Tid til lærersamarbejde?: Iagttagelser af lærerkollegiale interaktionssystemer i handelsgymnasier efter gymnasiereformen

After the new reform of the Danish upper secondary schools the HHX (The Higher Commercial Examination Programme) has been restructured so that the teachers now are expected to collaborate more with each other. The new reform requires, among other things, that the teachers participate in teacher teams and design interdisciplinary curricula together. This is new for many of the schools. The idea with increasing school-based teacher collaboration is that it will solve different pedagogical and organizational problems in the upper secondary schools such as breaking with the familiar “teacher privatism” and enhance teachers' professionalism.The aim of this explorative case-study is to examine how this problem of the enactment of collaboration on teaching is solved in the HHX by analyzing how these new work conditions are described by 12 different mathematics teachers from HHX. The study is based on qualitative interviews and on the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann's systems theory. The main question of the thesis is:How is collaborating on teaching possible for mathematics teachers in the teacher collegial interaction systems of the HHX after the reform of the Danish Upper Secondary Schools?This question is divided into three sub-questions where I ask how the mathematics teachers observe the complexities of time, tasks and social relations when it comes to issue of collaborating on teaching. In this study collaboration is defined as a type of interaction where at least two persons share a common goal that they are mutually dependent on each other to achieve. A teacher collegial interaction system is defined as a situation where only teachers are present and communicate with each other as teachers. The dissertation consists of nine chapters. In Chapter 1 the study's background, purposes and delimitations are outlined. The research project has three objectives: First, to provide an overview of current research in school-based teacher collaboration on the grounds that this is still lacking in a Danish educational context. Second, to contribute with new knowledge to the research in upper secondary schools and mathematics education by examining how a particular teacher group – in the form of mathematics teachers from HHX – observes the challenge of having to collaborate more with their colleagues under the new conditions. Third, to contribute with new knowledge to research in school-based teacher collaboration by using Luhmann's systems theoretical perspective as an alternative way to understand this phenomenon, which no one has previously attempted.Chapter 2 consists of a review of the research literature in school-based teacher collaboration. I argue for my choice of definition of the term collaboration and discuss how collaboration has been distinguished from other types of interaction such as conflict, competition and coordination. I also discuss how teacher collaboration in the research literature on the one hand has been presented as something that is realized in teacher teams and on the other side as something that constitutes a substantial part of the so-called professional learning communities in schools. In the discussion of the notion of teacher teams I look at the educational concept of team teaching as an example of how the idea about establishing teacher teams in schools has been thought. In the discussion of the notion of professional learning communities I first discuss how a teacher community can be understood as being professional, and then what it means that it is also a learning community. The systems theoretical perspective is unfolded in Chapter 3, where the concept of teacher collegial interaction systems is also presented. I introduce some of the key concepts in Luhmann's systems theory that are relevant for this study. These concepts are, among others: system, environment, communication, autopoiesis and structural coupling. In this chapter I also outline what in this perspective is meant by the educational system of the society, by classroom teaching (or what in German is called “Unterricht”) understood as an interaction system and school organizational decisions. These are all important systems in the environment of the teacher collegial interaction systems and that they in various ways are structurally coupled to. In Chapter 4 the methodological considerations of the study are presented. First, I briefly present the epistemological position of the study that is described as operational constructivism and define the three central systems theoretical concepts of observation, meaning and form. In this chapter I also discuss Luhmann's views on empirical research, and present my choice of analytical method that is based on Jens Rasmussen's operational constructivist hermeneutics combined with insights from Ralf Bohnsacks documentary method. This analytical method consists of three different steps in the form of an empirical construction, a hypothetical construction and a comparative analysis. The aim of the method is to observe what kind of distinctions that are used in the interviews and in this way to identify “blind spots”. In the end of the chapter I carefully describe how the different steps of the interview study has been carried out. Chapter 5 consists of the first part of the analysis where I answer the first sub-question of the thesis. In this part of the analysis the mathematics teachers' observations of the time dimension in the teacher collegial interaction system and its significance for the possibility to collaborate on teaching is observed. The results of the analysis are that there is a tendency to focus on time as a scarce resource and as a movement. According to the teachers there is not time enough for the collegial collaboration and it is not clear in what direction the collaboration is moving because the teachers still need some experience and routines in this regard. The distinction that is observed in this part of the analysis is that between certainty and uncertainty. Chapter 6 consists of an analysis of how the tasks are handled in the teacher collegial interaction systems according to the mathematics teachers. The idea is to find some common goal, which is not always easy. The analysis identifies three challenges in the classroom that the mathematics teachers mention they are faced with. These are new forms of written exercises in mathematics, the relevance of mathematics as a school subject and students' misuse of their computers in the classroom. These are some of the themes that mathematics teachers sometimes are talking with their colleagues about in the teacher collegial interaction systems. The analysis also shows that teachers mainly associates collaboration with a joint planning of teaching, ie. as activities that take place before the teaching is carried out in the classrooms. It is rare that the collaboration is focused on a joint assessment of teaching. The latter could potentially be an activity where the teachers together inquire and reflect about their practice and in this way develop their professional knowledge about teaching. The distinction that is observed in this part of the analysis is that between planning and classroom teaching. Finally, Chapter 7 focuses on how the social relations among colleagues are observed in the interviews. The analysis suggests that there is a difference as to whether collaboration is based on an organizational decision or not. There is a difference in who works with whom and how they interact with each other. For example there is a difference in how teachers interact with each other in their subject department and how they interact in the new-established interdisciplinary teacher teams. The teachers‟ relations vary from independence to interdependence. There seems to be a preference for working independently, and the traditional norms of noninterference and equal status still seem to persist among teachers despite the attempts to create new teacher roles – such as the role as mentor or the role as team coordinator - that could potentially break with these norms. The distinction that is observed in this part of the analysis is that between collegial independence and dependence. In Chapter 8 I compare and discuss the analytical results from the previous chapters. The results reveal a pattern in the mathematics teachers‟ orientations when it comes to the theme about collegial collaboration on teaching. The analysis shows that they are predominantly oriented towards a search for certainty, classroom planning and collegial independence. The structural coupling to the school's organizational decisions seems to have become tighter after the reform, while the coupling to the actual teaching in the classrooms is relatively loose. I here find some striking similarities with Dan C. Lortie's classical description of the teaching profession as being oriented toward individualism, conservatism, and presentism. In this chapter I also discuss how the intentions of the new reform have been met in practice of the schools according to the interviews and I end the chapter with comparing and discussing the three different perspectives on teacher collaboration presented in the dissertation - teacher teams, professional learning communities and teacher collegial interaction systems – compared with the results from the empirical study.Chapter 9 consists of a conclusion and perspectives. The conclusion of the thesis is that collaboration on teaching in principle is possible in many ways for mathematics teachers in the teacher collegial interaction systems of the HHX. There is not only one solution to this complex problem. On the other hand, there are various factors that impedes the realization of a collegial collaboration on teaching, such as a lack of time, a lack of previous experience with collaboration, disagreements and difficulties in defining common goals, the continued independent work in the classrooms and the norms that one should not be too dependent on his colleagues, that one should not interfere too much in the other's teaching and should not make decisions for the other. It is possible that collaboration on teaching can be enacted but without there being any added value or enhanced professional competence. There are also other ways to interact with each other where the requirements of the new reform is fulfilled, but which cannot be described as collaboration. Orientation towards certainty, planning and collegial independence are mutually reinforcing and makes it difficult - but not impossible - for teachers to collaborate on teaching with each other. In the end of the chapter it is pointed out that there is a need for more research in this important area and gives some suggestions to what is especially relevant to focus on in the future.
Efter den nye gymnasiereform er handelsgymnasierne (hhx) blevet omstruktureret, således at det nu forventes af lærerne at de samarbejder mere med hinanden. Dette kræves bl.a. i form af at lærerne deltager i lærerteam, og får fagene til at spille sammen. Dette er nyt for mange af skolerne. Idéen med et øget skolebaseret lærersamarbejde er, at det vil kunne løse en række pædagogiske og organisatoriske problemer i gymnasierne såsom at bryde med den ”privatpraktiserende lærer” ogstyrke lærernes professionalisme. Formålet med dette eksplorative casestudie er at undersøge,hvordan problemet med at igangsætte et samarbejde om undervisning bliver løst i handelsgymnasiet. Der er tale om en kvalitativ interviewundersøgelse, hvor 12 matematiklæreres fortællinger om deres erfaringer med kollegialt samarbejde i handelsgymnasiet analyseres medudgangspunkt i den tyske sociolog Niklas Luhmanns systemteori. Det hovedspørgsmål somafhandlingen ønsker at besvare er:Hvordan er samarbejde om undervisning muligt for matematiklærere i handelsgymnasietslærerkollegiale interaktionssystemer efter gymnasiereformen?Spørgsmålet bliver i afhandlingen delt op i tre underspørgsmål, hvor der spørges til, hvordan matematiklærerne iagttager håndteringen af henholdsvis den tidsmæssige, opgavernes og de socialerelationers kompleksitet i forhold til læreres mulighed for at samarbejde om undervisningen.Samarbejde bliver her defineret som en type interaktion, hvor mindst to personer deler et fællesmål, som de er gensidigt afhængige af hinanden for at opnå. Et lærerkollegialt interaktionssystem defineres som en situation, hvor kun lærere er tilstedeværende og kommunikerer med hinanden somlærere.Afhandlingen består af ni kapitler, hvor indledningen udgør kapitel 1. I dette første kapitelredegøres der for undersøgelsens baggrund, problemformulering, formål og afgræsninger. Der formuleres tre formål med forskningsprojektet i form af: 1. At give et overblik over aktuel forskningi skolebaseret lærersamarbejde med den begrundelse at dette stadig savnes i en dansk pædagogisk kontekst 2. At bidrage med ny viden til gymnasiepædagogikken og matematikkens didaktik ved at undersøge, hvordan en partikulær faggruppe – i form af matematiklærere fra handelsgymnasiet –iagttager udfordringen med at skulle samarbejde mere med deres kolleger under de nye betingelser.3. At bidrage med ny viden til forskning i skolebaseret lærersamarbejde ved at afprøve et alternativt perspektiv herpå i form af Luhmanns systemteori, hvilket ingen tidligere har forsøgt. I kapitel 2 foretager jeg et review over forskningslitteraturen i skolebaseret lærersamarbejde. Jeg redegør for afhandlingens definition af begrebet samarbejde og diskuterer, hvordan samarbejde er blevet skelnet fra andre interaktionsformer såsom konflikt, konkurrence og koordination. Jeg diskuterer desuden, hvordan lærersamarbejde i forskningslitteraturen på den ene side er blevet fremstillet som noget, der realiseres i lærerteam og på den anden side som noget der udgør envæsentlig del af såkaldt professionelle læringsfællesskaber i skolen. I fremstillingen af begrebet om lærerteam tager jeg udgangspunkt i det pædagogiske koncept om team teaching som et eksemplarisk bud på, hvordan idéen om lærerteam i skolerne er blevet tænkt. I fremstillingen af begrebet om professionelle læringsfællesskaber diskuterer jeg først, hvordan et fællesskab mellemlærere kan forstås som professionelt, og dernæst hvad det vil sige at der også er tale om et læringsfællesskab.Afhandlingens systemteoretiske perspektiv udfoldes i kapitel 3, hvor begrebet om lærerkollegiale interaktionssystemer også bliver præsenteret. Der gives en kort indføring i nogle centrale begreber i Luhmanns systemteori, der har relevans for undersøgelsen. Det drejer sig her bl.a. om begreber somsystem, omverden, kommunikation, autopoiesis og strukturel kobling. Jeg redegør i dette kapitel også for, hvad der generelt skal forstås ved samfundets uddannelsessystem, ved undervisningforstået som et interaktionssystem og ved skoleorganisatoriske beslutninger. Disse udgør alle en central omverden for de lærerkollegiale interaktionssystemer, og som de på forskellige måder kobler sig strukturelt til.I kapitel 4 redegør jeg for afhandlingens metodologi. Jeg siger først kort noget om systemteoriens videnskabsteoretiske standpunkt, der betegnes som operativ konstruktivisme og om de tre centrale begreber iagttagelse, mening og form. I dette kapitel diskuterer jeg desuden det systemteoretiskesyn på empiri og empirisk forskning, og præsenterer den her anvendte analysemetode, der bygger på Jens Rasmussens operative konstruktivistiske hermeneutik kombineret med indsigter fra Ralf Bohnsacks dokumentariske metode. I denne metode foregår analysen i tre trin i form af en empirisk konstruktion, en hypotetisk konstruktion og en sammenfattende komparativ analyse. Hensigten med metoden er at iagttage, hvilke forskelle der iagttages med i interviewene. Jeg slutter kapitlet med ennøje gennemgang af de forskellige skridt der konkret er blevet taget i gennemførelsen afinterviewundersøgelsen. Kapitel 5 består af den første del af interviewanalysen, hvor afhandlingens første delspørgsmål besvares. I denne analyse iagttages matematiklærernes iagttagelser af tidsdimensionen i de lærerkollegiale interaktionssystemer og dens betydning for muligheden for at samarbejde om undervisningen. Resultatet af analysen er, at der er en tendens til at fokusere på tiden som en knap ressource og som en bevægelse. Der gives udtryk for, at der ikke er tid nok til det kollegiale samarbejde og at det ikke er klart, hvor samarbejdet bevæger sig hen, fordi der stadig mangler at blive opbygget nogle erfaringer og rutiner på dette punkt. Den distinktion der bliver tydelig i analysen, er den mellem sikkerhed og usikkerhed.Kapitel 6 består af en analyse af, hvordan opgaverne håndteres i de lærerkollegiale interaktionssystemer ifølge matematiklærerne. Det drejer sig her om at finde frem til nogle fællesmål, hvilket ikke altid er så let. I analysen dukker der tre udfordringer op, som matematiklærerne står over for at skulle løse i undervisningen. Det drejer sig om matematiske emneopgaver, om matematikfagets anvendelighed og relevans og om elevers misbrug af deres pc i undervisningen. Det er nogle temaer, som matematiklærerne somme tider taler med forskellige kolleger om i de lærerkollegiale interaktionssystemer. Analysen viser desuden, at lærerne især forbinder det kollegiale samarbejde med en fælles planlægning af undervisning, dvs. som aktiviteter der findersted før undervisningens gennemførelse. Det er sjældent en fælles evaluering af undervisning, der bliver genstand for samarbejdet. Det sidstnævnte kunne ellers potentielt være en mulighed for at lærerne kunne udforske og reflektere over undervisningen sammen med henblik på at styrke deres professionsviden. Lærerne iagttager altså primært det kollegiale samarbejde ved at skelne mellem planlægning og undervisning.Endelig fokuserer kapitel 7 på, hvordan de sociale relationer blandt kolleger fremstilles iinterviewene med særlig henblik på muligheden for at samarbejde om undervisningen. Analysen peger på, at der er en forskel på, hvorvidt samarbejdet er organisatorisk besluttet eller ikke. Der er en forskel på, hvem lærerne samarbejder med, og hvordan de interagerer med hinanden. Der er eksempelvis en tydelig forskel på, hvordan man interagerer med hinanden i faggrupperne og i de nye flerfaglige lærerteam, hvor relationerne kan variere fra uafhængighed til gensidig afhængighed. Der synes at være en præference for den kollegiale uafhængighed, og analyserne viser, at de traditionelle normer om noninterferens og lige status mellem lærere stadig gør sig gældende trodsforsøg på at skabe nogle roller, der potentielt kunne bryde hermed såsom mentorrollen og teamkoordinatorrollen. Den forskel der her iagttages med er altså den mellem kollegial uafhængighed og kollegial afhængighed.I kapitel 8 foretager jeg en sammenligning og diskussion af analyseresultaterne. Der viser sig et mønster i interviewene, hvor matematiklærerne overvejende orienterer sig mod sikkerhed, planlægning og kollegial uafhængighed i forbindelse med deres deltagelse i kollegialt samarbejdeom undervisning. Den strukturelle kobling til skolens organisatoriske beslutninger synes at være blevet fastere efter gymnasiereformen, mens koblingen til den konkrete undervisning er relativt løs. Der sammenlignes med Dan C. Lorties klassiske beskrivelse af lærererhvervet som værende orienteret mod individualisme, konservatisme og en optagethed af det nuværende, hvor der viser sig at være nogle slående ligheder med dette studies resultater. Der diskuteres hvordan intentionerne i gymnasiereformen ifølge interviewene er blevet imødekommet i praksis og så foretages der ensammenligning og diskussion af de tre præsenterede perspektiver på lærersamarbejde – i form af begreberne om lærerteam, professionelle læringsfællesskaber og lærerkollegiale interaktionssystemer – der sammenholdes med resultaterne fra den empiriske undersøgelse.Kapitel 9 består af en konklusion og perspektivering. Konklusionen på afhandlingenshovedspørgsmål er, at et samarbejde om undervisning for matematiklærerne i handelsgymnasietslærerkollegiale interaktionssystemer er muligt på mange måder. Der er ikke kun en løsning på problemet. På den anden side er der forskellige omstændigheder, der vanskeliggør realiseringen af et kollegialt samarbejde om undervisning, såsom en mangel på tid og tidligere erfaringer hermed, uenigheder og besvær med at få defineret et fælles mål, det fortsatte selvstændige arbejde i klasseundervisningen og normerne om at man ikke bør være for afhængig af sine kolleger, ikke bør blande sig for meget i hinandens undervisning og ikke bør bestemme over hinanden. Et samarbejde kan igangsættes og gennemføres men uden at det medfører nogen merværdi og bidrager til at udvikle lærernes professionelle kompetence. Desuden er der andre måder at interagere med hinanden på, der opfylder bekendtgørelsens krav, men som ikke umiddelbart kan betegnes somsamarbejde. Orienteringen mod sikkerhed, planlægning og kollegial uafhængighed forstærker gensidigt hinanden og gør det svært, men ikke umuligt, for lærerne at samarbejde om undervisningen med hinanden. Kapitlet peger afslutningsvist på, at der er behov for mere forskning på området og giver nogle forslag til, hvor det særligt kunne være interessant at sætte ind.