Previous research has consistently emphasized that collaboration among teachers plays a central role in supporting teachers’ professional learning, motivation, and ultimately student learning outcomes (e.g., Goddard et al., 2007; Lomos et al., 2011; Muckenthaler et al., 2020; Nguyen & Ng, 2020). Despite its importance, collaborative work within school development cannot be assumed to occur naturally. Studies have shown that fostering teacher collaboration remains a significant challenge (Eisenschmidt et al., 2025; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Factors such as school leadership, clear organizational structures, sufficient time allocation, and a shared vision for collaborative practices have been identified as essential for enabling teachers’ opportunities and willingness to engage in collaborative development work (Ahtiainen & Heikonen, 2024; Rönn-Liljenfeldt et al., 2025).

At the same time, teachers’ perceptions of the elements that enable collaboration in school development are likely to vary. While some teachers may feel that their school provides coherent and supportive practices for collaboration, others may perceive the goals unclear or the conversational climate weak (Ahtiainen & Heikonen, 2023). These differing perceptions are reflected in teachers’ participation: the more positively teachers view the realization of collaborative structures and practices in their school, the more likely they are to engage actively in development activities. Consequently, teachers’ perceptions of collaboration in school development contribute not only to the success of development initiatives but also, indirectly, to student learning outcomes. However, empirical evidence on the variation in teachers’ perceptions of collaborative school development remains limited. This gap restricts our ability to design practices that ensure the participation of all teachers in meaningful school development work.

The school’s capacity to engage teachers in collaborative improvement efforts is crucial for both short‑ and long‑term development of educational practices (Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2017). Although teacher collaboration is essential for active school development, teachers differ in how they interpret and experience this collaboration, influencing both their level of involvement and the ways in which they participate. At the same time, principals have expressed the need for more knowledge on how to promote whole‑school collaboration among teachers (Taajamo & Puhakka, 2019). Despite this need, there remains limited understanding of how teachers themselves perceive collaborative school development within their professional communities.

The aim of the study was to gain a deeper understanding of how teachers differ in their perceptions of collaboration in school development. Specifically, we sought to identify potential subgroups of teachers characterized by different combinations of perceived clarity of development goals, assessment practices, conversational environment, shared responsibility, and student engagement in school development. In addition, we examined whether these differences were associated with (a) teachers’ professional roles (i.e., classroom teachers, subject teachers, special education teachers), (b) membership in the school’s leadership group, and (c) the size of the school.

RQ1. What kinds of profiles can be identified based on teachers’ perceptions of collaboration in school development in terms of clarity of the development goals, assessment practices, conversational climate, shared responsibility, and student engagement? 

RQ2. Does the teacher’s role, i.e., whether they are classroom teachers, subject teachers or special education teachers, explain their belonging to a certain profile?

RQ3. Does the teacher’s role in a leadership group explain their belonging to a certain profile? 

RQ4. Does the size of the school explain teachers’ belonging to a certain profile?

The dataset consists of responses from 1030 teachers working in comprehensive schools with a leadership group or comparable leadership structure. Participants included subject teachers (40%), primary school teachers (36%), special education teachers (20%), and other teaching staff (5%). Most respondents were female (78%), while 16% were male; three identified as “Other,” 5% preferred not to disclose their gender, and five did not answer. Age was measured on a five‑category scale and was normally distributed: 7.5% were aged 20–29, 22.8% were 30–39, 35.1% were 40–49, 28.9% were 50–59, and 5.4% were over 60. No significant gender or age differences were found across teacher groups. The data were collected as a part of a school development program that 16 municipalities near Helsinki metropolitan area participated in 2019-2020. The sample included 104 schools with an average enrollment of 355 students (SD = 203; range 34–923). The sample comprised 52 primary schools (grades 1–6), 17 lower secondary schools (grades 7–9), and 34 combined schools covering grades 1–9. Teachers’ perceptions of collaborative school development were measured using the Collaborative School Development Scale (14 items; Heikonen & Ahtiainen, 2024). The scale assesses five dimensions of collaborative practices within schools: Clear goals (2 items), Assessment practices (2 items), Conversational environment (4 items), Shared responsibility (3 items), and Student engagement (3 items). All items were rated on a five point Likert-scale. Latent profile analysis was conducted to identify subgroups of teachers based on their perceptions of collaborative school development. Analyses were performed in Mplus 8.6 using the robust maximum likelihood estimator, which provides standard errors and χ²-statistics robust to non-normality. Within‑class variances were constrained to equality across profiles, and residuals were allowed to correlate. Model selection was guided by theoretical interpretability together with fit indices: AIC, BIC, aBIC, and the VLMR, aLRT, and bootstrapped likelihood ratio tests (Berlin et al., 2014). Profile accuracy was evaluated using average posterior class probabilities and entropy. To examine whether profile membership varied by teacher role (classroom, subject, or special education teacher) or leadership group membership, we used the Mplus auxiliary procedure (R3STEP; Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014). This approach treats background variables as antecedents of the latent class variable while accounting for classification uncertainty and provides multinomial logistic regression–based odds ratios indicating how these variables predict membership in each profile (McLarnon & O’Neill, 2018).

Four profiles of teachers were identified based on their perceptions of collaboration in school development. The largest profile, comprising 73% of teachers, reflected consistently high levels across all dimensions of collaborative school development and was labeled the Collaborative school development profile. Teachers in this group perceived development goals as clear and reported a strong conversational atmosphere in their schools. However, satisfaction with assessment practices was slightly lower than for other dimensions. The second largest profile included 16% of teachers and was termed the Conversational–lacking alignment profile. Teachers in this group reported high levels of conversational environment, shared responsibility, and student engagement. Despite this, they expressed dissatisfaction with the clarity of development goals and assessment practices. Although teachers felt able to participate actively in discussions about school development, they did not perceive the goals as clear or believe that shared assessment criteria had been established. The third profile, representing 8% of teachers, was characterized by moderate levels across all study variables and was named the Moderately collaborative school development profile. Teachers in this group reported reasonably clear goals and some opportunities for discussion and collaboration with colleagues and school leadership. The smallest profile, comprising 2% of teachers, was labeled the Lacking aligned practices for collaborative school development profile. Teachers in this group reported low levels of goal clarity, assessment practices, and conversational environment, but high levels of shared responsibility and moderate student engagement. Although they perceived collaboration structures as weak, they still believed that all teachers shared responsibility for school development. Neither teachers’ professional roles, leadership group membership, nor school size were associated with profile membership.

Ahtiainen, R. & Heikonen, L. (2024). The leadership group as a means for teacher participation and leadership distribution. In Ahtiainen R. et. al. (eds) Leadership in Educational Contexts in Finland. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp.323–338. Asparouhov, T. & Muthén, B. (2014). Auxiliary Variables in Mixture Modeling: Three-Step Approaches Using Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling: A multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 329-341. Berlin, K.S., Williams, N.A., & Parra, G.R. (2014). An introduction to latent variable mixture modeling (part 1): overview and cross-sectional latent class and latent profile analyses. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39, 174–187. Eisenschmidt, E., Ahtiainen, R., Kondratjev, B. S., & Sillavee, R. (2025). A study of Finnish and Estonian principals’ perceptions of strategies that foster teacher involvement in school development. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 28(1), 81-104. Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877–896. Hargreaves, A. & O’Connor, M. T. (2017). Cultures of professional collaboration: their origins and opponents. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 2(2), 74-85. Heikonen, L. & Ahtiainen, R. (2024). Interrelations between teachers’ perceptions of school leadership group practices and collaborative school development in Finland. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Lomos, C., Hofman, R. H., & Bosker, R. J. (2011). Professional communities and student achievement – A meta-analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 121–148. McLarnon, M. J. W., & O'Neill, T. A. (2018). Extensions of auxiliary variable approaches for the investigation of mediation, moderation, and conditional effects in mixture models. Organizational Research Methods, 21(4), 955–982. Muckenthaler, M., Tillmann, T., Weiß, S., & Kiel, E. (2020). Teacher collaboration as a core objective of school development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31(3), 486–504. Nguyen, D., & Ng, D. (2020). Teacher collaboration for change: sharing, improving, and spreading. Professional Development in Education, 46(4), 638–651. Rönn-Liljenfeldt, M., Sundqvist, C., Carpelan, R., & Rytivaara, A. (2025). Role of teacher culture in the implementation of co-teaching between special and class teachers in Finnish schools – a multiple case study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1–15. Taajamo, M. & Puhakka, E. (2019). Opetuksen ja oppimisen kansainvälinen tutkimus TALIS 2018: Perusopetuksen vuosiluokkien 7–9 ensituloksia, osa 1. Finnish National Agency for Education. Vangrieken K., Dochy F., Raes E., et al. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review 15, 17–40.