PERCEPTIONS OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STAFF MEMBERS
ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
STRUCTURED DIALOGUE PROTOCOLS FOR COLLABORATION
by
Diane Foire
Bachelor of Education, University of the Fraser Valley, 2016
Bachelor of Arts, University of the Fraser Valley, 2015

MAJOR PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF EDUCATION
(EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND MENTORSHIP)

In the
Teacher Education Department
© Diane Foire 2021
UNIVERSITY OF THE FRASER VALLEY
2021
All rights reserved. This work may not be
reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy
or other means, without permission of the author.

ii

Approval
Name: Diane Foire
Degree: Master of Education (Educational Leadership and Mentorship)
Title: Perceptions of Elementary School Staff Members on the Effectiveness of Structured
Dialogue for Collaboration
Examining Committee:
Name: Dr. Awneet Sivia
MEd Chair or Designate, Teacher Education Department
____________________________________________________________

Name: Dr. Joanne Robertson
Senior Supervisor
Assistant Professor, Teacher Education Department
____________________________________________________________

Name: Dr. Joanna Sheppard
Second Reader
Associate Professor, School of Kinesiology
____________________________________________________________
Date Defended/Approved: June 5, 2021

iii

Abstract
This phenomenological study was used to explore teachers’ perceptions of structured dialogue
for collaboration. Structured dialogue is defined as a conversation led by a facilitator, who
provides direction, specific prompting, and sentence stems to have a group engage in dialogue. A
review of the current scholarship on structured dialogue protocols brings to light how “deep”
professional conversations in an educational context, collaboration, trust, and decision-making
have an impact on discussions taking place in educational settings. A review of the literature
revealed a lack of research that explores the reasons why deeper conversations between
colleagues in education are not occurring often enough. This qualitative study explored the
perceptions of elementary school staff members regarding their experiences engaging with
structured dialogue protocols for collaboration. Through interviews using open-ended questions,
participants shared their experiences using structured dialogue protocols, identified the specific
structured dialogue protocols they found most and least effective, and provided
recommendations for ways to potentially improve them. The findings reveal that individuals
perceived structured dialogue protocols to be effective for collaboration by ensuring equitable
sharing, enabling focused and attentive listening, establishing leadership roles to facilitate and
structure the dialogue, and fostering collaborative problem-solving. This study suggests that
structured dialogue protocols offer enhanced ways for educational colleagues to engage with one
another in more meaningful and effective ways. This is an area of research that merits more
attention and would be of benefit to those occupying leadership roles in schools.
Keywords: structured dialogue protocols, teacher collaboration, shared leadership

iv

Acknowledgements
This study would not have been possible without the participants who volunteered their
time and contributed in such meaningful ways. I would like to thank Dr. Joanne Robertson and
Dr. Joanna Sheppard for their guidance and the time dedicated to this work. From the Master of
Education candidates to the instructional team, every individual has been such an influential
piece of the puzzle. I would like to acknowledge that our community of learners studies, works,
and has grown through this program on the traditional lands of the Stó:lō people. Finally, to my
family, thank you for your support and encouragement. Thank you for seeing potential and
believing in this project.

v

Table of Contents
Approval ....................................................................................................................... ii
Abstract........................................................................................................................ iii
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ............................................................................................................. viii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................. ix
Glossary .........................................................................................................................x
Structured Dialogue Protocols ............................................................................................. x
Experience Cube Protocol (Bushe, 2010) ............................................................................. x
Peeling the Onion Protocol (Easton, 2009) ........................................................................... x
SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) Protocol (Easton, 2009) ........... xi

Introduction ...................................................................................................................1
Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................4
Situating Myself in the Research...................................................................................6
Purpose.................................................................................................................................. 8
Context .................................................................................................................................. 9

Research Questions........................................................................................................9
Scholarly Significance ...................................................................................................9
Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 10
Deep Conversation .............................................................................................................. 10
Trust .................................................................................................................................... 12
Decision-making.................................................................................................................. 13
Collaboration ...................................................................................................................... 15

Research Methodology ................................................................................................ 16

vi

Phenomenological Approach .............................................................................................. 17
Data Sources .................................................................................................................... 17
Data Tools ........................................................................................................................ 18

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................... 19
Managing Bias .................................................................................................................... 22
Strength of Study ................................................................................................................ 24

Results .......................................................................................................................... 25
Ensuring Equitable Sharing ............................................................................................... 26
Enabling Focused and Attentive Listening ........................................................................ 27
Facilitating and Structuring Dialogue ................................................................................ 28
Fostering Collaborative Problem-solving .......................................................................... 30

Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 33
Ensuring Equitable Sharing ............................................................................................... 34
Enabling Focused and Attentive Listening ........................................................................ 35
Facilitating and Structuring Dialogue................................................................................ 36
Fostering Collaborative Problem-Solving .......................................................................... 37

Limitations ................................................................................................................... 38
Implications and Recommendations ........................................................................... 39
Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 41
References .................................................................................................................... 43
Appendix A .................................................................................................................. 47
Appendix B .................................................................................................................. 48
Appendix C .................................................................................................................. 49
Appendix D .................................................................................................................. 50

vii

Appendix E .................................................................................................................. 51
Appendix F................................................................................................................... 52
Appendix G .................................................................................................................. 53

viii

List of Tables
i. Perceptions on the Effectiveness of Structured Dialogue Protocols

p. 31

ii. Category and Codes Generated during Data Analysis

p. 32

ix

List of Figures
i. Perceptions of Participants Regarding Benefits of Structured Dialogue Protocols

p. 30

x

Glossary
Structured Dialogue Protocols
Structured dialogue protocols are defined as conversations led by a facilitator, who provides
direction, specific prompting and sentence stems to have a group engage in dialogue. Easton
(2009) defines structured dialogue protocols as processes that “allow groups to explore ideas or
problems and issues that surface during the day-to-day lives of educators” and reach a “deep
understanding through dialogue that may lead to effective decision-making” (p. 8). Bushe (2010)
proposes the term “organizational learning conversation” (p. 49) to describe a type of
communication in which participants are aware of their own experiences and those of others.
Experience Cube Protocol (Bushe, 2010)
This protocol brings together the elements of observing, thinking, wanting, and feeling into one
conversation. Bushe describes the Experience Cube as a “road map to your experience”, and that
it can be used for “deepening your awareness of your own experience and for focusing your
curiosity into the experience of others” (p.93). To work through a specific problem or topic,
participants are given the opportunity to contribute to the conversation by responding to the
prompts outlined in the protocol. First, participants share their observations, which is what they
have seen and heard about the issue. Then, they share their thoughts, including any beliefs,
expectations or values relevant to the problem at hand. Next, participants share about their
feelings towards what has been shared so far in the conversation. Lastly, participants are guided
to clearly explain their needs concerning the results required to solve the issue. These steps can
be followed by having participants taking notes before speaking, or by taking turns sharing to the
group.
Peeling the Onion Protocol (Easton, 2009)

xi

This protocol can be used to engage in a conversation when an individual needs to address an
issue. This individual would provide the issue needing to be discussed using the protocol. The
person should be prepared to share as much information as possible about the issue, and a
conversation follows with the use of prompts. This protocol unravels the layers of an issue one
step at a time. This protocol begins by having participants give their name and role to the group.
One participant is then chosen to bring forward an issue to the group and describe it in detail.
After this explanation is finished, those listening take notes about what was said. Next, all
participants who took notes present their insights about the issue (a list of prompts can be used).
Lastly, the individual who brought forward the issue at the beginning of the conversation shares
their thoughts and the facilitator wraps the conversation up with a series of reflective questions.
SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) Protocol (Easton, 2009)
This protocol is a “strategic planning method that can be used to evaluate an organization’s
objectives or to analyze its problems” (Easton, p.74). This protocol was developed by Easton
from Albert Humphrey’s (2005) Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) concept.
The participants begin by presenting the problem they want to discuss in the form of a question,
which can be answered during the conversation. Then, participants create a list of sub-questions
to clarify the problem. All participants take notes about the problem chosen by the group. The
rest of the discussion is led by the facilitator, who asks the group about the strengths available to
help with the problem, the weaknesses connected to the problem, the possibilities of solutions to
the problem, and the threats that could potentially get in the way of reaching a solution to the
problem. Lastly, the facilitator should allow a few minutes for reflection and debriefing

1

Introduction
Many of my experiences as an early career teacher, and my appreciation for life-long
learning have influenced me to further my educational journey through this inquiry. I have
participated in several collaborative and community building initiatives with educators and
students within my educational context, which have guided me to value belonging and
authenticity. These values and experiences have also inspired me to be curious about what it
takes for effective conversations to occur with colleagues and students. The reason behind this
questioning is that it can often be difficult to engage in conversations effectively. As educators,
we regularly face a number of barriers when it comes to having conversations, whether it be
time, context, discussion topic, or those with whom we are interacting.
The connections I have built with students have enabled me to get a glimpse of the
personal stories that shape who they are as learners and communicators. By incorporating openmindedness and dialogue into my teaching and relationships, I have begun connecting with
colleagues in more meaningful ways, which has led to my own development as an educator. I
believe that nurturing personal growth in others and maintaining authentic connections is crucial
for improvement. Planting seeds of compassion and nurturing growth in an educational setting is
also a priority in becoming a successful leader. Humbled and encouraged in the exploration of
my capacity as a teacher, I have begun to think about how I might work towards strengthening
relationships and a sense of belonging to enhance the culture of collaboration within my school.
Adams et al. (2019) found that learning in a school community requires a “persistent
mindset and daily practice, undertaken by generative leaders” (p. 92). The challenge lies in
questioning our daily experiences to foster meaningful conversations, both personal and

2

professional. It is crucial to speak to the assumptions and preconceived notions that accompany
our experiences. Sharing our stories allows others to get a sense of what you deal with as an
educator and creates new perspectives about those experiences. Meaningful conversations are not
easy to cultivate. Starting with impactful questions can ignite curiosity and critical reflection,
which usually fuels and enhances the dialogue.
Safe and trusting relationships need to be established for collaboration to occur among
colleagues, and individuals need positive environments in which they can grow together.
Relationships need time to grow through sharing experiences, considering new perspectives and
active listening. Fullan (2001) explains that “When the individual soul is connected to the
organization, people become connected to something deeper—the desire to contribute to a larger
purpose, to feel they are part of a greater whole, a web of connection” (p. 8). As individuals, we
seek acknowledgment and validation of the efforts we put into an organization, and we want to
know that our contributions have a positive impact on others. These interactions make us feel
like we are an important part of the community.
Meaningful conversations also require diversity of thought. To many individuals’
surprise, “we are more likely to learn something from people who disagree with us than we are
from people who agree” (Fullan, 2001, p. 6). Although some discomfort comes with
disagreement, change will not happen if we spend our time agreeing. Generative dialogue, which
consists of having a “conversation to generate deep and original thought” (Isaacs, 1999, p. 96).
plays an important role in assisting with change and decision-making. We need to foster the
space in which educators can share their experiences in order to learn from each other. Isaacs
(1999) also mentions that generative dialogue “invites teachers and leaders into an environment
of empathy and trust, to critically reflect upon assumptions and discern unique insights related to

3

their professional selves with the explicit purpose of setting learning goals to improve
instructional and leadership practice” (p. 96). Extreme vulnerability is involved in sharing our
assumptions, and there is much work in getting to a place where this can happen comfortably.
Yet, this process is important; it can bring individuals together, encourage them to consider an
issue from a different perspective, and ignite a significant shift in the way a conversation is
carried out.
Teacher collaboration is important. However, as Adams et al. (2019) explain, most
teachers “are still teaching largely in isolation” (p. 119). So often, we have individual teachers
working on individual projects. This does not promote sharing goals and working towards them
as a team. Collaboration can contribute to what Kogler Hill (2019) call a “team leadership
approach”. The team leadership approach consists of interdependent members of a team with a
common goal, who work collectively to achieve their objectives (Kogler Hill, 2019). Team
leadership can create the feeling of belonging and familiarity within a work setting in which each
educator works independently but also asks themselves: “What can we achieve together?”
The team leadership approach gives us a means to share our strengths and weaknesses
and structure our conversations around creating improvements for both teachers and students.
Parker (1990) noted that effective teamwork enables increased productivity, more effective use
of resources, innovation, better decisions, and problem-solving. For some, it is the daunting task
of trying this for the first time that represents the greatest hurdle. It takes a great deal of selfawareness to see our strengths and recognize what we bring to the table. Without acknowledging
the value of our potential contributions, taking a team approach to decision making or
implementing change does not always seem realistic. Through thoughtful conversations that

4

build rapport and collaboration, our first and most crucial role should be to build capacity in
those with whom we work.
Theoretical Framework
I situate my research within Bohm’s (1996) framework of generative dialogue. According
to Bohm (1996), generative dialogue is a “multi-faceted process, looking well beyond
conventional ideas of conversational parlance and exchange” (p. 1). Generative dialogue consists
of “common participation” (p. 7-8), in which participants work together rather than against one
another. Generative dialogue is valuable in effective communication because “many find it very
hard to communicate unless there is a set purpose, or unless somebody is leading it” (Bohm,
1996, p. 7-8). Generative dialogue can be used as a lens to explore how teachers engage in
dialogue within collaborative experiences. Petta et al. (2019) define generative dialogue as “a
powerful type of meaningful collegial interaction that empowers participants to stay engaged,
sharing trust and mutual respect, while working towards a common goal” (p. 59).
Through my research, I sought to discover which structured dialogue protocols are most
and least effective for collaboration, and how educators perceive their value. The specific
structured dialogue protocols I used in this research included the “Experience Cube” (Bushe,
2010) and the “Peeling the Onion” (Easton, 2009) protocols. Additionally, the “SWOT”
protocol, developed by Easton (2009) from Albert Humphrey’s (2005) SWOT concept, which
originated at Stanford University was also used in this study (see Appendices B, C and D for
visual representations of steps within each protocol).
Bushe (2010) proposes the term “organizational learning conversation” (p. 49) to
describe a type of communication in which participants are aware of their own experiences and
those of others. Organizational learning conversations allow for discussions to occur in a way

5

that avoids some of the typical negative patterns that may arise in unstructured interactions
within an organization. Some examples of these patterns include, dealing with conflict,
communicating within a hierarchy, decision-making and problem-solving. A specific structured
dialogue protocol put forward by Bushe (2010) is called The Experience Cube (p. 91), which
brings together the elements of observing, thinking, wanting, and feeling into one conversation.
Bushe (2010) describes the Experience Cube protocol as a “road map to your experience”, and
that it can be used for “deepening your awareness of your own experience and for focusing your
curiosity into the experience of others” (p. 93).
Easton (2009) also puts forward several approaches for engaging with structured dialogue
protocols. Easton explains that structured dialogue protocols are an exercise groups can use to
reach a “deep understanding through dialogue that may lead to effective decision-making” (p. 8).
Easton has shared a modified version of a protocol referred to as Peeling the Onion, which
originates from the National School Reform Faculty (NSRF). It is a protocol that can be used to
engage in a conversation when an individual needs to address an issue. The individual should be
prepared to share as much information as possible about the issue, and a conversation follows
with the use of prompts.
An additional example from Easton (2009) is called the SWOT protocol, (p. 74). It is a
“strategic planning method that can be used to evaluate an organization’s objectives or to analyze
its problems” (Easton, 2009, p. 74). This protocol encompasses the four following dimensions:
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. As participants go through the SWOT protocol,
they are given the opportunity to learn more about the problem presented and the resources
available to resolve it.

6

Situating Myself in the Research
I am an early career teacher working in a Francophone school. Over the past five years
since beginning my career as a teacher, this context has presented unique experiences and
challenges, such as teaching in French, which is often students’ second or third language.
Throughout my university and professional career, I have interacted with a variety of individuals
who have brought forward new ideas and new challenges to my practice. As a result of these
interactions, I have been exposed to the impact a strong leader can have on their community. The
Master of Education program has allowed me to reflect on my current practices and has created a
context in which I have been able to enhance my capacities as a learner and leader. As teachers,
we encourage our students to further their education and make room for continuous growth, and
this program has allowed me to do so.
In my search for a community of learning and collaborating in my school, I began to
wonder if all voices were being heard equitably. I constantly face experiences in which the
voices of educators at every level should be considered before decisions are made, but many
voices often remain silenced. While I understand that some choose to be involved in change and
decision-making while others do not, I am often left wondering how to meaningfully and
effectively include a diversity of perspectives into conversations. I began to think more deeply
about the potential of generative dialogue as a means of fostering more purposeful collaboration
and a team leadership approach in my school. Specifically, I began to wonder if structured
dialogue protocols would make a difference in our approach to communication, and whether they
could potentially enhance the culture of collaboration within my context.
Within the Leading and Mentoring Across Professional Learning Communities course,
many lectures were facilitated using structured dialogue protocols, most of which were designed

7

by Easton (2009) and Bushe (2010). These protocols were introduced to demonstrate that they
can be used with a variety of individuals and groups within different contexts and for multiple
purposes. The protocols implement probing questions into discussions with colleagues and can
be used in a variety of professional conversations (Easton, 2009). After participating in
discussions led by a facilitator using these structured dialogue protocols, I was inspired by an
idea for my capstone research project. It became clear that I wanted to explore how these
structured dialogue protocols would be considered in other educational settings, and more
specifically the one in which I had been working since the beginning of my teaching career.
Thus, I used the structured dialogue protocols from the course and adapted them in order to
create French versions to use with my own colleagues. I chose the Experience Cube (Bushe,
2010), the Peeling the Onion (Easton, 2009), and the SWOT (Easton, 2009) protocols to frame
three collaborative conversations, that I hoped to facilitate with my staff members.
During the fall of 2020, I approached my colleagues about trying some of the structured
dialogue protocols I had learned in the Master of Education program. I explained to them that it
was something I found interesting and likely beneficial for our team, and that I could potentially
use this experience to move forward with my research. I reassured them that no information or
data from the collaborative sessions would be used or collected for the purposes of this research,
but that staff members who engaged in these sessions would be invited to participate in a study
in early 2021 focused on exploring their experiences with the structured dialogue protocols.
I facilitated three collaborative sessions during the fall of 2020 with three staff members
who volunteered to participate. Given the Francophone setting of my school, all collaborative
sessions with staff took place in French. In addition, the sessions took place with strict adherence
to COVID-19 physical distancing measures and school district regulations to ensure the safety of

8

all participants. The first session was used to discuss how discipline was approached in the
school, using the Peeling the Onion protocol. The Experience Cube protocol was used in the
second session to discuss student engagement with the French language, an issue all participants
felt was a priority. Lastly, the SWOT protocol was used to facilitate a discussion regarding staff
well-being and mental health.
As the facilitator of these sessions, I endeavored to establish and maintain trust with
participants taking part in the three collaborative sessions. Structured dialogue protocols
consisted of a new and unfamiliar approach to collaboration for participants. Therefore, it was
important for me to create an environment in which each of the three participants could interact
effectively and comfortably. The relationship I hoped to construct between myself as a
researcher and my participants, was one of belonging and authenticity. These are the
epistemological values I have continuously referred to during my research, and they have acted
as a driving force in creating connections with participants, in being transparent about my
intentions, and in building relationships through meaningful conversation.
Purpose
The purpose of this research study was to investigate how teachers perceived their
experiences engaging with structured dialogue protocols and which protocols they found to be
the most and least effective in generating meaningful collaboration. Nelson et al. (2010) explain
that collaboration in education is important, and that there is a need to shift from superficial
conversations to effective dialogue. The use of structured dialogue protocols is an effective
approach in enabling educators to engage in the shift necessary for meaningful collaboration, as
they can be framed to address specific purposes related to teaching and learning. Unfortunately,
as this approach is fairly new, there is a lack of research about the use of structured dialogue

9

protocols in educational settings, and how they can be implemented, practiced and adapted to fit
the needs of diverse contexts.
Context
This study took place in a small elementary school in the Lower Mainland. The school is
one of 37 schools in the Francophone School District (Conseil scolaire francophone) that are
located across British Columbia. Most staff members speak French as their first language and
only speak English as a second or additional language in the community outside of the school.
Being the only French language school in the city, professional development and collaboration
opportunities are less accessible for teachers in this school, many of whom often feel a sense of
isolation. The majority of teachers have been in the same building for over twenty years and
teach within the comfort of their classrooms. The staff members have a deep level of respect for
professional autonomy and individual teaching practices. Prior to this study, the staff at the
school were not familiar with structured dialogue protocols for collaboration.

Research Questions

The overarching questions of this study are as follows: (a) What are the perceptions of
elementary school staff members on the effectiveness of structured dialogue protocols for
collaboration? (b) Which structured dialogue protocol was perceived as most and least effective
in generating meaningful collaboration for participants? (c) How did participants perceive their
experiences engaging with the structured dialogue protocols?

Scholarly Significance

10

This research contributes to the body of scholarship focusing on the use of specific
structured dialogue protocols in educational settings. The results of this study will enhance our
understanding of the benefits of structured dialogue protocols for collaboration and provide
insights regarding what educators need to engage more effectively in collegial conversation.
These insights can support those in positions of leadership to facilitate more meaningful and
collaborative dialogue in educational contexts.

Literature Review
Research over the past few decades suggests that collaboration is inherently valued and
beneficial in today’s school cultures. According to Cordingley et al. (2005), collaboration has
brought forward benefits such as greater confidence in teachers, motivation in their ability to
make a difference in student learning, enthusiasm for working collaboratively, the commitment
to making changes in teaching practice, and an inclination towards new experiences. As a result,
many new approaches to collaboration, such as structured dialogue, are making their way into
educational contexts, as suggested by Easton (2009) and Bushe (2010). The following literature
review explores the concepts of deep conversation, trust, decision-making, and collaboration and
examines the role each concept plays in the success of effective structured dialogue protocols in
educational settings.
Deep Conversation
In many schools today, teachers gather to discuss their daily challenges and successes.
Some educators may engage in critical dialogue with their colleagues, while others simply
participate in friendly collaborative conversations, which may lack in depth and critical
reflection. In an analysis of discussion sequences between teachers and their colleagues, Kvam

11

(2017) notes that in these types of collaborative conversations, “teachers both help and support
each other, but they fail to challenge each other’s pedagogical stance or to strive to achieve
reflective dialogue” (p. 709). Kvam (2017) further explains that “it is not enough for teachers to
exchange ideas for alternative teaching methods” (p. 698). Nelson et al. (2010) specify that
“intentional and transparent steps are needed to shift from congenial to collegial conversations”
(p. 177). They further point out that “a traditional school culture of congeniality and teachers’
inexperience with evidence-based dialogue” (p. 176) hold teachers back from taking part in deep
conversations. Deep conversation is becoming more relevant in a time when there is much
energy being channeled into change and innovation. It is clear in the literature that there is a need
for teacher conversations to include more than just sharing anecdotes and stories from the
classroom.
Deep conversations between educators are said to be brought about by the approach of
generative dialogue, as suggested by Petta et al. (2019), to demonstrate the act of moving beyond
conventional conversations. They describe generative dialogue as a “more comprehensive,
purposeful and integrated practice of conversation” (p. 53). Kvam (2017) further explains that
collaboration “must include experimentation, as well as a common identification of problems
and their solutions” (p. 698) within professional conversations. In a study on the topic of critical
friend groups as a framework for professional conversations, Kuh (2016) noted that “the
combination of collaboratively sharing work and engaging in inquiry-based conversations seems
to instill a sense of commitment not only to the workplace, but also to the work of teaching” (p.
296).
To improve the progression of conversation to dialogue between teachers, dialogue needs
to be structured for specific purposes related to teaching and learning. Nelson et al. (2010) define

12

the role teacher leaders hold in introducing “shifts in teacher talk” by guiding teachers’
conversations towards “substantive and specific dialogue about teaching and learning” (p. 178).
However, if this shift is to remain sustainable, Nelson et al. (2010) note that “all teachers must
contribute to deep conversations grounded in a cycle of questioning, reflecting on evidence, and
taking action” (p. 178). Participants from a study by Trimble et al. (1998) presented the metaphor
“to work as one” (p. 8) to illustrate their view of leadership tasks within a collaborative group.
The authors explain that leadership tasks are crucial in demonstrating support for one another
within a group, having “equal partners, sharing and working together” (Trimble et al., 1998, p.
8). As educators, we must foster an environment for our own continued learning, but we must
also participate in dialogue that provokes self-reflection, problem-solving, and equitable sharing.
When educators are empowered and supported in facilitating such conversations and
implementing the use of structured dialogue protocols for collaboration, teachers often emerge as
leaders in many contexts.
Trust
Whether collaboration occurs in familiar contexts or not, it is necessary to establish a
foundation of trust and care within professional conversations. In several studies, trust has been
an important indicator of successful collaboration and discussion. In a study by Bergman et al.
(2012), the development of trust in groups of colleagues emerged with repeated interaction and
the creation of cohesion within the team, suggesting that collaboration does not happen without
the presence of relationships. Similarly, Kvam (2018) explains that deeper conversations or
“exploratory talk” is based on the establishment of trust within a group, therefore learning
happens within those interactions (p. 707).

13

Kuh (2016) argues that tangible tools, such as those brought forward by Wenger (1998)
be used to structure conversations between teachers to build trust within groups. As Kuh (2016)
explains, “protocols inspire a unique social dialect and contain specific language that shapes a
speaker’s voice and the responses of others” (p. 304). Wenger (1998) refers to a “repertoire of a
community of practice”, which consists of “routines, words, tools, ways of doing things, stories,
gestures, symbols, genres, actions, or concepts that the community has produced or adopted” to
engage in collaboration (p. 83). Effective communities of practice can be sustained by building
mutual engagement and, having shared routines and common goals within the group.
Trust among colleagues is not acquired immediately. Time is required for building
relationships between individuals, enabling effective dialogue, and promoting healthy decisionmaking practices within the team. Bergman et al. (2012) point out that when teachers work
together on a short-term basis, lack of time is an impediment to building trust, and can bring
forward challenges with collaboration. In another study, Nelson et al. (2010) used sample
questions to explore collaboration in critical friend groups. Teachers reported that digging too
deep within conversations brings out differences in beliefs and values, which can create mistrust
within the group. As we navigate how to best collaborate and engage with colleagues, it is crucial
to honor the inevitable differences in perspective and values educators hold.
Decision-making
Decision-making is considered a fundamental component in educational settings
according to the groups of professionals observed and interviewed in a study by Borg and
Drange (2019). They suggest that shared decision-making requires an organized context for
collaboration, and that there is a need for openness and mutual respect within the group.
Likewise, Acker-Hocevar and Touchton (1999) observe that school improvement is realized

14

through empowering teachers by having them participate in decision-making within the school.
Pugach and Johnson (1995) found that involving teachers in decision-making within a school
influences the way educators understand today’s challenges in education. The decision-making
process takes place within schools and empowers educators to take greater responsibility within
their contexts. All three studies indicate the concrete and positive outcomes of teachers
participating in decision-making within educational teams.
However, other studies highlight the downfalls and barriers that come along with
decision-making. Bergman et al. (2012) explain that when conflict and low productivity are
present in schools, it may be associated with teachers’ lack of satisfaction with their work and a
decline in the quality of decision-making. Bergman et al. (2012) highlight the leadership
behaviors that play a role in decision-making within teams, such as task-, change-, relations-, and
spanning-oriented. Similarly, a study by Gerpott et al. (2019) digs deep into these aspects of
leadership, as they consider task-, change-, and relations-oriented verbal behaviors in leadership
to be ever changing and evolve throughout the lifecycle of a team’s work together. Gerpott et al.
(2019) conducted their research using the “Interaction Analytical Approach” to study emergent
leadership in self-directed teams. This study explains the relational and evolving nature of
emergent leadership within self-managed teams. An external observer was implemented and
applied a behavioral code to the participants’ statements during their work together amid various
projects and decision-making initiatives. The dynamic nature of emergent leadership
demonstrates that behaviors characterized as valuable in self-directed teams can differ according
to the context of each team’s project. Gerpott et al. (2019) note that emergent leadership has
often focused on the specific personality traits of the emergent leader, whereas this study
considers that emergent leadership results from the impact of the dynamics in communication,

15

suggesting that emergent leadership results from the interactions between the participants in a
self-managed team.
Nelson et al. (2010) explain that the process of exploration within teacher discussion
needs to make room for more decision-making. Acker-Hocevar and Touchton (1999) point out
their findings of teachers’ negative perceptions of decision-making, noting that “teachers simply
go through the motions of decision-making, but none take it seriously” (p. 11). Teachers simply
want to avoid “being labeled as a person who is not in appearance of moving in the direction of
the district” (p. 11). Many factors hinder the decision-making process for teachers. Although
good intentions may be established, the productivity of the decision-making process can be
hindered. In an assessment of team functioning by Trimble and Peterson (1998), focus groups
and questionnaires show that one of the participating teams “demonstrated high relationship
behaviors and care for students, with little closure and few decisions” (p. 5).
Collaboration
For meaningful collaboration to occur, structured dialogue protocols and learning must be
embedded into the collaborative process. Within observations of teacher collaboration, Kvam
(2017) notes that discussions between teachers do not always reach full learning potential. In
other words, teachers may include topics of teaching and learning on the agenda for
collaboration, but discussions within the collaboration consist of confirming the perspectives of
others. Kvam (2017) explains that a persistent pattern within teacher collaboration is that
teachers listen to the anecdotes of their colleagues without the critical dialogue that would
challenge their thinking. This further highlights the need for structured dialogue protocols within
collaboration in the interest of deepening the interactions between teachers who work in the same
building.

16

Other studies explored collaboration between teachers in different schools. For example,
Rempe-Gillen (2018) conducted interviews of participants who engaged in collaboration with
educators outside of their context. The study found that to establish effective collaboration with
educators working in different schools, “the cohesive bonds and relevant factors of the group
need to shift from geographical location and/or shared pupils” (p. 359). In other words, for
effective collaboration to occur between educators from different schools, it needs to move
towards more in-depth conversations about how to support students. The author posits that
collaborating outside of the school building offers an array of new opportunities.
Collaboration can take place between teachers and other professions, as evidenced in
Borg and Drange’s (2019) study of interprofessional collaboration. However, collaboration in
these contexts has other limitations. Through interviews and observations, the researchers note
that within interprofessional collaboration, “double work and compartmentalization occurred
rather than collaboration and innovation” (Borg & Drange, 2019, p. 261). Whether teachers are
collaborating in familiar contexts or not, the literature reveals a potential for structured dialogue
protocols to enhance conversations between individuals.

Research Methodology
Along with being an educator and shaping student learning, I value belonging and
authenticity. I have an ontological belief that meaningful learning happens by building
relationships and community and by sharing perspectives and stories with other educators. The
conversations I have had and the experiences I have shared with other educators have contributed
to my identity as a teacher, and I believe the future professional relationships that will be formed

17

in my career will continue to do so. Transparency about our experiences and challenges as
educators can engender significant conversations and inform our practice.
Phenomenological Approach
This inquiry is situated in the constructivist paradigm. I used a phenomenological
research methodology to gather insights into staff members’ perceptions of their experiences
with the phenomenon of structured dialogue protocols for collaboration. As van Manen (2017)
explains, “phenomenology is concerned with meaning and meaningfulness rather than
informational content” (p. 814). When using phenomenology as a research method, the research
“proceeds through an inceptual process of reflective wondering, deep questioning, attentive
reminiscing, and sensitively interpreting the primal meanings of human experiences” (van
Manen, 2017, p. 819).
Data Sources
Prior to recruitment of participants for this study, consent to conduct this research was
granted by the University of the Fraser Valley’s Human Research Ethics Board (HREB Protocol
No: 100572, see Appendix A) and the local school district. Participants were chosen based on
purposeful sampling, among the staff members who participated in the collaborative sessions in
the fall of 2020. These individuals were invited to engage in a subsequent individual interview in
early 2021 to share perceptions of their experiences with the use of structured dialogue protocols
during the collaborative sessions. A letter of invitation describing the project and what
participants could expect was sent by email. This email communication also included a consent
form that provided participants with information about the purpose, procedures, potential
benefits and risks, confidentiality, and results of the study. Three staff members from the school

18

volunteered to participate in the collaborative sessions, and all agreed to be interviewed
afterwards. They agreed to be interviewed and participate in the study by signing the consent
form and sending it back via email. Anonymization was carried out by describing participants
using pseudonyms they chose and information they provided. Dissemination of the research
study occurred in four ways. A report and presentation of the research was provided to the
University of the Fraser Valley's Teacher Education Department in relation to the Master of
Education program. The research will be kept in the University of the Fraser Valley's research
repository. There is a possibility that results from the research will be shared with colleagues
during education conferences, and copies of the final report will be shared with participants.
Data Tools
Data was collected through semi-structured interviews to examine participants’
perceptions of the structured dialogue protocols for collaboration. Interviews (see Appendix E
for interview questions) and data collection occurred in January 2021, after a two-week winter
break, giving participants time to reflect on their experiences during the collaborative sessions
that occurred approximately one month before their interviews. Open-ended questions were used
in the interviews to probe emerging opinions and perceptions. By using open-ended questions
during the interviews, space was created for participants to share their full experience of the
structured dialogue protocols that they had engaged in during the collaborative sessions. As the
researcher, I designed the interview questions in both French and in English, but interviews were
conducted in French. Multiple drafts of the interview questions were written to ensure questions
were formulated in a way that would gather the most accurate insights. In the case of the first
interview, the responses to the interview questions were brief, lacked in detail and were not
comprehensive enough to capture the full lived experience of the participant. It was necessary to

19

restart this interview, and to use follow-up questions to support the participant in giving detailed
responses and creating the conditions for meaning to emerge during the interview.
To adhere to the COVID-19 health and safety regulations, the interviews took place using
Zoom, an online platform familiar to the participants. Interviews were digitally voice recorded
and transcribed using Sonix, an online program which allows users to complete transcripts in
several different languages. The interview transcripts were then translated from French to
English using translating programs such as Google Translate and Word Reference. I verified the
findings with the participants to establish if their experiences and perceptions were understood
correctly. Member checks (Creswell & Poth, 2017) were completed by sending each participant
the French transcript of their interview to review and revise for accuracy (first-level member
check). Participants were then sent the translation of their interview transcript and any direct
quotes used in the final report (second-level member check).

Data Analysis
Data analysis and representation in a phenomenological study are outlined succinctly by
Creswell and Poth (2017). The first step in this phenomenological data analysis was to describe
my personal experiences with the phenomenon. I used the process of bracketing to remove my
bias from the research findings (Creswell & Poth, 2017). I attempted to set aside all
preconceived notions about the phenomenon to understand the experiences of the participants in
the study (Moustakas, 1994). The phenomenon consisted of using structured dialogue protocols
to facilitate conversations during three collaborative sessions. My experience with this
phenomenon was that most individuals taking part in the structured dialogue protocols were
hesitant at the beginning, as it is an unfamiliar approach to collaboration, and there were perhaps

20

fears of disrupting the intended structure of the dialogue. However, the structure of the dialogue
permitted each participant to contribute equally, which was empowering as well as providing
significance to each voice. Although I thought the framework of the protocols would most likely
enhance the collaborative sessions, I was aware of this bias before engaging in, and it was
important for me to put aside my preconceptions.
Creswell and Poth (2017) note that an important next step of phenomenology is to pay
particular attention to participants’ “significant statements”, which provide clarity in relation to
their specific experiences with the phenomenon being studied, in this case the structured
dialogue protocol used for collaboration (p. 77). I developed a list of significant statements from
the data collected during the analysis of the interview transcripts. In order to do so, I used a
technique referred to as “horizontalization” by Moustakas (1994). I made a list of all statements
applying to the inquiry and gave equal value to all statements. I collected significant statements
by taking descriptive notes while reading through the transcripts of the interviews. As Wolcott
(1994) suggests, I highlighted specific information in these descriptions. I identified codes, then
classified them using first-level process coding, which is referred to as process coding
(Huberman & Miles, 1994). Transcripts and quotes were used in this type of coding, focusing on
the action (gerund) verbs in the interview transcripts (see Table 2). For example, participants
referred to actions such as “sharing, listening, establishing, and working together” to explain
their perceptions of the collaboration facilitated by the structured dialogue protocols. This
analysis process provided a timeline of action that indicated cause and effect within the
phenomenon.
I completed second-level coding by grouping significant statements into broader units of
information. Themes, patterns, and key concepts were chosen within the codes extracted during

21

the first-level coding. I kept track of codes within transcripts by highlighting words, quotes, and
phrases, classifying them into codes, and displaying them into “code frequency tables” (See
Appendices F and G). I created “clusters of meaning” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 201) by grouping
statements into categories and removing repetition. As recommended by Moustakas (1994), a
textural description of the phenomenon experienced by the participants was then created. This
structural description of the phenomenon provided detail in “seeking all possible meanings,
looking for divergent perspectives, and varying the frames of reference about the phenomenon or
using imaginative variation” (p. 313). Creswell and Poth (2017) explain that the last step in data
analysis and representation consists of writing a textural description that captures the “essence”
of the experience and represents the culminating aspect of the phenomenological study. This is
where the researcher “explains “what” the participants experienced with the phenomenon and
“how” they experienced it” (p. 201).
To identify categories from the data, I began by analyzing the English versions of the
interview transcripts through first and second-level coding. When reviewing the transcripts, I
noted the presence of subtle differences between meaning when translating, and I wanted to
ensure that I captured the essence of the meaning of what each participant said. Thus, an
important second part in the process of analysis and coding for this study included reviewing the
original raw data in French and comparing it to the data in English. Through this process, I
observed the nuances of the language and the translations. During this time, I created frequency
tables in English and in French to keep track of overlapping and differing perceptions between
the participants. These nuances sometimes required using two words instead of one when
establishing some of the first-level codes. For example, words such as “discuss” in English, and
“discuter” in French are not used in the same way, although they are a direct translation of one

22

another and share the same definition in both languages. In this case, direct translations were not
always used when establishing codes and categories, despite their similarities. An alternative
word, “talking” was added to accompany the word “discussing” in the English frequency table to
better suit the context in which it had been said during the interview. To make sure the true
meaning of participants’ perceptions was not altered, I established a code with two words instead
of one (Talking/Discussing). Throughout the process of first and second-level coding, it was
crucial to keep in mind the inevitable differences between original and translated data and to be
able to address the nuanced nature of the translation that occurred during data analysis. This was
a way of bracketing any biases I may have inadvertently imposed on the data through translation.
Managing Bias
Miles et al. (2014) bring forward a list of checks for researcher bias. I managed bias by
making my intentions clear for participants. I approached participants with transparency
regarding the purpose and theme of the research, how information was collected, and what was
to be done with the information. During the collaborative sessions, which took place before the
interviews, it was essential to take on the role of facilitator in a neutral manner and without any
pre-existing assumptions. As Creswell and Poth (2017) assert, to adequately report on
participants’ view of a phenomenon, the process of bracketing is used so the researcher can
remove their bias from their research findings. Field notes were shared with a colleague and
supervisor for this study. I kept inquiry questions firmly in mind while doing research as to
remain focused during data collection and analysis. Participant feedback was also used to
manage bias. First and second-level member checks were undertaken in attempt to maintain
clarity of the interview transcripts and the translations of any direct quotes. Each participant was
asked the same questions during their interview. In addition, I kept track of my ideas,

23

assumptions, questions, and biases of the phenomenon by writing in a separate journal, and by
writing directly on transcripts to locate where my assumptions came from. I also used this
journal to record if any early analysis of one interview transcript impacted my later analysis of
other transcripts. I wrote in my journal after each interview and after the analysis of each
transcript. After conducting and analyzing each interview, I made sure to go back to my data
several times. I took the time to write reflections from participants’ perceptions shared during
their interview, which allowed me to set aside any beliefs I held and verify that I was not making
assumptions about what participants had shared. It was crucial to take the steps towards staying
true to the participants’ responses.
I began this research with the belief that the protocols would make a noticeable difference
in the way people engage in collaborative conversations. I hold this belief because structured
dialogue protocols are formatted in such a way that voices can be heard equitably and listening
can happen more thoroughly than in a typical meeting. I chose the structured dialogue protocols
as a focus for my research, as I saw value in them and their potential implementation within my
team of educators. I held the belief that participants would find the structured dialogue protocols
helpful. I recognized that introducing a new approach to how individuals engage in conversation
could change the collaborative dynamic that is currently present within this team of educators.
Because the participants are my colleagues, my implicit bias comes from my familiarity with
these individuals, my knowledge of their values and their collaborative styles, as well as the
professional experiences I have shared with them. Despite my positive feelings regarding the
protocols, I needed to acknowledge to myself that not everybody would necessarily feel this way
about them.

24

After first and second-level coding of the data, there were some surprises, which
challenged my assumptions. For example, I assumed that because the participants had spent
several months learning and working with various online platforms prior to this research study
due to the COVID-19 pandemic and working from home, there would be some ease navigating
the interview process on an online platform. On the contrary, it was evident that the formal
setting of the Zoom platform for interviewing impacted the level of comfort participants had
being interviewed, despite being explicit with participants about what to expect prior to the
interviews. It was clear that because participants were being recorded, there was more emphasis
on avoiding any mistakes during their interview. In the case of this study, the original data was
translated from French to English. I assumed this process would be straight forward, but this
assumption was challenged when I realized that there was a potential that some data could be
misrepresented through translation. In order to manage my bias through the translation process,
participants were shown and given the opportunity to change the translations of their interview
transcripts. I went through the process of analyzing the data with process-coding using the
English transcripts, then a second time using the French transcripts. During this process, I shared
my translations and analysis of the interview transcripts with the supervisor for this research,
who speaks English and French. This presented another opportunity for me to monitor my biases.
Strength of Study
To ensure the strength of the study was maintained, I applied Denzin and Lincoln’s
(2005) Triple Crises of Representation, Legitimation, and Praxis. I applied the aspect of
representation in this study to humanize participants, based on how they requested to be
described in the writing. This was done by using follow-up questions after the interview to ask
participants how they wanted to be described in the final report. Also, the interview questions

25

enabled participants to define important terms relating to the study, such as collaboration, in their
own words. I implemented legitimation by using direct quotes as authentic evidence of how
participants perceived the phenomenon. Open-ended questions during the interviews gave
participants the opportunity to respond without any limitations to the information they could
share about their experiences. Praxis refers to how research findings were used and how they
could potentially benefit others. The findings from this research have the potential to inform the
school community regarding how to best support staff in productive, collaborative dialogue.

Results
The following section represents the key findings from this study based on data from the
interviews. For the sake of respecting confidentiality, each of the three participants was given a
pseudonym: “Aimy”, “Mathilde”, and “Éloise”. Aimy has been working with students from
Kindergarten to Grade eight as an Educational Assistant for twenty-two years. Mathilde has been
working with students as an Educational Assistant for twenty-four years. Éloise has been a
classroom teacher for eight years.
Collaboration was defined by participants as a means of working cooperatively with
others, listening, exchanging ideas, communicating, and arriving at a collective achievement. All
participants shared their perceptions of the effectiveness of structured dialogue protocols for
collaboration during their interviews. The data from my study reveals four important perceptions
of the staff members regarding the benefits of the structured dialogue protocols. The participants
reported that the structured dialogue protocols ensured equitable sharing, enabled focused and
attentive listening, facilitated and structured dialogue, and fostered collaborative problemsolving.

26

Ensuring Equitable Sharing
Participants believed the protocols were helpful in ensuring equitable sharing. In their
responses, the participants noted that the structured dialogue protocols allowed everyone in the
group to share their ideas and perspectives equally, which in some cases contributed to better
decision-making. Mathilde said that “it was clear, right from the start that everyone was going to
talk, what our roles were and when each person will get to speak.” Participants shared their
appreciation for the structured dialogue protocols. For example, when referring to one of the
structured dialogue protocols that took place during the collaborative sessions, Aimy noted that
“We all listened to others’ opinions. The people involved took turns sharing their ideas. We each
took the time to listen to others. A collective decision was made.” When referring to a
collaboration that was structured rather than open-ended that she had previously participated in,
Aimy explained that an individual spoke to a specific issue, then other individuals responded.
The individual who spoke initially responded to what was said and then shared their conclusions.
When referring to another collaborative session, Mathilde shared that the structured dialogue
protocol enabled participants to “give their opinion, to share ideas and to listen to others’
opinions.” Éloise shared that she felt it was necessary to have a difference in perspective, as
collaboration is not successful when participants have too much in common:
We all agreed every time, or pretty often at least, we expressed the same problems. When
we have discussions and collaborate, it’s having people with different ideas and different
problems. So, if someone does not have that same problem, it’s maybe because they’ve
found a solution. Maybe reflecting on it together can help, but if we all have the same
problem, it’s because we haven’t found a solution. I think maybe it’s because we’re all

27

too similar and there wasn’t enough diversity within the group for it to be helpful
(Éloise).
While it is important to provide individuals with equal opportunities to share during
collaboration, disagreement, or difference in opinions cannot be avoided. The structured dialogue
protocols allowed for all voices to be heard and created the space for differing perspectives to be
heard and considered.
Enabling Focused and Attentive Listening
Responses from participants demonstrated that the structured dialogue protocols enabled
more focused and attentive listening during collaboration. The format of the structured dialogue
protocols allowed participants to be fully present during the conversations that occurred during
each of the collaborative sessions. Within the Peeling the Onion and the Experience Cube
protocols, participants took turns speaking, which reduced the distracting dynamics that can
occasionally occur within collaboration, such as interrupting, cutting-in to the conversation, or
worrying about getting the chance to speak. The Peeling the Onion and the SWOT protocols
allowed participants to take notes while others were speaking, which they found to be helpful in
demonstrating more effective listening skills. For example, Éloise stated that using these
protocols was beneficial because “people feel like they were listened to, and heard, and they can
participate.” Aimy noted that “the participants did a good job sharing, observing, and listening to
those who were taking notes and sharing them when the topic was brought forward.” Mathilde
explained how taking notes while listening allowed them to be more mindful about what was
being said: “I think it works well because with note taking, we can better remember others’
ideas.” Additionally, Mathilde explains a positive aspect of the collaborative sessions, as they

28

were structured in such a way that participants could feel comfortable sharing and engaging in
the dialogue:
We recalled three very important topics, all areas requiring improvement in our school.
We all agreed to talk about a given topic. The sessions were well structured and we were
given the topics in advance. It was very pleasant to work, as there was no tension during
the conversations (Mathilde).
Also, Éloise demonstrated interest in trying the protocols in a context other than the
collaborative sessions: “I would like to see how they can be implemented, like in a staff meeting
or at another time. It would also be interesting to see.” Evidently, participants noticed the
effective listening skills demonstrated by others during the conversations. The structured
dialogue protocols provided a framework in which those skills could contribute to the
effectiveness of the collaboration.
Facilitating and Structuring Dialogue
Participants’ responses indicated that they perceived the need for leadership roles within
collaboration, while recognizing that these roles are not necessarily easy to take on. The three
structured dialogue protocols enhanced leadership roles within a group by defining an individual
who would facilitate the collaboration. Having a leader enabled participants to establish a plan, a
topic, and a common goal for the meeting, which made the conversation and collaboration more
structured, and more effective. As Éloise said:
I think that there often needs to be someone who is like the motor, the leader who takes
care of things and brings people back, because things often go all over the place. I think
having a leader, without officially choosing them, having a common goal, that there is
someone who takes charge, is good. When nobody does it, I feel like we go around in

29

circles and nothing happens. That’s what I mean by leader, bringing people back when
they get scattered, whether it’s with the time or with the topic (Éloise).
All participants spoke about the importance of having someone act in the capacity of the
leader and the many responsibilities associated with the role. They discussed how these
“leading” actions contributed to effective functioning in collaboration. For example, Aimy
shared thoughts regarding the role of the leader: “Someone is more of a leader compared to the
others. So, they might gather ideas from others and then try to synthesize them, all while
respecting what others are saying.” The facilitator’s role was to ensure that the steps within the
structured dialogue protocol were being followed. This role was also important because the
facilitator in the group helped to ensure that the protocols were being followed correctly. Shared
leadership presented itself when any participant demonstrated a readiness to be a leader in the
conversation. Also, Mathilde mentioned that the protocol framework made it easier to stay on
topic and provided greater clarity: “I like it better when collaboration is structured, and we get to
talk about what is essential about the topic.” Other participants also mentioned that having a
well-established topic ahead of time or establishing the topic during one of the steps in the
structured dialogue protocols was beneficial. Additionally, Éloise brought forward an important
point about establishing and maintaining a shared objective and working towards having every
participant contribute to reach that goal: “There needs to be a common goal achieved and each
person does their part…there needs to be interaction between people.”
An improvement to the protocols suggested by one participant was to share or rotate the
role of the facilitator. Aimy expressed views regarding the importance of sharing the leadership
roles within collaboration: “Maybe if we would have each taken a turn being the leader. Maybe it
would have been good to do a rotation for that role. It’s important to give each person the role of

30

the leader to facilitate a discussion.” The structured dialogue protocols promoted organized and
structured conversations. Also, the presence of a leader to hold others accountable added to the
positive functioning of the collaboration.
Fostering Collaborative Problem-solving
The role of the leader can also assist in the process of problem-solving. The leader can
use the framework and steps within structured dialogue protocols to assist in conversations
revolving around issues and finding solutions. As Aimy noted:
I think it is essential, especially in a school, when we talk about a given topic, to have
someone who is more or less the leader and that person takes opinions from others, does
a synthesis of everything, and then tries to find a solution (Aimy).
All participants talked about the positive dynamic of working with the specific protocols
to solve problems in more collaborative ways. For example, Aimy mentioned the importance of
“being able to find something in common, such as finding a solution that everyone could agree
with” in the process of effective problem-solving. Mathilde explained that she found the
structure within the Experience Cube (Bushe, 2010) protocol helpful when recounting her
experience engaging in the collaborative session: “We came up with ideas, gave examples, and
we even had some solutions for the problem. Yes, I liked the first session.” While each protocol
was structured in a different way, the participants noted three prominent characteristics of the
three structured dialogue protocols (see table 1). They ensured respectful turn taking, they
established clear roles for individuals, and they allowed time for reflection through note taking.
These characteristics all correlate to how the structured dialogue protocols fostered the
importance of working together to address common problems between participants and to find
solutions to them. Éloise explained that “trying to establish a plan, we discuss options to find

31

concrete solutions, we see what works and we adapt depending on what works”. Participants
worked together using the structured dialogue protocols, which contributed to creating a
successful and effective collaboration.
Figure 1
Perceptions of Participants Regarding Benefits of Structured Dialogue Protocols

• Ensuring
equitable
sharing

Enabling
focused and
attentive
listening

Sharing ideas,
perspectives,
opinions
Talking
Discussing
Participating
Communicating

Listening
Taking notes
Remembering

Problem-solving
Working together

Establishing a
plan, topic,
common goal
Leading
Structuring
Facilitating

• Fostering
collaborative
problemsolving

• Facilitating
and
structuring
dialogue

Table 1
Perceptions on the Effectiveness of Structured Dialogue Protocols
Protocol

Protocol
characteristics

Participant 1
(Aimy)

Participant 2
(Mathilde)

Participant 3
(Éloise)

Experience Cube

No note taking
Reflection time
Taking turns for
speaking

Least effective

Most effective

Most effective

Note taking

Most effective

Least effective

32

Peeling the
Onion

Reflection time
Taking turns for
speaking

SWOT

Note taking
No taking turns
for speaking
Reflection time

Least effective

Table 2
Category and Codes Generated during Data Analysis
Category

Codes/subcategories

Ensuring equitable sharing

Sharing ideas
Sharing perspectives
Sharing opinions
Talking
Discussing
Participating
Communicating

Enabling focused and attentive
listening

Listening
Taking notes
Remembering

Facilitating and structuring dialogue

Establishing a plan
Establishing a topic
Establishing a common goal
Leading
Structuring
Facilitating

Fostering collaborative problemsolving

Problem-solving
Working together

33

Discussion
I began this research curious about whether educators, and more specifically the
educators who are my colleagues, saw the potential in structured dialogue protocols for
improving collaboration within our context. I wanted to discover what kind of frameworks would
be necessary to engender a significant change in the culture of collaboration within my
professional context. This research helped to illuminate and confirm some of the insights that I
had in my mind prior to undertaking this study. There are four key findings of the present
research. The structured dialogue protocols ensured equitable sharing, enabled focused and
attentive listening, facilitated and structured the dialogue, and fostered collaborative problemsolving. Participants shared a range of perceptions concerning what they believed to be the most
and least effective among the three structured dialogue protocols used in the collaborative
sessions (see table 1). The Experience Cube protocol was described as the most effective
structured dialogue protocol by Mathilde and Éloise, who found that reflection time and taking
turns for speaking were helpful. On the other hand, Aimy found this to be the least effective
structured dialogue protocol, as there was no note taking. The Peeling the Onion protocol was
defined as the most effective structured dialogue protocol by Aimy, and as the least effective
structured dialogue protocol by Mathilde. This structured dialogue protocol included note taking,
reflection time, and taking turns for speaking. Finally, Éloise characterized the SWOT protocol as
the least effective. While this protocol included reflection time, there was no note taking and no
taking turns for speaking. The perceptions of the participants in this study suggest that structured
dialogue protocols provide a framework in which collaboration can be effective, and that the
interconnected actions that occur because of the protocols themselves play an important role in
the strength and success of the conversation.

34

I used the themes identified in the data to situate the perceptions of the staff members on
the effectiveness of the structured dialogue protocols for collaboration. These themes focused on
ensuring equitable sharing, enabling focused and attentive listening, facilitating and structuring
dialogue, and fostering collaborative problem-solving.
Ensuring Equitable Sharing
This research suggests that the structured dialogue protocols were helpful in ensuring
equitable sharing among participants. Participants from this study determined that equitable
sharing was achieved with the use of the structured dialogue protocols. Each of the participants
was given the opportunity to share their ideas, perspectives and opinions regarding the topic
being discussed during the collaborative session. Equitable sharing during collaboration can
provide opportunities for individuals to have deeper conversations, as everyone is given the
opportunity to reflect and share differing perspectives. These findings reflect the ideas put forth
by Kvam (2017) regarding the need for authentic exchanges and sharing differing perspectives
for collaboration to be meaningful. Also, a study conducted by Trimble et al. (1998) explains that
there should be “equal partners” (p.8) within a collaboration to ensure equitable sharing when
working collaboratively in groups. Studies conducted by Borg and Drange (2019) and AckerHocevar and Touchton (1999) suggest that equitable sharing within collaboration also means
giving all educators a chance to contribute to discussions and decisions within a school, whether
they are teachers or in formal leadership positions. Participants mentioned that they do not
always feel heard by individuals in higher positions, and that structured dialogue protocols may
encourage more voices to be heard. In an educational setting, structured dialogue protocols can
be useful for individuals as they navigate the difficult task of engaging in effective
conversations. For example, teachers could be struggling with an issue in their classroom, but

35

without being given the opportunity to share with others, their perspective cannot be heard.
Structured dialogue protocols are an approach to collaboration that puts in place the steps to be
followed to ensure all voices are heard. The structured dialogue protocols can reassure
individuals that there will be a designated time for each person in the group to share their
experiences. By using structured dialogue protocols in meetings and other professional
conversations, individuals are provided with the space to be heard and to share their ideas.
Enabling Focused and Attentive Listening
This study revealed that the structured dialogue protocols helped participants to listen
more attentively to others during their conversations. Focused and attentive listening enhanced
the conversations and may have led to developing greater trust among participants. Participants
found that the structured dialogue protocols were organized in such a way that listening was
prioritized, which gave them the opportunity to focus on what was being said by others.
Participants recognized that the structured dialogue protocols were effective in improving the
collaborative dynamic within the group. They found that they could listen effectively, as the
structured dialogue protocols required them to take notes. This provided a helpful tool to retain
what others had said during the conversation.
The work of Bergman et al. (2012) suggests that attentive listening occurs through
repeated interaction. As the participants in this study engaged with structured dialogue protocols,
they became familiar with their use. The structured dialogue protocols used in this study
included a large component of listening. While this may have been unfamiliar to some
participants, the structured dialogue protocols provided a framework in which individuals were
given the time to understand the importance of focused and attentive listening, a crucial
component for effective collaboration. The findings from a study by Kuh (2016) suggested that

36

the use of tangible tools to structure conversations enabled mutual engagement and offered a way
to sustain collaboration. Kuh (2016) also mentions that structured dialogue protocols steer
conversations in a specific direction, promoting each speaker’s voice. This is echoed in the
perceptions of the participants from this study, who explained that they found the use of a
structured dialogue protocol allowed them to feel prepared to listen attentively, share their
perspective, and to feel secure in their role during the collaborative sessions. Furthermore,
participants demonstrated an inclination towards implementing the structured dialogue protocols
into their future practice. This may be an outcome of the structured dialogue protocols being
organized in a way that promoted the use of focused and attentive listening during collaboration.
For example, the structured dialogue protocols could be used in the future to facilitate staff
meetings and to develop listening skills in the classroom.
Facilitating and Structuring Dialogue
This study demonstrates the importance of facilitating and structuring dialogue during the
collaborative conversations. Participants showed an appreciation for the structured dialogue
protocols by explaining that they were organized and specific, which allowed crucial discussions
to occur effectively. Participants identified the positive impact of the roles taken on by the
facilitator in helping to guide conversations during collaboration and ensuring equitable sharing
within a group. This finding reflects research by Nelson et al. (2010), who suggest that those
leading a discussion have an important role in guiding effective conversations between
educators. Many participants noted the significance of the different roles to be taken on by the
facilitator that led to a more effective and collaborative environment. Gerpott (2019) suggested
that behaviours demonstrated by the leader of collaborative conversations are important in
facilitating effective collaboration. It was noted by Gerpott (2019) that the roles taken on by the

37

leader evolve during a team’s work together. In the case of the individuals engaging with the
structured dialogue protocols in this study, there was a designated person to facilitate each
session, and participants explained how the task of the facilitator was crucial in having an
effective conversation. Gerpott (2019) explained that emergent leadership roles and behaviours
can also result from the varying dynamic of communication and interactions between
participants within collaboration. This idea is supported by Éloise, who explained that their role
as a leader emerged, despite not being drawn to the task, but because the dynamic and
interactions within the group pushed them to do so to achieve the group’s desired outcome. In
various collaborative contexts, individuals want to feel that the time being put into is being used
effectively. A facilitator – whether designated or emergent – plays an important role in ensuring
that a conversation is productive. In the case of this study, the structured dialogue protocols
provided the facilitator with the means to make sure the conversation allowed participants to
establish a clear plan, topic, and goal for their discussion. Structure within conversations can be
ensured with the help of an individual to facilitate a conversation between educators. Structured
dialogue protocols may also provide an opportunity for educators, who demonstrate capacities as
potential leaders, to develop skills in facilitating and structuring dialogue between their
colleagues.
Fostering Collaborative Problem-Solving
This study suggests that structured dialogue protocols are beneficial in collaboration
because they serve the purpose of fostering collaborative problem-solving. The structured
dialogue protocols in this study were organized in such a way that participants were able to
engage in conversations that emphasized talking through problems. The participants reacted well
to the fact that most of the structured dialogue protocols used in this study had a specific step that

38

set aside time to discuss possible solutions to specific issues. This meant that participants all
shared their point of view on a problem, responded to others’ perspectives, and had time to
reflect on that part of the conversation before discussing solutions. Participants expressed their
appreciation for the time provided within the structured dialogue protocols to discuss problemsolving. This echoes the work of Nelson et al (2010), who explain that intentional and
transparent steps are necessary in moving towards more effective conversations while
collaborating. Additionally, a study by Kvam (2017) demonstrated that identifying problems and
their solutions must be included in effective collaboration. The structured dialogue protocols
used in the collaborative sessions provided specific steps to give participants time to fully
understand the issues presented in the conversation, respond thoughtfully, and then to discuss
solutions together. Structured dialogue protocols present an approach to problem-solving
educators can use to discuss difficult issues. Structured dialogue protocols offer specific steps to
be followed when discussing a problem, which could alleviate any conflict that may occur during
these conversations when they are not structured.
Limitations
There were inevitably limitations due to the sample size of this study. As there was a
small number of participants in this study, their experiences do not reflect those of all elementary
school staff members. Also, within the sample size, there were two education assistants and one
teacher, which limited the generalizability of this study to classroom teachers. Future studies
could consider larger sample sizes or focus solely on classroom teachers to accomplish an
improved exploration of their perceptions.
A second limitation was the context of the COVID-19 pandemic during which this study
was conducted. The pandemic has created significant shifts in the context of education and

39

collaboration and influenced how participant responses were gathered. As previously mentioned,
interviews were completed using an online platform rather than being done in person. In
addition, the stress and modified working conditions within the context of the pandemic could
have had an impact on how participants responded during interviews. Future research is
recommended in this area when normal operations in schools resume.
Implications and Recommendations
One interesting observation I noted during my data analysis was participants’ inclination
towards using structured dialogue protocols for future collaboration, which reflects Bushe’s
(2010) belief that there is a shift from “command and control to collaboration” (p.1); the concept
of organization within a group of colleagues is moving from a few individuals in leadership
positions being in charge to a shared leadership approach, which gives teams the ability to make
their own decisions. Research suggests the need for more purposeful attention to embedding
structured dialogue protocols into collaboration between teachers and their colleagues. It is
evident in the scholarship that schools are making the effort to promote deep conversation, trust,
decision-making, and collaboration within teacher conversations. An examination of the
literature and its connection to the findings leads to several important questions: What do
educators need in order to dig deep into the many facets of teaching and learning? What does it
take to engage in a meaningful conversation? How can a culture of collaboration in which
meaningful dialogue and collaboration can occur, be facilitated? How can structured dialogue
protocols enhance shared leadership and decision-making in schools?
I am left thinking about what has not been considered in the scholarship. Elementary
teachers’ and other staff members’ conversations remain an under researched area. Promoting
trust between individuals within collaborative contexts may not be a priority in educational

40

settings, as many other dynamics of collaboration can take precedence. Also, in the scholarship
reviewed, the link between conversation content and teaching practice has not been made clear.
There is an interest among the elementary school staff members in implementing structured
dialogue protocols into their practice within the context of this study. Because the structured
dialogue protocols facilitated the conversations that took place during the collaborative sessions,
participants have seen the benefits and the potential of applying them to future collaboration
within the building. This suggests the need to explore structured dialogue protocols that can be
used in different educational contexts and modified if necessary. There is a need for individuals
to become familiar and comfortable with the use of structured dialogue protocols so they can be
embedded into the culture of collaboration in schools. The structured dialogue protocols used in
this study could be a means of making collaboration more inviting for educators in their work
together.
At a broader level, this study has implications for all schools. If the benefits of structured
dialogue protocols are of enough value within the study site for this research, they may also be
advantageous for collaboration in other schools. As a result of this study, I will be looking at
collaboration through the lens of structure, equity, and facilitation in hopes of providing
opportunities to other educators to engage in more effective collaborative contexts. Structured
dialogue protocols can be used to conduct meetings and difficult conversations, and to engage in
learning conversations between educators during professional development. Mentorship
programs may also recognize the importance of structured dialogue protocols in building trust,
authentic connections and effectual relationships between mentors and mentees. Structured
dialogue protocols could be embedded into teacher education to enhance the conversations
between early career teachers and the educators mentoring them.

41

In terms of future research, there is more exploration to be done with the findings of this
study in relation to how perceptions of structured dialogue protocols can influence the way in
which frameworks for collaboration are carried out and facilitated. Future research with larger
sample sizes could consider structured dialogue protocols not only from this study, but additional
protocols designed by Easton (2009), Bushe (2010), and others. Additionally, it would be
important to consider the use of structured dialogue protocols by individuals in positions of
leadership as a tool to engage with their staff in more effective, transparent, and meaningful
ways.
Conclusion
The structured dialogue protocols created an environment in which participants were
willing to listen, share, lead, and tackle problem-solving using a team approach. The benefits that
have been brought forward through the experience of engaging with the structured dialogue
protocols to collaborate could serve a more significant purpose in terms of facilitating
collaboration for those taking on leadership roles in education. The structured dialogue protocols
have revealed the elaborate but purposeful art of engaging in facilitated conversations and have
provided a clear starting point for future collaborative experiences. I am looking forward to
sharing the structured dialogue protocols this study has introduced me to with other educators.
Also, it will be beneficial to explore additional structured dialogue protocols to engage in future
collaboration in various contexts. This process could consist of joining other educators in
exploring protocols for collaboration, working within their frameworks to accomplish
meaningful conversations, and remain open-minded to the steep learning curve that may
accompany a new approach to working collaboratively as a leader in the education system. As
Isaacs (1999) reminds us, “dialogue is a process that can allow us to become aware of our

42

participation in a much wider whole. Like the telescope, it focuses the available light more
completely so that we can see more” (p. 90). As educators, we value our professional time.
However, within a school day, our collegial time is limited. To ensure our time together as
professionals counts, we must ask the following questions. Could structured dialogue protocols
help make collaboration move towards more reciprocal, meaningful and dialogic conversations?
Can they foster more meaningful and collaborative conversations? Can they ensure that all
voices are heard? If so, which structured dialogue protocols are the most effective for an
educational setting? Structured dialogue protocols have allowed me to discover an approach to
collaboration that creates time and space for every voice to be heard. This unique experience has
opened up the possibilities of implementing structured dialogue protocols with students and with
colleagues as a way to encourage collaborative dialogue.

43

References
Acker-Hocevar, M., & Touchton, D. (1999). A Model of Power as Social Relationships: Teacher
Leaders Describe the Phenomena of Effective Agency in Practice.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED456108.pdf
Adams, P., Mombourquette, C., & Townsend, D. (2019). Leadership in education: The power of
generative dialogue. Canadian Scholars.
Alcock, K. (2017). Unentitled. In B. Kutsyuruba & K. D. Walker (Eds.), The bliss and blisters of
early career teaching: A Pan-Canadian perspective (135-138). Word & Deed Publishing
Incorporated.
Bergman, J. Z., Rentsch, J. R., Small, E. E., Davenport, S. W., & Bergman, S. M. (2012). The
shared leadership process in decision-making teams. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 152(1), 17–42. https://web-b-ebscohostcom.proxy.ufv.ca:2443/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=630064ee-3d7a-49009252-c4cc2570eb2e%40pdc-v-sessmgr05
Borg, E., & Drange, I. (2019). Interprofessional collaboration in school: Effects on teaching and
learning. Improving Schools, 22(3), 251–266. https://journals-sagepubcom.proxy.ufv.ca:2443/doi/pdf/10.1177/1365480219864812
Bushe, G. R. (2011). Clear leadership: Sustaining real collaboration and partnership at work.
Nicholas Brealey.
Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Thomason, S., & Firth, A. (2005). The impact of collaborative
continuing professional development (CPD) on classroom teaching and learning. Review:

44

How do collaborative and sustained CPD and sustained but not collaborative CPD affect
teaching and learning.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five approaches. Sage Publications.
Bohm, D., & Nichol, L. (1996). On Dialogue. Routledge.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S., (2005). The discipline and practice of qualitative
research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 3rd
ed., 1-42. Sage.
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community?” Educational
leadership, 61(8), 6-11.
DuFour, R. (2011). Work together but only if you want to. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 57–61.
https://doi-org.proxy.ufv.ca:2443/10.1177/003172171109200513
Donohoo, J. (2018). Collective teacher efficacy research: Productive patterns of behaviour and
other positive consequences. Journal of Educational Change, 19(3), 323–345.
https://link-springer-com.proxy.ufv.ca:2443/content/pdf/10.1007/s10833-018-9319-2.pdf
Easton, L. B. (2009). Protocols for professional learning. ASCD.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. Jossey-Bass.
Gerpott, F. H., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Voelpel, S. C., & van Vugt, M. (2019). It’s not just
what is said, but when it’s said: A temporal account of verbal behaviors and emergent
leadership in self-managed teams. Academy of Management Journal, 62(3), 717–738.
https://doi-org.proxy.ufv.ca:2443/10.5465/amj.2017.0149
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B., eds. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In J. W.

45

Creswell, & C. N. Poth, (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five approaches, 183-184. Sage Publications.
Humphrey, A. (2005). SWOT analysis for management consulting. SRI Alumni Newsletter (SRI
International).
Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. Doubleday.
Kogler Hill, S. E. (2019). Team leadership. In Leadership Theory and Practice (pp. 371–402).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Kuh, L. P. (2016). Teachers talking about teaching and school: Collaboration and reflective
practice via critical friends groups. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 22(3),
293–314. https://www-tandfonlinecom.proxy.ufv.ca:2443/doi/pdf/10.1080/13540602.2015.1058589?needAccess=true
Kvam, E. K. (2018). Untapped learning potential? A study of teachers’ conversations with
colleagues in primary schools in Norway. Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(6), 697–
714. https://web-b-ebscohostcom.proxy.ufv.ca:2443/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=49&sid=5088ba53-f8d2-4c7fbd76-6738a9be4df1%40pdc-v-sessmgr03
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage Publications.
Nelson, T. H., Deuel, A., Slavit, D., & Kennedy, A. (2010). Leading deep conversations in
collaborative inquiry groups. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,
Issues and Ideas, 83(5), 175–179.
Parker, G. M. (1990). Team players and teamwork. Jossey-Bass.
Petta, K., Smith, R., Chaseling, M., & Markopoulos, C. (2019). Generative dialogue: A concept
analysis. Management in Education, 33(2), 53–61.

46

Pugach, M. C., & Johnson, L. J. (1995). Unlocking expertise among classroom teachers through
structured dialogue: Extending research on peer collaboration. Exceptional
children, 62(2), 101-110.
Rempe-Gillen, E. (2018). Primary school teacher experiences in cross-phase professional
development collaborations. Professional Development in Education, 44(3), 356–368.
https://www-tandfonlinecom.proxy.ufv.ca:2443/doi/pdf/10.1080/19415257.2017.1328455?needAccess=true
Trimble, S. B., & Peterson, G. W. (1998). A multitrait-multimethod framework to assess team
leadership and team functioning. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED420710.pdf
Van Manen, M. (2017). Phenomenology in its original sense. Qualitative Health Research,
27(6),810-825. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317699381
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge University Press
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A
guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business Press.
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation.
Sage Publications.

47

Appendix A
Research Ethics Board - Certificate of Ethical Approval
HREB Protocol No: 100572
Principal Investigator: Ms. Diane Foire
Team Members: Ms. Diane Foire (Principal Investigator)
Dr. Joanne Robertson (Supervisor)
Dr. Sheryl MacMath (Course Instructor)
Title: Perceptions of Elementary School Staff Members on the Effectiveness of Structured
Dialogue for Collaboration
Department: Faculty of Professional Studies\Teacher Education
Effective: December 16, 2020
Expiry: December 15, 2021
The Human Research Ethics Board (HREB) has reviewed and approved the ethics of the above
research. The HREB is constituted and operated in accordance with the requirements of the UFV
Policy on Human Research Ethics and the current Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct
for Research Involving Humans (TCPS2).
The approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval is granted only for the research and purposes described in the application.
2. Approval is for one year. A Request for Renewal must be submitted 2-3 weeks before the
above expiry date.
3. Modifications to the approved research must be submitted as an Amendment to be reviewed
and approved by the HREB before the changes can be implemented. If the changes are
substantial, a new request for approval must be sought. *An exception can be made where the
change is necessary to eliminate an immediate risk to participant(s) (TPCS2 Article 6.15). Such
changes may be implemented but must be reported to the HREB within 5 business days.
4. If an adverse incident occurs, an Adverse Incident Event form must be completed and
submitted.
5. During the project period, the HREB must be notified of any issues that may have ethical
implications.
*NEW 6. A Final Report Event Form must be submitted to the HREB when the research is
complete or terminated.
**Please submit your Research Continuity Plan to REGS@ufv.ca before beginning your
research. The plan can be found here: https://www.ufv.ca/research/
Thank you, and all the best with your research.
UFV Human Research Ethics Board
**Do not reply to this email**

48

Appendix B
The Peeling the Onion Protocol
Adapted from “Protocols from Professional Learning” (Easton,2009)
Step 1 Introductions

Everyone states their name and role

Step 2 Describing the Issue

One ‘issue’ is brought forward to the group by an
individual – as the individual describes in detail
the issue, others take notes and observe/listen.

Step 3 Free Writing

Each individual free writes after the issue is
presented.

Step 4 Discussion

Each individual presents comments, questions,
examples, or insights about the issue using
particular prompts to facilitate discussion (see
Easton, 2009, p. 72). As each individual speaks,
the person who brought forward the issue takes
notes.

Step 5 Reflection

The individual who brought forward the issue
presents their reflections on the issue based on
what notes were taken and what was heard during
Step 4. The facilitator asks the following
questions: How did this protocol help you with
the issue? What worked well? What would you
do differently?

49

Appendix C
The Experience Cube Protocol
Adapted from “Clear Leadership: Sustaining real collaboration and partnership at work”
(Bushe, 2009)
Observations: Sensory data (information you take in through your senses), primarily what
you see and hear. What a video camera would record.
I observe: “I’ve noticed…”, “I saw that…”, “I heard you say…”
Thoughts: The meaning you add to your observations (i.e., the way you make sense of them,
including your beliefs, expectations, assumptions, judgments, values and principles). We call
this the “story you make up”.
I think: “I believe that was…”, “I think it is…”, “My story is…”
Feelings: Your emotional or physiological response to the thoughts and observations.
Feelings words such as sad, mad, glad, scared, or a description of what is happening in your
body.
I feel: “I’m really pleased….”, “It concerned me when….”, “I appreciate your commitment
to….”, “It troubled me ….”
Wants: Clear description of the outcome you seek. Wants go deeper than a simple request for
action. Once you clearly state what you want, there may be different ways to achieve it.
I want: “I want to…”; “I need…”; “I wish…”, “I hope…”
So What/Now What:
How has this helped us build relationship and reach understanding?

50

Appendix D
The SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) Protocol
Adapted from “Protocols from Professional Learning” (Easton,2009)
1. Question(s):
2. Clarify the issue by asking more (non-judgemental) questions:
3. Writing about the issue related to the key question:
4. Discussion:

Strengths

Weaknesses

Opportunities

Threats

5. Reflection and Debriefing:

51

Appendix E
Original and translated interview questions
1. How would you define collaboration?
Comment définiriez-vous le terme « collaboration »?
2. Please share and describe a previous experience you have had with professional
collaboration. Was the collaboration structured? Was the collaboration open and
unstructured? What stood out for you?
Partagez et décrivez une expérience précédente de collaboration professionnelle. La
collaboration était-elle structurée? La collaboration était-elle ouverte et sans structure?
Qu’est-ce qui vous a marqué?
3. Have you ever participated in professional collaboration that used protocols or structured
dialogue techniques? If so, please provide an example.
Avez-vous déjà participé à une collaboration professionnelle utilisant des protocoles ou
des techniques de dialogue structuré?
4. What works best for you when collaborating with colleagues? Please provide an example
if possible.
Expliquez ce qui fonctionne le mieux pour vous lorsque vous collaborez avec des
collègues. Veuillez donner un exemple si possible.
5. Explain your general perception of how the protocols went for you during the
collaboration sessions.
Expliquez votre perception générale du fonctionnement des protocoles pendant les
sessions de collaboration.
6. Which of the protocols were most effective in your opinion? Which of the protocols were
least effective in your opinion? Please explain why.
Quel(s) protocole(s) ont été les plus efficaces à votre avis? Quel(s) protocole(s) ont été
les moins efficaces selon vous?Pourquoi?
7. Is there anything else you would like to add?
Y a-t-il autre chose que vous aimeriez ajouter?

52

Appendix F
Code Frequency from Translated Data
Code
Sharing/Communicating

Listening

Leading

Problem-solving

Talking/Discussing

Working together

Centering around topic

Participating

Establishing (plan,
topic, common goal)
Taking notes

Transcript
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3

Frequency of
code in transcript
5
4
2
5
4
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
2
1

Total
frequency of code
11

10

9

8

6

5

5

5

4

4

53

Appendix G
Code Frequency from Original Data
Code
Écouter

Être un leader

Partager

Discuter

Trouver des solutions

Participer

Communiquer

Structurer

Diriger

Établir

Transcription
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3

Fréquence du code
dans la transcription
5
6
1
6
1
4
3
5
1
5
3
0
1
3
2
1
3
0
2
2
0
1
3
0
0
3
1
0
0
4

Fréquence total du
code
12

11

9

8

6

4

4

4

4

4