There’s a stage of social development that most kids go through somewhere between ages one and three where they engage in “parallel play.” At this stage, kids will play near one another, enjoy one another’s company, but are more “coexisting in play space” than interacting with one another’s play. One child’s play might influence the other, but they can’t really be said to be playing together.
At the risk of casting myself as developmentally arrested, parallel play is how I prefer to collaborate in my job. (We each do our own thing, have the chance to see how the other plays, maybe get inspired by what we see, and we can ask for things if we need them.)
Despite the work I do daily, I am a remarkably introverted person. I think of all of the quasi-social moments (adult to adult) in my work and how painfully exhausting those moments are… and how deeply, deeply awkward I feel when I’m not in teaching, coaching, or facilitating mode. Try to strike up a social conversation with me and I want to either (1) change the subject to talk about education policy or (2) hide under the table. Oddly, when I am in front of a classroom full of teenagers or even when I lead teacher or principal PD, I shift confidently into what, by all outward appearances, is a distinctly extroverted disposition. Though I almost always end up physically exhausted, those kinds of interactions are intellectually invigorating.
Where my introversion does emerge in my work is very specific: I do not like collaboration as it seems to be happening in the profession right now, with the emphasis on “group production and alignment” and what often feels like the sacrificing of individual innovation in order to appease the common. The net product almost never feels as satisfying as if I could have just worked independently with occasional advice and consultation of peers, then reported back to the group.
A recent article grabbed my attention because it pinged twice on my radar: It referenced teacher mentorship and introversion. The article from The Atlantic about how teacher burnout is more likely among introverts (the link is worth reading from to top to bottom), highlighted how collaboration is prized so vehemently in modern school systems and how incompatible and unsustainable these are for those of us who tend toward introversion… to the point that it drives some out of the profession altogether.
What it boils down to for me personally is this: for introverts, collaboration isn’t actually about doing work. Collaboration is a social exercise. For an introvert like me, such a social exercise is stressful and exhausting and inefficient. Worse, it feels like it allows no room for any innovative or creative impulses that don’t feel instantly palatable to the group.
Collaboration does work differently for extroverts. Extroverts do tend to thrive when they have opportunities to talk, share, be social, and seek the potential synergy of a like-minded growth of extroverts. However, the way collaboration is structured in education today seems to imply that if left alone (like many introverts prefer to be), individuals working individually are inherently inept, or worse, are “lazy” or “resistant.” This is especially true when PLC serves as a system of accountability, not a work-enhancing part of the system.
Notably, the business world, which previously embraced open-floor-plan offices and uber-collaborative culture is likewise starting to retrace its steps as gains in productivity and employee satisfaction aren’t being realized as promised (discussed here and here). Obviously, we’re not talking about exactly the same setup, but when practices swing gung ho into one territory (Everyone collaborates! We’ll have an office with no walls!), there will always be a sizable chunk of the workforce, and even in some research the majority of the workforce, whose productivity and creativity is actually reduced by over-emphasis on collaboration. For us in education, the most telling question is this: “If PLC were no longer part of your work, would the job be easier or harder?” When the answer is “harder,” we know PLC has value. Unfortunately, I haven’t heard that answer even once in many months of asking teachers in my own district and beyond.
When I ask why we as a system are so enamored with collaboration and PLC, the answers are often vague and jargon-filled. More often than not, the answer is basically “because collaboration is good.” Sometimes in the answer I hear about mutual accountability*, and guaranteed and viable curriculum, and maximizing student learning. Okay… So what might be different ways we can support teachers toward those same goals if systems for collaboration end up being more a hinderance than a help for so many?
I’ve started voicing this perspective more frequently at work, too, and it makes lots of people visibly uncomfortable. If, after over a decade as a “PLC” school, teachers still generally report getting zero or negative value out of that form of collaboration, and so many report that such collaboration detracts from rather than adds to their work with students, why do we keep on making everyone dance the same dance?
* I hate that word so very much. Profane adjectives always precede it in my first drafts.
Photo Credit: Yoel Ben-Abraham (Flickr)
Pingback: Shopping Mall Schools and Department Store Schools | Stories From School
Pingback: A “High Functioning” PLC | Stories From School
Sorry to be a little late to the conversation, all!
Though for anyone who knows me I am an obvious extrovert, I think your commentary on collaboration is still extremely accurate. As a 3rd year teacher and thus, still relatively new to the job, I already find myself frustrated by weekly PLC (we refer to this time as collaborative planning at my school). Like you, Mr. Gardner, I sit through these meetings knowing that I could be way more productive on my own. I even feel that I am inevitably getting more frustrated during collaborative planning and therefore, often have a worse day interacting with my students because of the earlier meeting with my colleagues. I can certainly empathize with the feeling that there is a, “sacrificing of individual innovation in order to appease the common.” In fact, I find myself thinking that very thought during many of these meetings. Instead of challenging each other through inspiration, we often give in to innovative ideas that are not immediately accepted by the entire group. Though I do revel in some interaction with my colleagues, as another commenter mentioned, I find myself more productively collaborating in a natural environment- such as at lunch or after school. I do not think that scheduled collaborative time actually benefits my teaching nor does it benefit my students’ learning. Despite a love for social interaction, our job, as teachers, inevitably warrants constant interaction, and even for an extrovert like myself, forced collaboration can be total overkill.
Often, I find myself wondering how we can better use time devoted to collaborative planning. Though I do think there should be some collaboration between educators and/or administrators, I think our grouping is part of the problem. For example, at my school, our required collaboration is by department. My students are not going to have another Algebra teacher, though, because they already have my Algebra class! Thus, it makes little sense to waste valuable time and energy speaking with other Algebra teachers (who I already find time to speak with anyway throughout the day or the week). It would be more productive to meet with other teachers who have similar students. Then, we can discuss what works and what does not work for our students in an effective way.
Back to the issue for introverts, I appreciate you mentioning our introverted students. It is hard to remember (especially as an extrovert myself) that some of our students are not just shy, but simply work better with no social fussing or interaction. In my grad school class this week, we briefly read about grouping in the classroom (http://www.edutopia.org/blog/productive-group-work-andrew-miller?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=blog-productive-group-work-question). As I read your post, I began thinking that it might also be interesting to try and categorize my students based on whether they are introverted or extraverted along with their academic ability level. This way, maybe even introverts can feel comfortable enough to contribute within the smaller group without feeling overwhelmed by louder extraverts. At the very least, students can engage in a form of ‘parallel play,’ in which they can influence or inspire each other.
I appreciate your sharing… as others have mentioned- it is nice knowing I’m not alone in these thoughts and frustrations!
Omg Mark! I thought I was alone in my thoughts. This is EXACTLY how I feel. Thanks for bringing it out of the dark.
I know that the original post can come off as a bit whiny and complainy…Or at least it did to the person who emailed me instead of posting a comment here 🙂
Not my intention. The point I maybe should have made more overtly: we differentiate in our classrooms to best match the learning needs of our students… we should consider how to differentiate our collaboration to best match the work dispositions of teachers, in order to maximize effectiveness.
I love this post because it speaks to exactly who I am. This might surprise you, Mark, but I’m probably even more introverted than you. Heaven for me is six hours alone on a bike. That’s how I recharge. If I can’t have heaven, I’ll take a few hours alone in my classroom or at home on my computer planning lessons and instructional units.
I have been forced over the past ten years to “collaborate” with a “team.” Collaboration, in my experience, is the least efficient way of using non-teaching time. We visit, we argue, we proceed at the pace of the slowest member and sometimes we actually do something worthwhile.
Give me parallel play anytime!
I think all of it is fine if there is a clear return on investment that is greater than if individuals had the same amount of time for their own work. I’m not opposed to sharing at all, and I am very open to learning from my peers.
As I think about it, the times when I’m most engaged and positive about collaboration is when we are working together to investigate and solve a problem, not just complete a task (for people like me, completing a task collaboratively is so painfully inefficient). The problem solving and inquiry is the missing piece, I think, from most of the collaboration that I’ve struggled with: we’re put to a task rather than invited to identify and solve a problem. Too often, though, the collaboration feels more like we’re producing something for someone else, not working to solve a problem that will improve our teaching or actually impact student learning.
I’ve read the introverted burned out teacher articles with interest and a high level of sympathy. I’m pretty extroverted myself, but I try to be aware of the needs of introverted students in my classroom.
Here’s what I hear about PLCs at the elementary level. I have teachers at my school who team teach. They are with each other three-quarters of the day or more, every day. They plan together every day. They each lunch together. They go out after school together. The PLC time? It’s just another time set aside for them to do what they do naturally on a daily basis. To schedule “PLC time” feels artificial to them.
Those teachers who are an extreme example of what is more typical at the elementary level. Grade level teachers meet regularly to decide which students need help in reading or math during “What I Need” (WIN) time. Those meetings are not limited to PLC times. They happen before school, during planning time, after school, on the fly in the hall–whenever teachers can catch a few minutes with the learning specialist or other support staff (people who might not be available during a PLC meeting).
One teacher opined last week to me that PLCs were invented to help secondary teachers have time to do what elementary teachers already do. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but her comment made me wonder.