cultural models
The school
provides a
culture that
supports taking
risks and
learning from
mistakes.

Need High Effective organizations
ensure that
organizational
messages, rewards,
policies, and
procedures that govern
the work of the
organization are
supportive of
organizational goals
and values (Clark and
Estes, 2008).

Conduct an informal
audit of our policies,
procedures, and
messages to check for
alignment or
interference with our
goals
Instructional leaders need
to model vulnerability,
taking risks, and openly
reflect on the outcomes.
Work with
communications to have
publications be about
the process of student
learning and not a shiny
polished product
Cultural settings
The school
provides a
supportive group
atmosphere with
ongoing
administrative
support.

Need

High

Effective organizations
that ensure
organizational
messages, rewards,
policies, and
procedures that govern
the work of the
organization are
supportive of
organizational goals
and values (Clark and
Estes, 2008).

Conduct an informal
audit of our policies,
procedures, and
messages to check for
alignment or
interference with our
goals
Instructional leadership
should be more present
in PLC and IDU
meetings in order to
show support for the
initiative.

Resources
Teachers have
ongoing
professional
development.

Need

High

Effective organizations
ensure that
organizational
messages, rewards,
policies, and
procedures that govern

Work with leadership
(administration and
instructional coaches) to
establish, from the
beginning, what the
priorities based on the
124

Assumed
organization
influence
Asset
or
need
Priority

Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
the work of the
organization are
supportive of
organizational goals
and values (Clark and
Estes, 2008).

recommendations and
organizational goals
The organization needs to
determine specific goals
to meet the priorities.
Professional
development will be
designed to meet these
goals.

Cultural Models
One influence was assessed in the cultural model, the school provides a culture that
supports taking risks and learning from mistakes. The principle that guided my recommendations
comes from Clark and Estes, 2008, “Effective organizations ensure that organizational messages,
rewards, policies, and procedures that govern the work of the organization are supportive of
organizational goals and values.”
The deprivatization of one’s teaching practice that is necessary with this level of
collaboration involves a level of risk (Fullan, 2007). There needs to be psychological safety or
the feeling that when taking an interpersonal risk it will not result in shame, ridicule, or
embarrassment. (Fraizier et al., 2017; Hackett et al., 2021). Hackett et al. (2021) explain that
safety enables people to connect, engage, learn, and change when there is a shared belief that the
environment is safe for risk-taking.
Teams with psychological safety are more likely to make mistakes, share ideas, ask for
and receive feedback, and experiment. In a psychologically safe environment, team members
know each other inside and outside of work, goals are clear, leadership is not fixed, there is
125

equity in talk time, and team members trust one another making it possible to consider divergent
views. Team members admit mistakes, ask questions, stay curious, reflect regularly, and are
aware of verbal and nonverbal communication. This culture of experimentation, supportive
relationships, and psychological safety are critical to interdisciplinary teaming’s success (Hackett
et al., 2021).
To address this within the organization I recommend the middle school leadership team,
consisting of administration and instructional coaches, begin by conducting an informal audit of
policies, procedures, and messages to check for alignment or interference with our goals.
Additionally, instructional leaders need to model vulnerability, taking risks, and openly reflect
on the outcomes. Modeling and supporting adults in taking risks and learning from mistakes is
another time it will be helpful to understand Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano’s (2018) ways
of knowing. When working with an instrumental knower, instructional leaders can help them
understand that mistakes are the “right” thing to do and that mistakes are valued and rewarded
within the organization.
I also recommend they work with communications to have publications focus on the
process of student learning and not a shiny polished product. Professional learning mentioned
earlier regarding increasing psychological safety by leaders modeling making mistakes and
reflecting on feedback (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2018) will also support a culture
that supports taking risks and making mistakes. It is critical for leaders to acknowledge that they
do not have all the answers and be transparent about their learning, feedback, and growing edges
to increase psychological safety.
126

Cultural Settings
Cultural setting contained one influence, the school provides a supportive group
atmosphere with ongoing administrative support. To guide my recommendations, I relied on the
principle from Clark and Estes (2008), “Effective organizations ensure that organizational
messages, rewards, policies, and procedures that govern the work of the organization are
supportive of organizational goals and values.”
Teachers need a cohesive, supportive atmosphere that is inspiring and that positively
contributes to collaboration (Jonker et al., 2019; Lipscombe et al., 2020; Prain et al., 2021).
Leaders can facilitate the creation of this environment by setting expectations for formal and
frequent teacher collaboration and creating high levels of trust for collaboration to take place by
providing collaborative structures to build common understandings (Donohoo, 2018). Donohoo
(2018) state that school leaders must also foster effective team interactions by modeling and
building emotional intelligence, collective teacher efficacy, and psychological safety.
Teachers need administrative support throughout the teaming process, from team
formation and establishment to maintenance (Hargreaves, 2001; Jonker et al., 2019; Lipscombe
et al., 2020; Main 2012; Prain et al., 2021). This includes support for the whole team, even when
teamwork is strong (Main, 2012). Lipscombe et al. (2020) found that the principal plays a
significant role in creating the conditions and collaborative culture of the school, supporting the
professional development for teams, and creating the necessary conditions, routines, and
resources to support team effectiveness.
To address this within the organization I recommend the middle school leadership team,
consisting of administration and instructional coaches, begin by conducting an informal audit of
policies, procedures, and messages to check for alignment or interference with our goals.
127

Instructional leadership should be more present in PLC and IDU meetings in order to show
support for the initiative. Based on my research, the faculty at WIS find their leadership to be
supportive, and that must be maintained. Leadership has been responsive to the needs of teams,
however, not all members of the leadership team are delivering the same message regarding tight
and loose expectations. The leadership team needs to spend time working out a clear and
consistent message for teams. Clear goals for interdisciplinary collaboration also need to be
established to ease the tension between department PLCs and IDU.
Resources Solutions
One influence was assessed in resources. Teachers have ongoing professional
development to support their interdisciplinary collaboration. The principle that guided my
recommendations comes from Clark and Estes, 2008, “Effective organizations ensure that
organizational messages, rewards, policies, and procedures that govern the work of the
organization are supportive of organizational goals and values.”
Historically, teaching programs have not taught collaboration. Many teachers new to
engaging in this work feel they were unprepared and had not received the necessary training
(Main, 2012). Teams need to engage in shared professional development (Hargreaves, 2001;
Havnes, 2009). The focus of professional development should be on interpersonal
communication, effective meeting strategies, group decision-making skills, interdisciplinary and
instructional planning, goal setting, and evaluation (Crow & Pounder, 2000). Crow and Pounder
(2000) also stress that as teams move through stages of growth and development, the
professional learning needs will shift. Meaning that learning opportunities are not just as teams
are forming, but are ongoing and embedded (Hargreaves, 2001).
128

Somech (2008) adds that as most educators fear the destructive outcomes of conflict, they
avoid it. Professional development to support conflict management is critical as conflict should
not be destructive to teams, nor should conflict be minimized. When conflict is managed, team
function is improved whereas if there is continuous conflict, team performance is hindered.
Training teams to express ideas, feelings, and positions, while learning how to listen, can help
teams integrate differing viewpoints. Administrative encouragement for debate of essential
issues within teams can help to normalize conflict (Somech, 2008).
To address this within the organization I recommend the middle school leadership team
work together with IDU leaders to prioritize the recommendations that I have laid out. While
many of my recommendations are interconnected, if everything is a priority, then nothing is.
Summary of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Recommendations
To begin, I recommend a revision of the professional development offered to teams. I
recommend that we develop a year-long scope and sequence that is recursive as well as
responsive to the needs of individual teams. This scope and sequence would include team-
building work such as building and maintaining trust, psychological safety, discussing beliefs
and values, engaging in constructive conflict, the importance of cognitive diversity, different
ways of knowing, individual and collective reflection, and emotional intelligence. Woven into
this scope and sequence is also professional development on UBD and concept-based inquiry.
Team building coupled with UBD and concept-based inquiry equips teams with the what, why,
and how of interdisciplinary collaboration.
I am also recommending the development of a PLC for our Interdisciplinary Leaders as a
way to discuss problems of practice, share implementation successes, and learn together. These
129

monthly meetings will be led by the instructional coaches, whom I am also recommending will
support IDU leaders in a responsive coaching cycle to support their leadership.
As an organization, clear goals and expectations for interdisciplinary collaboration must
be established, shared, and unpacked with faculty. This will go a long way to increase the
motivation of faculty members. I also recommend that the WIS middle school work with the
communications department to shift the messaging in publications from shiny polished products
to students sharing their learning processes while highlighting that learning can be messy. This
will increase psychological safety and reduce feelings of competition. Finally, instructional
leadership needs to be more present in PLC and IDU meetings in order to show support for the
initiative, and ensure that all members of the leadership team are delivering the same message
regarding tight and loose expectations. The leadership team must have a clear and consistent
message for teams to ease the tension between department PLCs and IDU.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
Woodlands International School’s mission is to provide each student an exemplary
American educational experience with an international perspective. The WIS middle school goal
is that by June 2023, all middle school content area teachers have the skills to engage in collegial
collaboration to design and deliver IDUs. The challenge of collaboration among teachers lies in
the traditional culture of privacy and autonomy in education (Hackett et al., 2021; Little 1990;
Murray, 2020; Tam, 2015; Vangrieken et al., 2015). To collaborate, one must be willing to
expose underlying beliefs about teaching and learning. This has the potential to lead to
disagreement or conflict which team members need to be prepared for.
130

The development of a team is a process that takes a substantial amount of time in moving
beyond superficial conversations that focus only on organizational and practical matters (Crow &
Pounder, 2000). Such awareness helps teams evolve to higher levels of interdependency. Jonker
et al. (2019) also states the need for teams to clearly state goals and to have a supportive
atmosphere. Jonker et al. (2019) highlight the importance of discussing the rationale of a
curriculum redesign before focusing on concrete activities so that the rationale can serve as a
reference point to guarantee cohesion. These conversations about interdependency, goal setting,
and rationale that have not happened within interdisciplinary teams were the focus of this study.
Content area teachers will engage in collegial collaboration to design and deliver IDUs as
evidenced by analysis of the end-of-unit survey data that is collected by the organization. This
goal relates to the achievement of the organization’s mission and goal because high-quality,
interdisciplinary work depends on teaching teams that center student learning and engage with
one another in a collegial culture (Barth, 2006). Healthy adult communities, built on respect and
trust between teachers, serve all children’s social, academic, and emotional needs. Crow and
Pounder (2000), Leite et al. (2018), Main (2012), and Pountney and McPhail (2017) show that
interdisciplinary connections and collaboration among teachers not only improves social bonding
between teachers and classmates but also reduces feelings of isolation for teachers as well as
students. Interdisciplinary connections enhance the overall curriculum, which increases student
motivation and learning.
With the help of instructional coaches and administration, interdisciplinary team leads
can ensure clarity around the goals, roles, tasks, and responsibilities of individual teachers (Prain
et al., 2020). Team leads can also foster a climate of psychological safety and reduce the fear of
exposure that could get in the way of effective collaboration (Hackett et al., 2021; Prain et al.,
131

2020). With the support of instructional coaches and administration, team leaders can reduce
competition, feelings of a loss of autonomy, and help navigate conflicts (Vangrieken et al.,
2015).
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
Evaluation is at the heart of The new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016) emphasizing evaluation at every stage of professional development from
design and development, throughout instruction, and summatively at the end. Evaluation of
professional learning often takes the back seat and consists almost exclusively of summative
feedback to the presenters about whether or not they enjoyed the learning experience. As
educators, we know the value of having an assessment plan for how we will formatively and
summatively assess in order to guide our instruction and determine students' learning and
growth. Yet when we engage with adult learners, we rarely use the same assessment practices we
know to be valuable. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) aim to change that with the new world
Kirkpatrick model. In the Kirkpatrick model, success criteria and how success will be measured
are mapped out before planning of professional learning takes place. As such, the new world
model guided the design of my implementation and evaluation plan.
The new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) grew out of the
work of Dr. Don Kirkpatrick who created the four levels as part of his dissertation in the 1950s.
By the 1990s, the Kirkpatrick model was used by thousands of training professionals to evaluate
their training programs. In 2016, Dr. Kirkpatrick’s son, James, revised his father’s work to meet
the needs of today’s modernized landscape. Today, the four levels are reaction, learning,
behavior, and results.
132

Level one refers to the extent to which learners find the training engaging and relevant.
Oftentimes, this is the only evaluation that takes place. Level two is the degree to which learners
obtain the knowledge, skills, confidence, and commitment intended. Level three is the extent
participants apply what they learned during the training when they are on the job, and level four
is the degree to which outcomes materialize as a result of the training and support. Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick (2016) present these four levels in reverse, arguing that this keeps the focus on
what is most important, beginning with the desired result in mind. Results must be clearly
defined and measurable so that the destination is clear.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) Level 4 is a process that evaluates performance
results of training and support. To be able to evaluate the results, one must know the leading
indicators. Leading indicators establish a connection between performance and results.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) refer to leading indicators as “little flags marching up the
mountain toward the desired results at the top” (p. 110). Said another way, leading indicators are
the checkpoints toward the goal that measure both desirable and undesirable situations. Leading
indicators can also be internal, within the organization, or external, outside of the organization.
Leading indicators are formative assessments that provide timely feedback needed to determine
whether or not you are on track, and provide ongoing feedback to stakeholders about the
progress being made. One must begin with the desired end results in mind, and backward plan
the checkpoints along the way.
In the short-term, one would observe more teachers deprivatizing their practice, engaging
in healthy conflict, reflecting on their collaboration, seeing the connection between their content
133

standards and IDUs, and having more confidence in planning IDUs using UBD as measured by
observation in team meetings and in feedback from teachers and IDU leaders.
Table 14 shows the proposed Level 4: results and leading indicators organized by
outcomes, the metrics, and the methods for evaluation. The outcomes are the result of the
recurring professional learning and support provided to core area teachers and interdisciplinary
team leaders by WIS leadership.

Table 14
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External outcomes
Increased student learning
through conceptual
understandings that span
content area classes and
connect to the real-world
The number of students able to
share their thinking about
conceptual understandings and
real-world connections
Survey to obtain
student voice after
each IDU
Focus groups with
students to share their
learning
Internal outcomes
Team members know and trust
one another.
The number of teachers who
deprivatize their practice
Focus groups and
observations of team
meetings and
classroom instruction
Team members know and
discuss the pedagogical beliefs
of their team members.
The number of conversations
between teachers about beliefs
and values taking place in
meetings
Observation of team
meetings
Focus groups and
surveys with teachers
Teams can engage in healthy
conflict and understand that
conflict leads to better results.
Teams are engaging in healthy
conflict rather than waiting
until an issue gets out of hand.

Observation of team
meetings
Focus groups and
surveys with teachers
There is increased psychological
safety to learn together, take
risks, make mistakes, and
change teaching practice.
The number of teachers taking
risks, talking about mistakes,
and talking openly about
changes in their teaching
practice
Observation of team
meetings
Focus groups and
surveys with teachers
Pre and post data to be
collected
134

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
Teachers reflect on their
contributions to the team as
well as reflect on the team’s
collaboration.
The number of teams building in
time for reflective
conversations about their
collaboration throughout units
The number of teachers sharing
their personal reflections about
their collaboration
Observation of team
meetings
Analysis of meeting
agendas
Focus groups and
surveys with teachers
Teachers understand concept-
based inquiry.
The number of teachers and
teams basing their teaching
practices and unit design
around concept-based inquiry
Observation of team
meetings
Focus groups and
surveys with teachers
There is an ability to apply UBD
to collaboratively plan units.
The number of teachers and
teams using UBD to plan units
Observation of team
meetings
Analysis of unit plans
uploaded to Teamie,
WIS’s learning
management platform
Focus groups and
surveys with teachers
Teachers value the collaboration
on their teams.
The number of teachers sharing
why they value collaborating
with their teams
Observation of team
meetings
Focus groups and
surveys with teachers
Teachers have confidence in
their contributions to the team.
The number of teacher who feel
confident in contributing to the
development of IDUs
Observation of team
meetings
Focus groups and
surveys with teachers
Pre and post data to be
collected
Teachers know the goals for
interdisciplinary collaboration.
The number of teachers who
know the school’s goals for
interdisciplinary collaboration
Observation of team
meetings
Focus groups and
surveys with
teachers

Teachers and team leaders have
regular professional
development to support their
collaboration and unit
development.
The number of professional
development sessions to
support interdisciplinary
collaboration
One whole faculty once a month
and one IDU leader session
once a month

Observation of team
meetings
Focus groups and
surveys with
teachers

135

Level 3: Behavior
Level 3 of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) is often the missing link in moving from
learning to results, as it monitors and evaluates behavior, “the degree to which participants apply
what they have learned during training when they are back on the job” (p. 91). Level 3 is also the
ongoing monitoring of performance to provide assistance as needed. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016) argue that for change to happen, those providing the training must be involved in the on-
the-job environment to provide a blended learning approach. The stakeholder group of focus in
this study was the WIS content area teachers.
In order to evaluate Level 3, critical behaviors that will be most influential to Level 4
must be defined. Critical behaviors are the few specific, observable, and measurable behaviors
that, if performed reliably, will have the greatest impact on results. There are six critical
behaviors identified. Table 15 summarizes the critical behaviors, metrics, methods, and timing
for evaluation.

Table 15

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical behavior Metric(s)

Method(s)

Timing
Active participation
of IDU leaders in
monthly IDU
leader meetings

The number of IDU
leaders who set action
plans for
implementing new
learning at the end of
each IDU leader
meeting

Observation of
team meetings
Accountability
partnerships in
IDU leaders
Team leader
reflections

Monthly
The number of teachers
who share action plan
results at the beginning
of each IDU leader
meeting

Observation of
team meetings
Accountability
partnerships in
IDU leaders

Monthly
136

Critical behavior Metric(s)

Method(s)

Timing
Team leader
reflections

Teams develop a
shared
understanding of
unit goals.
The frequency of teams
developing a shared
vision for the unit
goals

Observation of
team meetings
Written and
verbal team
member
reflections

Quarterly
Team members
collaboratively
plan and share the
load.
The frequency of teams
discussing
expectations for each
team member

Observation of
team meetings

Quarterly
Discussions about who
is responsible for
what? How will they
pass the baton from
one person to the next?

Observation of
team meetings
Teacher
reflections

Quarterly
Discussions about what
support/ resources
teams will need?

Observation of
team meetings
Teacher
reflections

Quarterly
Discussions and
agreement about how
they will hold one
another accountable

Observation of
team meetings
Teacher
reflections

Quarterly
Team members
share beliefs and
values.
The frequency of team
members addressing
beliefs and values in
team meetings

Observation of
team meetings
Teacher
reflections

Observable at least
once a quarter-
recorded in field
notes to
determine
growth over
time

Team members
engage in
constructive
conflict.
The frequency of team
members engaging in
constructive conflict

Observation of
team meetings
Teacher
reflections

Observable at least
once a quarter—
recorded in field
notes to
determine
growth over
time

Team members
openly and
honestly reflect on
their collaboration.
The frequency of team
members reflecting on
their collaboration

Observation of
team meetings
Teacher
reflections

Observable at least
once a quarter—
recorded in field
notes to
determine
137

Critical behavior Metric(s)

Method(s)

Timing
growth over
time

Required Drivers
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) state that in order to give Level 3 enough attention,
required drivers are necessary. Required drivers are systems and processes that monitor,
reinforce, encourage, and reward critical behaviors in the workplace. Many of the knowledge-
based recommendations fall under the reinforcing category, as what leaders are learning will be
reinforced in their team meetings. Motivational recommendations fall in the encouraging
category as instructional coaches will support IDU leaders in sustaining new practices.
Incentives, or rewards can also be used to increase motivation when successes are celebrated.
Monitoring is an organizational-level solution as monitoring strategies are systems of
accountability that signal to stakeholders what is important in an organization. Table 16
identifies and categorizes the required drivers, outlines the timing to enact each strategy, and
aligns them to the critical behaviors.

Table 16
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing

138

Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Participation in team building Quarterly 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Education about the importance of trust and how to
develop and maintain trust
Quarterly 6,7,8
Participation of instructional coaches in weekly IDU
meetings to help implementation
Weekly 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Repeated practice with UBD Weekly 4,5
Education about why ongoing reflection is important,
and how to engage in reflection about collaboration
Quarterly 6,7,8
Education about why it is important to share beliefs and
values with team members, and how to build those
conversations into meetings
Quarterly 6,7,8
Participation in professional learning about the
importance of healthy conflict and how to engage in
healthy conflict
Bi-monthly 4,5,6,7,8

Encouraging

Frequent, specific feedback to support teams
implementing UBD

Weekly 4,5,6,7,8
Frequent, specific feedback about reflective practices As it is
observed in
meetings
8
Frequent, specific feedback about sharing beliefs and
values
As it is
observed in
meetings
6
Frequent, specific feedback about engaging in healthy
conflict and valuing cognitive diversity
As it is
observed in
meetings
7
A positive emotional environment where teachers value
collaboration and want to be a part of a team.
Daily 4,5,6,7,8
A positive emotional environment where teachers have
confidence in their contributions to their team
Daily 4,5,6,7,8
A positive emotional environment where teachers know
the goals for their interdisciplinary collaboration
Daily 4,5,6,7,8
A positive emotional environment where teachers feel
positive about working with others to attain a team
goal
Daily 4,5,6,7,8

Rewarding

Celebration of successes: reflection, conflict, planning,
meeting goals, conversations about beliefs and values
Weekly 4,5,6,7,8

Monitoring

139

Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Engagement in teamwork while planning and
implementing IDUs

Quarterly 4,5,6,7,8

Organizational Support
The previously mentioned critical behaviors outlined in Table 15 and the required drivers
described in Table 16 are dependent on the implementation of recommendations at the
organizational level. In order to address collaboration on ITTs, the cultural models, cultural
settings, and resources of Woodlands International School must be reviewed and realigned in
support of the organizational goals. The cultural model of supporting risks and learning from
mistakes can only be achieved if the organization is a psychologically safe place to deprivatize
one’s practice. Similarly, it is critical that leadership model vulnerability and openly share
reflections, feedback, and lessons learned to increase psychological safety. When the
communications department’s depiction of reality does not match the day-to-day struggles,
teachers are less likely to take risks. Likewise, if teachers are not receiving clear messages on
goals and tight/ loose expectations, teachers are unsure of what is valued, so return to the status
quo of autonomy. Finally, professional learning must be committed to developing shared beliefs
and understandings of teamwork, concept-based inquiry, and unit design.
Level 2: Learning
Level 2, Learning, according to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), is the degree to
which participants acquire the intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment
based on their participation in training, and evaluation of Level 2 is typically overdone or done
140

without the context of the larger organizational goals. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016)
recommend being deliberate in determining how to assess the five components of learning—
knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment.
The following learning goals target the Level 3 critical behaviors and support Level 4
leading indicators. Following the implementation of the recommended solutions, teachers on
ITTs will be able to do the following things:
1. Develop and maintain trusting relationships on their teams (C)
2. Share and discuss pedagogical beliefs and values with team members (C)
3. Name the steps in planning a concept-based IDU (P)
4. Engage in constructive conflict and value cognitive diversity (P)
5. Reflect on their collaboration (M)
6. Value collaboration (value)
7. Have the confidence to contribute to their team (self-efficacy)
8. Develop clear goals for their collaboration (goals)
9. Feel positive about working with others to attain a goal (affect)
Program
In order to meet these learning goals, I am recommending the development of a scope
and sequence that will begin in August 2022 and will be followed every month throughout the
school year. The whole faculty will engage in learning activities together at monthly faculty
meetings, which are an hour and a half, and on the five professional learning days for half of the
day. This scope and sequence would cover team-building content such as building and
maintaining trust, engaging in conflict and valuing cognitive diversity, discussing beliefs and
values, decision-making practices, and reflective practices. The scope and sequence should also
141

contain curricular planning content regarding UBD and concept-based inquiry. The scope and
sequence is meant to be recursive instead of linear to avoid one-and-done professional
development sessions. In total, this accounts for roughly 35 hours of professional learning
throughout the school year.
My program also recommends that interdisciplinary team leaders have an hour and a half
monthly meeting to share problems of practice, implementation successes, and engage in
learning together. I recommend that IDU leaders are also able to meet for at least one hour on
each of the five professional learning days. These meetings will follow the scope and sequence
of the whole faculty sessions but will be responsive to the needs of leaders and focus on
facilitating team meetings. These meetings will encourage leaders to develop an action plan
based on new learning and will provide accountability as they will share with partners the
following month. This would provide IDU leaders with approximately 20 hours of professional
learning throughout the school year.
In addition, I am recommending that each of the IDU leaders take part in a modified
coaching cycle with the instructional coaches. The coaching cycle I am recommending comes
from Jim Knight (2015) and has three parts: identify, learn, and improve. During the Identify
stage, coaches and an IDU leader will determine the team's current reality. This involves
identifying what is going well and where there is room for improvement. There are several ways
to determine the current reality. One way might be to video record meetings. Another might be
team member feedback such as member reflections, informal conversations with team members,
interviews, meeting exit tickets. A third way is through meeting observation. Once the current
reality is determined, a goal is set. Together, the coach and leader will strategize next steps and
then work to meet the goal.
142

During the Learn stage, the coach and IDU leader will determine strategies for moving
the team forward. This support will be personalized as every team will likely need different
support. These strategies support building team and trust, engaging in conflict, valuing cognitive
diversity, reflecting on collaboration, stages of UBD, or concept-based inquiry. Support during
this stage might be co-planning, co-facilitating, modeling, and providing third points for teams
depending on the needs of the team and the leader. During the Improve stage, the leader and
coach monitor progress, make adjustments until the goal is met, and plan the next steps.
Throughout the coaching cycle, essentially engaging in action research, the instructional
coach will partner with the IDU leader, positioning the leader as the decision-maker. As a
dialogical coach, the coach embraces inquiry by asking questions, listening, and empowering the
leader to identify goals and strategies while also offering research and promising practices. The
duration of this part of the recommended program is one size fits one support, so it is impossible
to say how long each coaching cycle will be.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
The acquisition of conceptual and procedural knowledge must be regularly assessed
throughout the program to be responsive to the needs of the learners and to determine the
program's effectiveness. Assessing confidence, attitude, and commitment is also critical to the
program's success so that interventions or extensions can be put in place to support all learners.
Table 17 highlights the methods and timing for evaluating these knowledge-based and
motivational learning elements.

143

Table 17
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Conceptual knowledge “I know it.”

“Turn and Learn” time in faculty and IDU
leader meetings
During faculty and IDU leader meetings
throughout the year— recorded in field
notes
Knowledge checks through quick exit ticket
reflections
At the end of each faculty meeting
throughout the year
Observation of team meetings During team meetings throughout the
year— recorded in field notes
Coaching conversations During the coaching cycle—recorded in
field notes
Action planning at the end of each IDU leader
meeting
At the end of each IDU leader meeting—
recorded in field notes

Procedural skills “I can do it right now”

Observation of teams applying UBD as they
plan an IDU
Leading up to IDUs— recorded in field
notes
Observations of teachers using concept-based
inquiry to plan IDUs
Leading up to IDUs—recorded in field
notes
Observation of team meetings where team
members are engaging in constructive conflict
Throughout the school year—recorded in
field notes
Observations of teams reflecting on their
collaboration
Throughout the school year—recorded in
field notes

Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile”

Discussions with team members about value,
rationale, and concerns
Throughout the school year, at least
quarterly—recorded in field notes
Exit ticket reflection at the end of meetings At the end of each faculty meeting

Confidence “I think I can do it on the job”

Discussions with teachers and team leaders
listening for objections, concerns, barriers to
application
Throughout the school year, at least
quarterly—recorded in field notes
Exit ticket reflection questions regarding
objections, concerns, barriers to application
at the end of meetings
At the end of each faculty meeting

Commitment “I will do it on the job”

Likert scale survey question with each exit
ticket related to commitment
At the end of each faculty meeting
Observations of team meetings Throughout the school year, at least
quarterly—recorded in field notes

144

Level 1: Reaction
Level 1 Reaction, according to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), is the most common
and easiest to evaluate. Reaction consists of three components: engagement, relevance, and
customer satisfaction. Level 1 confirms the quality of the instructor and the program. During
instruction, reaction level feedback provides the instructor with immediate feedback that can
adjust instructional practices, facilities-related issues, or engagement or satisfaction concerns.
Table 18 lists the methods used to assess how participants react to the learning events.

Table 18
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or tool(s) Timing
Engagement

During meetings and professional learning sessions, instructor
observation during meetings, and checking the pulse of participants
During meetings
Ending well reflections using a survey at the end of meetings and
professional learning sessions to reflect on what went well and
what would have made the session better
At the end of
meetings, 10
minutes provided

Relevance

Action plan exit ticket from IDU leader meetings
What will participants take from the meeting today and apply in their
context, and how will they apply it? These will be shared at the
beginning of the next session as a form of accountability.
After meetings

Customer satisfaction

Ending well reflections using a survey at the end of meetings and
professional learning sessions to reflect on what went well and
what would have made the session better
At the end of
meetings, 10
minutes provided

145

Evaluation Tools
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), immediate and delayed program
evaluation is important. After all, evaluation is a process, not a single event. Immediate feedback
increases the return rate, while delayed evaluation allows participants to apply the learning
before evaluating the session. Tables 17 and 18 specify program evaluation to measure Level 1
and Level 2 outcomes immediately following a session for a higher rate of return. In this
evaluation plan, Level 1 was designed to measure engagement, satisfaction, and relevance of
what they learned during and after training sessions. During sessions, observation will be used to
determine engagement. After sessions, participants will receive an exit ticket reflection using a
four-point Likert scale plus narrative response section to assess engagement, relevance, and
satisfaction.
Level 2 evaluates participants’ conceptual and procedural knowledge and their attitude,
confidence, and commitment toward applying the learning. Level 2 aims to measure the
program's effectiveness at achieving intended learning outcomes while gathering perception data
regarding participant attitude, confidence, and commitment. Appendix E provides examples of
Level 1 and Level 2 items used for the program evaluation.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
As previously stated, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend delayed program
evaluation in addition to immediate evaluation. Delayed evaluation allows time for the required
drivers to be activated and participants to apply knowledge and skills learned during the
program. The timeframe for delayed evaluation will depend on how long it takes to activate
drivers and critical behaviors (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). In addition to surveys, I will
146

interview teachers who participated in the program to get a deeper understanding of how the
program learning was used, if it was, and what result. Observations of team meetings to see what
strategies and skills are being implemented will be an essential third data point to collect.
Appendix F provides sample Level 1, 2, 3, and 4 items that could be used for a delayed survey
given to faculty after some time.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The implementation and evaluation plan outlined in this section will generate important
data. Data analysis and reporting are not a one-time event. As data is reviewed, I will be asking
three questions from Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016). Does the data meet expectations? If
not, why not? If so, why? The answers to these questions will help the program be responsive to
the participants and inform modifications and next steps. Data analysis after the program should
focus on uncovering barriers to implementation, as training alone does not equal results.
In order to avoid the common pitfalls of training evaluation, I will rely on the advice
offered in Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) to ensure that my data analysis and reporting
avoids spending too much time and energy on Level 1 and 2 feedback. I will also make sure that
I use the gathered data and will only ask questions that will generate usable data. As data is
collected and analyzed, I will present my data in a user-friendly and appealing manner. The
easiest way to share data as it is gathered and analyzed is at the weekly Admin+ meeting.
Admin+ is a standing meeting between the administration and instructional coaches in which
professional development is workshopped as a team and data is shared.
Summary of the Implementation and Evaluation
The new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) was used to plan,
implement, and evaluate the recommendations I am making to mitigate the challenges that core
147

teachers face in interdisciplinary collaboration at Woodlands International School. At the heart
of the new world Kirkpatrick model is backward planning, so the program was designed
beginning with Level 4, identifying leading indicators. Next, Level 3 establishes the critical
behaviors of stakeholders to assess once participants have had an opportunity to apply the
learning. Learning outcomes, Level 2, assesses participant’s learning, attitude, commitment, and
confidence. Finally, methods for assessing participant satisfaction, engagement, and relevance of
the training were planned.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006) urge evaluation to be frequent and repeated
throughout and after the training program to be responsive to the data. As data is received for any
of the four Kirkpatrick levels, asking the following three questions from Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2006) will guide the next steps:
1. Does this outcome meet expectations?
2. If so, why?
3. If not, why not?
The advantage of using the new world Kirkpatrick model is that it encourages data
collection and analysis throughout the program, rather than waiting until the end. This is
essential so that one can be responsive to the data in a timely fashion and make the needed
adjustments to meet the needs of learners so that the program achieves what it intended to
achieve. Return on expectations (ROE), as defined by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006), is the
indicator of value to the stakeholders for a training program. By articulating program
expectations from the beginning and mapping out indicators for success, The new world
Kirkpatrick model is designed to set learning initiatives up for success.
148

Limitations and Delimitations
There were various limitations for this study. This study was conducted at a large, well-
funded international school in Southeast Asia and therefore not likely transferable to another
organization. While 14 participants were willing to be interviewed, their perceptions may not
reflect those who chose not to be interviewed. Furthermore, teachers were the only stakeholders
interviewed. In order to gain a broader perspective of the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors that support or impede collaboration on interdisciplinary teams, gathering
perspectives from interdisciplinary team leaders, instructional coaches, administration, parents,
and students would be beneficial.
Another limitation was the timing of this study for several reasons. Given that the sixth
and seventh-grade teams engage in two IDUs a year, it would have been interesting to interview
participants again after the second unit of the year to see if anything had changed. However,
interviews took place immediately following the first IDUs, so reflections were fresh in
participants' minds.
This study took place during COVID-19, which limited research in several ways. Group
numbers were restricted, making it difficult to justify an additional person in team meetings. The
physical and mental toll COVID-19 took on all stakeholders made me question whether it was
worth placing any additional stress on participants.
Recommendations for Future Research
In considering future research for collaboration on ITTs, I recommend including
additional stakeholders such as instructional coaches, administration, parents, and students. If
one were to conduct a similar study at WIS, I would also recommend interviewing the Grade 8
teachers for perception data as they are not currently engaging in interdisciplinary collaboration.
149

I would also recommend observing team meetings in order to triangulate observation data
with interview data. Observational data would have been important to this study as it occurs in
the location in which the phenomenon, teaming, occurs. It would have allowed me to see KMO
influences first-hand (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Observation allows the researcher to draw
inferences about perspectives that cannot be obtained through interviews, allowing the researcher
insight into tacit understandings and perspectives participants are unwilling or unable to reveal in
an interview (Maxwell, 2013).
Conclusion
Teachers are more likely to shed the culture of privacy and autonomy that exists in the
traditional schoolhouse when there is a psychologically safe environment built on mutual trust
and respect. When space is given for teachers to discuss values, deeply held beliefs, differences
of opinion, engage in conflict, distributed decision-making, and shared learning.
When the right conditions are in place, teachers that collaborate on teams report greater
motivation, satisfaction, professional commitment, and efficacy. Working as a team reduces the
workload, improves the curriculum, provides a social and emotional safety net, and fosters a
sense of collective responsibility for student learning that serves all student’s social, academic,
and emotional needs.
However, the development of a team does not happen overnight. It is a process that takes
a substantial amount of time to move beyond superficial conversations that focus on
organizational and practical matters. Competition, loss of autonomy, unhealthy conflict, and
feelings of conformity are real challenges teachers will face when collaborating. Taking the time
to establish team goals, expectations, roles, a shared mission, and vision and discussing conflict
management, teaching practice, and pedagogical beliefs are critical for success.
150

In order to set teams up for success, teams need professional development which not only
needs to occur before teams are formed, but is an ongoing support of developing teamwork and
interpersonal skills, task implementation, and relationship processes. This shared learning
continues to build team identity and social identity, facilitating the development of team-talk and
‘we-ness.’
Collaboration among teaching teams can only succeed with support from leadership.
Leaders must create a supportive and inspiring climate where it is safe to take risks and make
mistakes, where goals and expectations are clear. Leadership empowers, encourages, and
engages teachers in collaboration through block scheduling, professional development, meeting
time.
151

References
Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration.
Teachers College Record, 104(3), 421–455.
Aguilar, E. (2016). The art of coaching teams: Building resilient communities that transform
schools. Jossey-Bass, A. Wiley Brand.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Bloom’ s taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete ed.).
Longman.
Baker, L. (2006). Developmental differences in metacognition: Implications for metacognitively
oriented reading instruction. In Metacognition in literacy learning (pp. 83–102). Routledge.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K.G. Smith & M.S. Hitt (Eds.)
Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford University Press.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 1(2), 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
Barth, R. S. (2006). Improving relationships within the schoolhouse. Educational Leadership,
63(6), 8–13.
Bovbjerg, K. (2006). Teams and collegiality in educational culture. European Educational
Research Journal EERJ, 5(3/4), 244–253. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2006.5.3.244
152

Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Bryk, & Schneider, B. L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell
Sage Foundation.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Crow, G., & Pounder, D. (2000). Interdisciplinary teacher teams: Context, design, and process.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 216–254.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610021968967
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
Donohoo, J. (2018). Collective teacher efficacy research: Productive patterns of behaviour and
other positive consequences. Journal of Educational Change, 19(3), 323–345.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-018-9319-2
Drago-Severson, E. (2009). Leading adult learning: Supporting adult development in our
schools. Corwin Press.
Drago-Severson, E., & Blum-DeStefano, J. (2018). Building a developmental culture of
feedback. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 3(2), 62–78.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-06-2017-0016
Eccles, J. S. (2006). A motivational perspective on school achievement: Taking responsibility for
learning, teaching, and supporting. In R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds), Optimizing
student success in school with the other three Rs: Reasoning, resilience, and responsibility
(pp. 199–224). Information Age Publishing.
153

Edmondson. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Edmondson, A. C., Kramer, R. M., & Cook, K. S. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and
learning in organizations: A group-level lens. Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas
and Approaches, 12(2004), 239–272.
Erez, M., & Somech, A. (1996). Is group productivity loss the rule or the exception? Effects of
culture and group-based motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1513–1537.
https://doi.org/10.2307/257067
Fraser, Gosling, D., & Sorcinelli, M. D. (2010). Conceptualizing evolving models of educational
development. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2010 (122), 49–58.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.397
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V . (2017).
Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1),
113–165.
Fullan, M. (2007). Leading in a culture of change. John Wiley & Sons.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36(1),
45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Garmston, & Wellman, B. M. (2016). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing
collaborative groups (3rd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning,
measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2),
479–507.
154

Goette, L., Huffman, D., & Meier, S. (2012). The impact of social ties on group interactions:
Evidence from minimal groups and randomly assigned real groups. American Economic
Journal: Microeconomics, 4(1), 101-15.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence (10th ed.). Bantam Books.
Hackett, J., Kruzich, J., Goulter, A., & Battista, M. (2021). Tearing down the invisible walls:
Designing, implementing, and theorizing psychologically safer co-teaching for inclusion.
Journal of Educational Change, 22(1), 103–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09401-3
Hargreaves, A. (2001) Contrived congeniality: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. In S. J.
Ball (Ed.), Sociology of Education: Major Themes (pp. 1480–1503). Routledge Falmer.
Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79–91. doi:10.1037/stl0000021
Havnes, A. (2009). Talk, planning and decision-making in interdisciplinary teacher teams: A case
study. Teachers and Teaching, Theory and Practice, 15(1), 155–176.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600802661360
Hammond, Z., & Jackson, Y . (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting
authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin,
a SAGE Company.
Ibrahim, A. (2020). What hurts or helps teacher collaboration? Evidence from UAE schools.
Prospects (Paris). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-019-09459-9
James, C., Dunning, G., Connolly, M., & Elliott, T. (2007). Collaborative practice: A model of
successful working in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(5), 541–555.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230710778187
155

Jehn, K. A., & Chatman, J. A. (2000). The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict
composition on team performance. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1),
56–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022835
Johnson, C. W., & V oelkel, R. H. (2021). Developing increased leader capacity to support
effective professional learning community teams. International Journal of Leadership in
Education, 24(3), 313–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1600039
Jonker, H., März, V ., & V oogt, J. (2019). Collaboration in teacher design teams: Untangling the
relationship between experiences of the collaboration process and perceptions of the
redesigned curriculum. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 61, 138–149.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.03.010
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2008). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Press.
Kelchtermans, G. (2006). Teacher collaboration and collegiality on workplace conditions: A
review. Zeitschrift Fur Padagogik, 52, 220–237.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.
ATD Press.
Knight, J. (2018). The impact cycle: What instructional coaches should do to foster powerful
improvements in teaching. Corwin, A Sage Company.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning legitimate peripheral participation. University
of Cambridge Press.
156

Leite, C., Fernandes, P., & Figueiredo, C. (2018). Challenges of curricular contextualisation:
Teachers’ perspectives. Australian Educational Researcher, 45(4), 435–453.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0271-1
Lencioni, P., & Stransky, C. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team. Random House, Inc.
Lipscombe, K., Buckley-Walker, K., & McNamara, P. (2020). Understanding collaborative
teacher teams as open systems for professional development. Professional Development in
Education, 46(3), 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1613256
Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional
relations. Teachers’ College Record, 91(4), 509–536.
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. SAGE.
Löfgren, H., & Karlsson, M. (2016). Emotional aspects of teacher collegiality: A narrative
approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 270–280.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.022
Main, K. (2012). Effective middle school teacher teams: A ternary model of interdependency
rather than a catch phrase. Teachers and Teaching, Theory and Practice, 18(1), 75–88.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2011.622556
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and
taxonomy of team processes. The Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2001.4845785
Marschall, C., French, R., Erickson, H. L., Lanning, L. A., & Mosteller, A. (2018). Concept-
based inquiry in action: Strategies to promote transferable understanding. Corwin, a SAGE
Company.
157

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3
rd
ed.). SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Education.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen,
unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400.
Murray, C. (2020). From isolation to individualism: Collegiality in the teacher identity narratives
of experienced second-level teachers in the Irish context. Irish Educational Studies, 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2020.1739548
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research,
66(4), 543–578. doi:10.3102/00346543066004543
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE.
Peck, S. (1988). The different drum: Community-making and peace. Simon & Schuster.
Phillips, K. W. (2014). How diversity makes us smarter. Scientific American, 311(4), 43–47.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of educational Psychology, 95(4), 667.
Pountney, R., & McPhail, G. (2017). Researching the interdisciplinary curriculum: The need for
“translation devices.” British Educational Research Journal, 43(6), 1068–1082.
https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3299
Prain, V ., Emery, S., Thomas, D., Lovejoy, V ., Farrelly, C., Baxter, L., Blake, D., Deed, C.,
Edwards, M., Fingland, D., Mooney, A., Muir, T., Swabey, K., Tytler, R., Workman, E.,
Daniel-Zitzlaff, T., & Henriksen, J. (2020). Team teaching in large spaces: Three case studies
158

framed by relational agency. Teaching Education, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2020.1868423
Reynolds, A., & Lewis, D. (2017). Teams solve problems faster when they’re more cognitively
diverse. Harvard Business Review, 30, 1–8.
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE.
Rock, D., Grant, H., & Grey, J. (2016). Diverse teams feel less comfortable—and that’s why they
perform better. Harvard Business Review, 95(9), 22.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Salokangas, M., Wermke, W., & Harvey, G. (2020). Teachers’ autonomy deconstructed: Irish and
Finnish teachers’ perceptions of decision-making and control. European Educational
Research Journal EERJ, 19(4), 329–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904119868378
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Wiley.
Schunk, D. H. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Pearson.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/.
Senge. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (1st ed.).
Doubleday/Currency.
Slavit, D., Kennedy, A., Lean, Z., Holmlund Nelson, T., & Deuel, A. (2011). Support for
professional collaboration in middle school mathematics: A complex web. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 38(3), 113–131.
159

Somech, A. (2008). Managing conflict in school teams: The impact of task and goal
interdependence on conflict management and team effectiveness. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 44(3), 359–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08318957
Tam, A. (2015). The role of a professional learning community in teacher change: A perspective
from beliefs and practices. Teachers and Teaching, Theory and Practice, 21(1), 22–43.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.928122
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6),
384–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited.
Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404
Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic
review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002
Vangrieken, K., Grosemans, I., Dochy, F., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher autonomy and
collaboration: A paradox? Conceptualising and measuring teachers’ autonomy and
collaborative attitude. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 302–315.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.021
Vangrieken, K., & Kyndt, E. (2020). The teacher as an island? A mixed method study on the
relationship between autonomy and collaboration. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 35(1), 177–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00420-0
Virtue, D., Wilson, J., & Ingram, N. (2009). In overcoming obstacles to curriculum integration,
L.E.S.S. can be more. Middle School Journal, 40(3), 4–11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2009.11495581
160

Visone, J. D., Mongillo, M. B., & Liu, Y . (2021). Teachers’ perceptions of collaboration within
an evolving teacher evaluation context. Journal of Educational Change.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09424-4
Wenger, E. (2009). Communities of practice. Communities, 22(5), 57-80.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2008). Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Williams, M. L. (2010). Teacher collaboration as professional development in a large, suburban
high school. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Zimmerman, D. P., Roussin, J. L., & Garmston, R. J. (2020). Transforming teamwork cultivating
collaborative cultures. Corwin.

161

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Thank you so much for taking time out of your busy schedule to meet with me about your
experience with ITTs and teacher collaboration. I am interested in understanding what our
teachers believe has been helpful to their collaborative work and understanding what supports
are still needed. My goal is to understand your perspective, not to make any judgments. I am here
to learn from you what is working and what is not to make our work better. As previously
mentioned, the interview will take about an hour. Does that still work for you?
You were chosen to participate in this study because you have been engaging in this work
as a teacher for several years.
Before we get started, I want to answer any questions you may have about participating
in this interview. Just to remind you, the Study Information Sheet outlines that this is completely
confidential, voluntary and that we can stop at any time. Your name will not be shared with
anyone, and I will use a pseudonym to protect your confidentiality. I will do my best to de-
identify you.
I have my researcher hat on today, so I will be jotting down notes as we talk, but to fully
capture your thoughts and so I can be completely present to our conversation, I’d like to record
our interview if you are comfortable with that. The recording is only for me and will be deleted
after transcription. May I record our conversation?
Questions (With Transitions) for a Teacher Interview
Part 1: Setting the Stage
I would like to start by asking you some background questions about you.
1. Tell me about your role on your interdisciplinary teaching team?
2. How long have you been a member of an interdisciplinary teaching team?
162

3. How did you become a member of the team you are on?
Part 2: Heart of the Interview
I would like to move into asking you about the collaboration with your interdisciplinary
teaching team.
1. If someone were to ask you what it means to collaborate with other teachers, what
would you say?
2. Describe what a high-functioning interdisciplinary team looks like? Sounds like? Feels
like?
3. If someone were to ask about the stages of team development?
4. If you had to explain your personal pedagogical beliefs to a team member, what would
you say?
5. If you had to explain what needs to be in place for teachers to engage in
interdisciplinary collaboration to someone, what would you say?
6. Tell me about how your team has built trust, if at all.
7. What are some examples, if any, of how flexibility plays a role in interdisciplinary
team development?
8. Suppose you have a new teacher joining your team. What are the things you would do
to bring them on board? What would your team do to bring them on board?
9. Describe a time there was conflict on your team. How was it handled, if at all?
10. Walk me through the steps your team takes when planning an interdisciplinary unit.
11. Tell me about a time when collaboration was helpful, if any.
12. Tell me about a time collaboration was unnecessary, if any.
13. Tell me about the last time you reflected on your team's collaboration, if at all.
163

14. What do you see as the value of collaboration with your team members, if any?
15. Some might say that “the juice is not worth the squeeze” when collaborating with
team members. What are your thoughts?
16. Tell me about a time when you felt successful in the work with your team. What led
to that success? How did this success influence your confidence in future team
collaboration, if at all?
17. Tell me about a time when you felt challenged in the work with your team. How did
you approach the situation?
18. What did you perceive to be the goals of your team meetings? What are your
thoughts on how clear the goals are when you meet as a team?
19. When you know that an interdisciplinary unit is approaching, what is your emotional
reaction? What elements of interdisciplinary units cause that reaction, specifically?
I would like to switch gears a little by asking you about your perceptions regarding the
structures that support your team, as well as what structures you feel are needed.
20. Some may say that our “culture of excellence” inhibits teachers from trying new
things for fear that they will not be perfect right away. What are your thoughts?
21. Describe the professional learning opportunities about team collaboration you have
been offered. Before teaming? Ongoing opportunities?
22. Some may say that they do not feel they have had enough professional development
to engage in interdisciplinary teaming. What are your thoughts?
23. Describe the ideal training program for collaborating on an interdisciplinary teaching
team.
24. What role does block scheduling play in your interdisciplinary planning?
164

25. What role does block scheduling play in your interdisciplinary instruction?
26. Tell me about how your team was formed. How is it decided who is on which team?
27. How often, if ever, is an administrator present at your team meetings? Tell me about
the role, if any, your administrator plays on your team?
28. What other insights would you like to share about collaboration or our work with
IDU that I might not have covered?
Closing
Thank you so much for taking the time to talk to me today. Your willingness to share your
insights and experiences are really helpful to my study. As I go back and reflect on our
conversation, can I contact you if I have any follow-up questions, and would email be best?
Thank you for participating in my study. Please accept this small token of my appreciation for
your time and for sharing your thoughts.

165

Appendix B: Document Analysis Record

Document 1:
Influence:
Notes:

Document 2:
Influence:
Notes:

Document 3:
Influence:
Notes:

Document 4:
Influence:
Notes:

166

Appendix C: Informed Consent/Information Sheet
Informed Consent/Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles CA, 90089

COLLEGIAL COLLABORATION AMONG INTERDISCIPLINARY TEACHING TEAMS: A
GAP ANALYSIS

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study aims to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that facilitate
and interfere with middle school content area teachers being able to engage in deep collegial
collaboration to design and deliver interdisciplinary units. Clark and Estes (2008) propose that
performance gaps can be understood, and solutions proposed based on the careful analysis of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational root causes.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in a one-on-one interview
with the researcher and/or participate in team meetings that are being observed by the researcher.
167

CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no identifiable information obtained in connection with this study. Your name,
address or other identifiable information will not be collected.

Required language:
The members of the research team, the funding agency, and the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews
and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the research results are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information
will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
The Principal Investigator is Katherine McMullen, kemcmull@usc.edu, +65 97764947

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

168

Appendix D: Recruitment Emails
In November 2021, I would like to conduct interviews with content area teachers
collaborating on interdisciplinary teaching teams. Through these interviews, participants will be
asked to share their experiences, insights, challenges and offer suggestions as we expand our
interdisciplinary learning communities. Interviews will last approximately 60 minutes and will
be scheduled at your convenience.
The data gathered during these interviews will also be used as data in my doctoral
dissertation from the University of Southern California, which seeks to understand the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that facilitate and inhibit interdisciplinary
collaboration.
If you are willing to participate in this study, please notify me by responding to the
Google Form by Friday, October 5, 2021. Participation is completely voluntary. I will reach out
to those who express interest in the coming weeks. If you are not interested in participating,
please delete this email.

169

Appendix E: Sample Survey Items Measuring Kirkpatrick Levels 1 and 2
The survey items utilized a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree):
1. The content of this meeting consistently held my interest. (Level 1 Engagement)
2. I learned consistently during this meeting. (Level 1 Engagement)
3. The content covered in this meeting has relevance to my work with my
interdisciplinary team. (Level 1 Relevance)
4. I enjoyed this meeting. (Level 1 Customer Satisfaction)
5. What worked well for you in the meeting? (Level 1 Engagement, Relevance,
Customer Satisfaction)
6. What could have made it better? (Level 1 Engagement, Relevance, Customer
Satisfaction)
The following questions ask you to consider how you would have responded before
participating in the meeting to how you would respond at the end. The continuing survey items
utilized a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree):
1. I understand the importance of sharing pedagogical beliefs and values with my team
members. (Level 2 Conceptual Knowledge)
2. I understand how to plan a concept-based interdisciplinary unit. (Level 2 Procedural
Knowledge)
3. I see value in collaborating with team members to develop interdisciplinary units.
(Level 2 Attitude)
4. I have the confidence to contribute to planning with my interdisciplinary team. (Level
2 Confidence)
170

Appendix F: Sample Blended Evaluation Items Measuring Kirkpatrick Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend delaying program evaluation so that
participants have an opportunity to practice and adopt new skills and behaviors.
Open-Ended Questions for Revisiting Levels 1 and 2
1. From the training on interdisciplinary collaboration, what continues to be relevant to
you now? (Level 1 Relevance)
2. What worked well for you during these training sessions? (Level 1 Customer
Satisfaction)
3. What would have made these sessions better? (Level 1 Customer Satisfaction)
4. When planning an interdisciplinary unit with your team, what are important things to
discuss? (Level 2 Procedural Knowledge)
5. What are the steps your team takes when planning an interdisciplinary unit? (Level 2
Procedural Knowledge)
Five-Point Scale Questions for Evaluating Level 3 Critical Behaviors
For the following questions, identify the degree to which you have continued to practice
the behaviors from the interdisciplinary collaboration program. The continuing survey items
utilized a 5-point Likert scale (1 = little or no application to 5 = very strong degree of
application desire to help others do the same):
6. I help my team engage in constructive conflict.
7. I help my team reflect on our collaboration
8. My team develops a shared understanding of the goals for a unit.
171

9. If you chose three or below on any question above, please indicate the reason(s) why
you are not continuing to apply these behaviors:
a. These behaviors do not apply to my context.
b. These behaviors still feel relevant, but I do not have the support to incorporate
them.
c. I do not understand how to apply these behaviors in my context.
d. I do not have the confidence to apply what I have learned.
e. Other, please specify ______________________________________
Level 4 Indicators and Results Sample Metrics
10. To what extent have you used the learning from the interdisciplinary collaboration
program?
11. To what extent has it helped achieve worthwhile results?
12. The following are positive outcomes from my participation in the interdisciplinary
collaboration program. Check all that apply.
a. I have developed trusting relationships with my team members.
b. I know how to maintain those trusting relationships.
c. I have shared my pedagogical beliefs and values with my teams.
d. I know the steps my team needs to take to plan an interdisciplinary unit.
e. I feel more comfortable engaging in constructive conflict.
f. I understand the value of conflict.
g. I reflect on my collaboration with my team.
h. I am confident about my contributions to my team.
i. I can work with my team to develop clear goals for our collaboration.
172

j. I feel positive about collaborating with my team to achieve our goal.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study aimed to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that facilitate and interfere with middle school content area teachers engaging in collaboration to design and deliver interdisciplinary units (IDU) at Woodlands International School (WIS) in Southeast Asia. Clarks and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis provided the conceptual and methodological framework for this study and aimed to answer the following questions:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that interfere with the Grade 6 and 7 content area teachers engaging in collegial collaboration to design and deliver IDUs?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivational, and organizational solutions?
Fourteen content area teachers were interviewed using a semi-structured interview protocol. Each interview was transcribed, coded, and organized into themes for knowledge, motivation, and organization. Findings show that the gaps that exist in knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences are intimately interconnected. Based on the findings, solutions offered to address the challenges were drawn from the research literature. This study begins to help understand the complexity of interdisciplinary collaboration and how organizations can begin to fill the gap.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Teachers assumptions on the importance of executive function: a gap analysis evaluation study

PDF

The enactment of equitable mathematics teaching practices: an adapted gap analysis

PDF

How does working in an ILE at ISSA influence teacher practice?

PDF

Developing standards-based Chinese curricula in international schools: a gap analysis for Eagle American School

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

The implementation of response to intervention: an adapted gap analysis

PDF

Exploring culturally relevant pedagogy in a Chinese immersion program: a gap analysis

PDF

Reducing gaps in healthcare delivery quality on American Indian reservations and Alaska Native communities: an improvement study

PDF

Representation in the teaching force: recruitment of teachers of color

PDF

Critical hope for culturally responsive education: an improvement study

PDF

Principals’ leadership influence on teachers’ capacity to enact 21st-century skills curriculum

PDF

Centering diverse funds of knowledge toward reciprocally beneficial practices

PDF

Positive behavior intervention support plan: a gap analysis

PDF

Implementing standards-based grading in the era of common standards: an evaluation study

PDF

Evaluation of New Teacher Induction (NTI) mentor practice for developing NTI teachers capable of differentiating instruction to address cultural diversity, equity, and learner variability

PDF

The role of international school teacher leaders in building leadership capacity within their teams

PDF

Answering the call for shared leadership - the missing conditions for successful implementation of English language teacher leadership: an evaluation study

PDF

The intersection of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational culture on implementing positive psychology interventions through a character education curriculum

PDF

Modern corporate learning requires a modern design methodology: an innovation study

PDF

The attrition and lack of medical follow-up of patients in research in a primary care setting: a gap analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator McMullen, Katherine Elizabeth (author)

Core Title Collaboration among interdisciplinary teaching teams: a gap analysis

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 04/25/2022

Defense Date 04/25/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag collegial,flexible learning environment,interdisciplinary,middle school,OAI-PMH Harvest,teacher collaboration

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Robles, Darline P. (committee chair), Picus, Lawrence (committee member), Samkian, Artineh (committee member)

Creator Email kemcmull@usc.edu,kmcmullen@sas.edu.sg

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111117817

Unique identifier UC111117817

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights McMullen, Katherine Elizabeth

Type texts

Source 20220427-usctheses-batch-933 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu