The Lies of Collaborative Pedagogies

“Is collaboration always empowering – or might it sometimes be quietly exhausting?”

I often invite students to see our classrooms as spaces where “we co-create learning together.” Theological education is, after all, about formation rather than just information. Yet, I’ve started to wonder if our hopeful ideas about mutual empowerment and flattened hierarchies might sometimes hide deeper tensions – particularly for those teaching and learning from marginalized social locations.

The more I reflect on collaborative pedagogies, the more complicated the picture becomes. I find myself wrestling with difficult questions: What tensions remain unseen or unspoken? Who truly bears the emotional and practical burdens of collaboration, particularly among marginalized educators and students? Are flattened hierarchies genuinely equal, or do they quietly demand extra emotional labor from those already burdened by systemic inequalities?

I don’t offer easy answers here. Instead, I invite you into critical reflection about the real demands of collaboration – and the hidden costs it may entail.

Lie #1: We pretend collaborative pedagogy naturally leads to equal participation.

Last semester, my teaching assistant emailed me with an unsettling dilemma: “I’m a little uncertain how to grade this. According to my records, two international students spoke significantly less than others, but subtracting points feels like punishing them for cultural differences.” Her task seemed straightforward – evaluate classroom participation – but it quickly exposed troubling contradictions. Should international students be penalized for speaking thoughtfully yet hesitantly due to language barriers? Conversely, should students who confidently dominated discussions – often without genuinely engaging the readings – receive higher marks simply because they spoke frequently and assertively?

Her email revealed how participation in collaborative spaces is often influenced by invisible power dynamics and cultural assumptions. If I continue grading participation based solely on who speaks and how often, my “collaborative” pedagogy inadvertently reinforces rather than disrupts existing inequalities. It risks obscuring the real barriers marginalized students face in making their voices heard.

Not every voice holds equal power. Some students speak freely, confident their contributions will be valued. Others – particularly students of color, LGBTQ+ students, disabled students, international students, or those from working-class backgrounds – may speak cautiously, code-switch, or fear judgment. True collaborative pedagogy demands careful attention to these social and cultural realities. It also requires us to rethink how we evaluate classroom participation with genuine cultural sensitivity, always aware of the underlying power dynamics.

Lie #2: We pretend collaboration equally distributes risks and rewards.

As a transnational educator, I’ve personally navigated these tensions, often weighing the risks before speaking. Throughout my academic journey, both as student and educator, I’ve experienced firsthand how silence or selective verbal participation can be misread as flaws needing correction or a lack of confidence. Quiet reflection, thoughtful pauses, or cautious engagement were often interpreted negatively, pressuring me to challenge my thoughtful silence and reshape how I claimed authority in classroom dynamics.

Each semester, I enthusiastically embrace collaborative methods – co-designing syllabi, fostering open dialogue, and inviting student-led sessions. Initially, these approaches feel refreshing and energizing. Yet inevitably, sometime during the course tensions arise: awkward silences, confusion about roles, and blurred boundaries. For marginalized educators, these methods often invite scrutiny of authority, competence, and intent, inadvertently reinforcing existing power imbalances rather than dismantling them.

Perhaps we’ve too quickly assumed that collaboration automatically empowers everyone, overlooking persistent power imbalances deeply embedded in our classrooms. Are we genuinely ready to support students and educators as they navigate these unequal risks, or have we conveniently assumed collaboration to be inherently equitable?

Please, don’t pretend…

I fully acknowledge the significant benefits collaborative pedagogies bring, such as vibrant learning environments and mutual empowerment. I always integrate collaboration with my course pedagogy. However, I want to explore the ways in which collaborative methods can disproportionately burden marginalized participants.

These “lies” push us to reimagine what a truly collaborative classroom might look like – not simply as a pedagogical trend, but as ethical, pastoral, and cultural commitments. We must critically reassess classroom dynamics: Who defines collaboration? Whose participation genuinely counts? Who determines what matters? 

Collaborative pedagogy demands ongoing attention to power dynamics, attentive inclusivity, and cultural sensitivity. It invites vulnerability and complexity, necessitating continuous ethical reflection and pastoral attentiveness. Flattening hierarchies alone isn’t sufficient; we must recognize and navigate subtle, persistent power realities.

So, let’s stop pretending that fully collaborative pedagogies emerge naturally. They require intentional cultivation, careful attention, and relational sensitivity – bringing both meaningful opportunities and hidden burdens. As we dream about collaboration in our learning journeys, perhaps it’s time to pause and honestly ask ourselves: What exactly are we co-creating, and who silently shoulders its emotional costs?