Final Reflections

You cannot change others but you can change yourself, so start there.

My first cycle was focused on understanding my own communication style within our team and observing, reflecting on, and modifying the way I collaborate. As I worked through that cycle, I learned several very important lessons about how to collaborate with other people. My review of the literature indicated that trust and respect are crucial elements in a functioning team (and therefore in a successful collaboration). My work in cycle one taught me the value of these elements on a more visceral level. I began to learn how to recognize the signs that trust and respect are lacking and then made an effort to learn how to develop both.

It is the relationships between people that can make or break a successful enterprise or a successful collaboration. (Fullan, 2001) My work in cycle one helped me to understand that I had been spending so much time concentrating on my own needs that I had neglected a relationship within the team. “If we are conscious only of ourselves, we will be ineffective in groups.” (Isaacs, 1999, pg. 81) My work with Fred taught me that when I listen, what someone doesn’t say can be as important, or more important, than what they do say. As I pursued my new goal of active listening, I learned to calm my inner voice and listen both to others and also to my own reactions. (Isaacs, 1999) I looked deeply and candidly at my sense of frustration with Fred and realized that I was so caught up in why his approach wasn’t working for me that I missed the fact that maybe it was my own approach that wasn’t working for both of us. This realization shifted my point of view back to my own actions. I was able to stop myself from assuming that Fred was being purposely obtuse or difficult. I began to make an authentic and concerted effort to show an interest in his current projects (professional and personal). Showing this interest resulted in a genuine interest on my part and a new dimension to our professional relationship. It was a revelation for me that the interest could develop becauseI made the effort to show it, rather than the interest being there in the first place. My desire to better understand and work with my colleague created an interest in what he was working on and provided a context around which our professional relationship could grow. My respect for and trust in him grew and as it did I saw that both the trust and respect were returned. As I reflect further, I suspect that the trust and respect were always there but that I was not able to recognize either until I changed my own attitude.

As I looked objectively at the way my approach at work was changing and evolving, I realized that working so closely with the cadre of Pepperdine students, and especially with the smaller learning circles within the cadre, was changing the way I approached both trust and respect in group situations. I knew when I applied to the Pepperdine Online Masters of Education Technology program that it emphasized a constructivist or learner-centered approach to education. I quickly discovered that the program sees the learner-centered approach as only the first step. The next step is the community-centered approach to learning. For the cadre I was in, at the core of this community-centered approach were the learning circles. Each learning circle consisted of three to five students who work together not only as fellow learners but also as teachers, critical friends, and advisors. “Learning Circles enable students from different cultures, regions, religions, ages, perspectives, and with a range of physical and mental strengths to work together in a medium that treats diversity as a resource.” (Riel, 1993) So much of the work we did as a cadre and within our learning circles was communal and collaborative. We may have created our own understanding of the concepts and theories we were studying, but we did not create it in a vacuum, we created it as a group. To work together to create our knowledge and deepen our understanding, we had to trust and respect each other. More importantly, we had to demonstrate that trust and respect though our active participation in both the asynchronous and synchronous coursework. We are all diminished if even one does not participate.

In our course discussions, I gained new insights about and respect for my fellow Pepperdine students through the sharing of stories and experiences. Sometimes these stories were directly related to coursework and sometimes the relationship was more indirect, but in each case, I came to know my classmates through these shared stories. As I reflected on these stories and on our shared experiences, I found that I had come to better understand the importance of making an effort to connect with my colleagues on more than just a professional level. I began to make a concerted effort to find areas of interest that we could share. This, I believed, would build affective trust.

In retrospect, another focus of my work in both my research and in working within the Pepperdine cadre and the smaller learning circles was how to encourage and facilitate learning and growth without dictating the exact path a learner (or colleague) should take. I was learning how important it is to enable someone to accomplish something rather than just do it for him or provide a detailed list of all the steps he should follow to get it done. The biggest revelation for me was that I didn't realize that I wasn't doing that before. When I reviewed my interactions from the past, I realized that I had a tendency to either clearly explain exactly how one should go about a specific task or, if I had the time, offer to do it myself. As I reflected on my work in cycle one and on my early coursework within the learning circles and within the cadre as a whole, I realized that neither of those approaches was helpful nor did either promote learning. It may have seemed more efficient because it meant that the task itself got done and perhaps got done quickly and correctly; but it also meant that the next time a similar task needed to be accomplished, I had not set up a situation where that other person would be better equipped to do it. This was an extremely important lesson to learn and I was intrigued that I had not recognized the difference before working on this cycle. Now, as I reflect on it further, I suspect that I had not recognized that my actions did not represent my own beliefs about learning. I believed in the constructivist approach to learning, but I apparently only practiced it with my own learning. This was another indication to me that I still had work to do regarding trusting and respecting those I worked with. By doing things for them or telling them exactly how to do something, I was demonstrating that I didn’t believe they could construct that knowledge for themselves. This demonstrated a significant discrepancy between what I said, that I trusted and respected my peers, and what I demonstrated, that I could construct knowledge but they needed to be fed the knowledge. One of my conscious beliefs is that I am capable of learning anything I want to learn, but that belief harbors a shadow belief that I have to do everything myself and do things for other people as well. Shadow beliefs like this one can lead to very “self-limiting patterns.” (Cashman, 2000)

In a collaborative environment, the individual is part of a greater whole.

In the Pepperdine program we spent the Fall 2004 term focused on our own definition of learning and on our own construction of knowledge. Although we worked in groups on nearly every project, we were primarily focused on our own individual practice and our practice within the learning community defined by our learning circles and our cadre. In the Spring 2005 term, we broadened our focus to include more than just our own learning within the cadre. We worked on developing ourselves as mentors and we designed a curriculum for others to learn from rather than just artifacts that represented our own learning. Lave and Wenger (1991) would say that we moved from a position of “learning as internalization” to one of “learning as increased participation in communities of practice.” (Lave and Wenger, 1991, p49) We had learned how we learned and we had begun to develop our own theory of learning. Now we were embarking on acting in the world.

Cycle two of my research began during the Spring 2005 term and I found that I took this idea of broadening my focus and applied it to my approach in that cycle. I was ready to participate more fully in my professional community and I looked to our critique process as a way to do that. By the spring term, I had participated in three different learning circles organized by Professor Riel and countless other project or assignment focused groups within the cadre. Through the process of working with these groups and especially the learning circles, I was participating in a kind of critique and peer review process that went beyond just offering helpful editorial suggestions. As a group of critical friends, we did far more than just critique and review each others work, we reflected on our learning together as a group. As a way of sharing and co-creating our knowledge, we participated in a dialogue about what we were learning. In retrospect, I think I had begun to recognize that this was something that was missing from the peer review and critique process I participated in at work. In the learning circles this dialogue and co-creation of knowledge enabled a deep level of trust and respect to evolve between the members of the cadre. At work, I still viewed the critique process as at best a tedious necessity and at worst a negative experience where I was told what I had done wrong and had to fix. I saw the process as a choice between accepting and rejecting the comments of my professional colleagues. Rarely did I attempt to open a real dialogue about the suggested changes or modifications. Perhaps this was why my colleagues were not sure that I respected and trusted them as much as they respected and trusted me. I think I always knew that that there was a middle way somewhere between “accepting” a change and "rejecting" one. Learning how to construct knowledge together with my cadre and learning circles had given me a glimpse of what this middle way could be.

As I worked through cycle two, I discovered that I was looking forward to the review process as an integral part of making my work better rather than as a necessary but tedious step. I also found that I truly appreciated those colleagues who made insightful comments regarding the flow, structure, and content of my work. While I recognized the value in, and necessity of, an editorial review for typos, grammar, usage, and style-guide compliance, I actually found that I was disappointed when those were the only types of comments a reviewer included. This in turn caused me to rethink and reflect on the way I was reviewing my colleagues work. As I look back on this cycle again, I realize that it was not the quantity of comments or communication that was lacking. It was the quality of the interactions that I needed to change. Instead of looking at the critique process as a way of expressing, or rejecting, my own ideas, I wanted to start looking at it as a way of creating our group’s ideas together. In our current environment, we discuss things as a group and then work individually toward what we think the group goal is. In a true collaborative environment, we would spend more time working together to understand what we do as we are doing it. (Schrage, 1990) I was participating in that kind of environment in the learning circles and I wanted to find a way to bring that kind of collaboration into my professional practice. I began to look for opportunities to share knowledge beyond just sharing copies of (or links to) journal articles, research, and other relevant readings. I realized that I'd been making the assumption that if my colleagues wanted to know more about one of the subjects I shared, they would either read the article themselves or ask me specific questions. I have learned that sharing knowledge is not telling people where the knowledge is located. Sharing knowledge and creating knowledge together is about initiating dialogue and then facilitating the continuation of that dialogue. I find that I now reflect daily on how I can initiate and facilitate such dialogue.

Successful collaboration requires that we demonstrate an appreciation for the contributions of those we work with and those that support the work we do together.

We, the members of cadre Super7, started out in July 2004 focused on our own individual learning. From there, we began to construct our knowledge together and then share it with a wider community. In our final term, Summer 2005, we widened our focus again and began to look at our roles as leaders in our communities outside of the cadre and champions of our collective knowledge. As our cadre widened the focus of our coursework, I widened the focus of my research. I began to look at how I could champion collaboration in my professional environment. I wanted to set the example that would lead others to embrace a culture of collaboration and shared knowledge creation.

I used to believe that collaboration was people working together toward a common goal. My coursework this past year, my research, and being a part of the learning circles taught me that there is more to collaboration than just working together in groups. My work in the learning circles taught me that collaboration is not about individuals creating separate pieces on their own and then bringing those pieces together as the final step. Collaboration is about creating a shared space that we work in, learn in, reflect in, and grow in. This shared space may or may not be a physical space, but it is always an intellectual space. When we think together, we are stronger and we have the potential to create a whole that is, as the saying goes, greater than the sum of its parts.

My research taught me that when two or more individuals in an organization work together on a project, especially individuals in different departments, it is not just those individuals who are impacted by the work. Other team members and entire departments are also affected. It is up to those of us who promote collaboration to also demonstrate that the departmental impact is recognized and appreciated. If we don’t do this, then the overall culture will not change. Individuals will see the impact, often negative in the short-term, on their own personal and departmental workflow but will feel that they have not been recognized as an integral part of the positive impact on the organization as a whole.

Successful collaboration is not only about working well with other people. Collaboration requires that we recognize, acknowledge, and authentically appreciate the contributions of those that support the individuals we worked with directly. Cycle three of my research taught me to look for opportunities to demonstrate that appreciation. When I look at the current culture of the organization I work in and reflect on what I have learned this year, I see more clearly an underlying discrepancy between the culture the organization speaks about and the one that is practiced. There is currently a fundamental conflict between what the organization says it wants to promote and what in practice it rewards. The leaders of our organization want the benefits of people working together under a common mission toward a common goal. They want an organization where everyone works together to make the organization stronger. In addition to this, our organization also wants each individual to demonstrate that they are working hard and maintaining focus on their own work. To ensure this, individual accomplishments are recognized and rewarded. Those that stay focused on their own projects tend to receive recognition. When group recognition is given, it is generally given to the leaders of teams, projects, or departments, or to the individuals who worked on the specific project being recognized. The fact that it takes the support of an entire team or department to enable one or two individuals to complete a collaborative project is neither publicly recognized nor rewarded. Gladwell might say that this is one of the “broken windows” we need to fix. The idea is that little things really can make a big difference. In a run down, crime ridden neighborhood, sometimes all it takes is fixing the broken windows to turn the trend around. (Gladwell, 2000) In our organization, perhaps the “broken window” that we need to fix is what we recognize and reward. My actions, evaluations, and reflections lead me to believe that to change our culture to one of collaboration, we need to find a way to recognize and reward the kind of support that collaboration requires. We need to find a way to recognize on a daily basis the value of working together, thinking together, and creating together. We need to honor the shared space.