Collaboration is one of the most powerful forces in learning. Yet it can also be one of the hardest things to cultivate. Too often, students struggle to share ideas, listen to one another, or take creative risks. At the center of this struggle is something deeper than group roles or classroom routines. It is the idea of psychological safety.

This is the trust that allows people to feel like they belong, to take risks, to contribute their voices, and to challenge one another in meaningful ways. When we design for psychological safety, we create the conditions where collaboration moves from surface-level cooperation into something deeper and more transformative.

Listen to the Podcast

If you enjoy this blog but you’d like to listen to it on the go, just click on the audio below or subscribe via Apple Podcasts  or Spotify.

 

A Surprising Lesson from TV Shows

When I was growing up, many of the popular sitcoms had a similar arc for their most popular characters. As the show progressed, they amplified their characters’ idiosyncrasies and often their flaws, with no real consequences. Over time, characters became caricatures. Steve Urkel became so over-the-top nerdy that he lacked any dimension. Kramer grew so neurotic and edgy that he became merely a vehicle for shenanigans. This is often called the Flander’s Effect or Flanderization, named after Ned Flanders on The Simpsons, who moves from friendly religious neighbor to a satire of all religious fundamentalists. I saw recently saw this phenomenon occur with Ross and Joey on Friends as my son binge-watched every season in a matter of weeks.

But in the mid 2000s, a new character arc emerged. I first noticed it with Parks Rec, where Tom learned to be more empathetic and less self-centered. Donna demonstrated depth that went beyond just “treat yo’ self.” April grew empathetic without losing her emo edge. Leslie became well-rounded. Andy remained goofy but grew responsible. Perhaps the greatest change occurred with Ron Swanson.

In season one, I despised the characters. And, in rewatching it, the show was admittedly mediocre at first. Eventually, though, it hit stride by season three, partly with the addition of two characters but also because of the way the characters were evolving. They were changing over time. Each character, through their dialogue and their actions, became a better person. And they changed because of the community around them. Watch the last two seasons of Parks and Rec and contrast that to what The Office did with Dwight, Andy, or Kevin in their last two seasons. It’s a stark contrast.

This is why I love Schitt’s Creek so much. I expected a cynical anti-hero story and instead fell in love with the characters. It’s why I love Ted Lasso, as messy as the last season may have been. It’s why my all-time favorite show is probably The Good Place and why I connected so much with Somebody, Somewhere.

I realize that these shows get a reputation for being unrealistic and overly idealistic. Which is probably fair. And yet . . . I actually think this is a realistic trajectory. Give people a community of support and trust and they change over multiple years and seasons.

I wonder if a part of why I love these tv shows is that I have seen this same trajectory with former students. When I taught middle school, I witnessed how an empowered community could do meaningful projects and slowly have an impact on each other. I watched students start out the year presenting a caricature (the good student, the class clown, the trouble-maker) and over time, I’d see the nuance and complexity.

Even now, as a professor, I get to watch pre-service teachers enter a program and grow as people because of the cohort model and the community they develop together – and I get to see that same change play out in classrooms all over Oregon. In other words, I love these so-called “idealistic” comedies because they remind me of a reality I get to witness on a regular basis. Communities centered on humility, empathy, and curiosity ultimately lead to personal growth.

As we think about this idea of an empowered community, where deep collaboration can exist, we need to consider the role of psychological safety.

 

Collaboration is More Vital Than Ever

In my latest book The Depth Advantage, I mentioned collaboration as one of the top eight competencies that students will need as they navigate a changing world.

I’ve written before about how the corporate ladder has now become a maze and our students will need to navigate that maze of complexity on a daily basis. But when I shared this metaphor with my son (who is in college), he said, “I like the maze better than the ladder. With a ladder, you’re fighting against others for the next wrung. But with a maze, it’s a team sport. You’re working collaboratively with others. It’s more like an escape room.”

I love this idea of being both fully self-directed and independent but also learning how to work with others. It’s the idea of taking personal responsibility but also learning how to depend on others. Here, you learn how to listen with empathy and approach problems with humility. The greatest challenges of the next few decades won’t be solved with solitary genius (few problems in the past were solved with singular genius as well) but through interdependence.

But I think this goes beyond merely preparing students for jobs. We’re living in the middle of a loneliness epidemic, and it’s hitting harder than most people realize. Chronic loneliness can weaken the immune system, increase inflammation, and raise the risk of heart disease. It doesn’t just hurt emotionally; it chips away at physical and mental well-being in quiet ways.

In a world packed full of virtual distractions, we can easily numb ourselves with instant dopamine hits. But there’s a lingering emptiness when we lack connection with others. True, collaboration is vital for the future workforce. But more importantly, it’s vital for life, for community, for democracy.

And yet, when I talk to teachers about this deeper level of collaboration, I hear so many describe the challenges of basic group work. Students struggle to work together. They argue constantly. They turn any shared work into individual work. They seem to struggle with sharing ideas or getting critical feedback. Note that this isn’t all students by any means. Many groups seem to function well. However, so many students seem to struggle with collaboration.

There are so many reasons for this struggle with collaboration. Technology, parenting styles, hyperstructured activities, a lack of play at a younger age. As educators, we can’t fix all of this. But we can design collaborative learning in a way that leads to deeper mastery but also deeper connection. But this all begins with something called psychological safety.

 

The Need for Psychological Safety

Think about your favorite teams you were ever a part of. Maybe it was in theater or in a band. Perhaps it was in a sport. Maybe it was an academic club like mock trial or journalism or yearbook or the math team. Or maybe in a work project. Whatever it was, these groups were spaces of deep collaboration, where members worked interdependently. A space where you had a voice but you also actively listened. It was a trusted community where you could accomplish things together that you could never accomplish on your own.

Chances are, you’ve also been on dysfunctional teams. These were spaces of unresolved conflict or cold indifference. In these moments, all you wanted to do was leave. It’s easy to look at these differences and assume it’s about the makeup of the team. Maybe the wrong mix of personalities, skills, or strengths. Or perhaps it’s an issue of communication. Sometimes the issue is simply personal or even structural.

However, often the real issue is something deeper. It’s ever-present but it also feels intangible. There’s a sense that you either belong or don’t belong in the space. There’s a vibe that that says, “Please share and contribute” or “Keep your distance.” While it feels intangible, it is still powerful.

In these moments, this intangible element is something called psychological safety. This is the shared belief within a group that it’s safe to take risks, ask questions, make mistakes, and share ideas without fear of rejection or punishment. Note that psychological safety isn’t always comfortable. It includes challenges and conflict. This shouldn’t be confused with things like trigger warnings that allow people to avoid anything distressing or an overtly positive culture that avoids anything negative (often called toxic positivity). Instead, genuine psychological allows for an entire range of emotions all centered on trust.

Timothy Clark describes psychological safety as something that grows in stages. It’s not a light switch that you flip on or off. It’s more like a ladder that students climb, step by step, with each stage building on the last. When students feel psychologically safe, they’re more likely to engage, take risks, and stay resilient through the hard stuff. But that safety has to be built intentionally into our daily practice as educators.

Check out the video below:

Exclusion

At the far end is exclusion. This is where a student might feel that they don’t have a space in the group or team. They might feel ignored or unseen. I’ve noticed that this is especially true for students who are socially awkward (like I was as a kid) or even just introverted (also me as a kid). But it can be true of students who are learning the language or new to the culture. I notice this happen with some students who are neuro-divergent.

In some cases, students might be deliberately silenced. This can happen when there are unhealthy power dynamics. I’ve noticed this with certain small groups where a few of them are close friends and they seem to hold informal power over another member.

For many students, exclusion is a quiet message that they don’t belong. I’ve seen so many students who want to be a part of a group but they walk away the moment they feel that they won’t fit in or they might ruin the assignment or project. This is often an issue of fear and insecurity.

 

Stage 1: Inclusion Safety

This is that basic sense of belonging that we all need. Students feel seen and valued just for being who they are. No prerequisites. No performance required. It’s what happens when you greet students by name at the door and ask them about their weekend or when you stop by one of their extracurricular activities. Students feel this inclusion safety when they see their culture, language, or identity showing up in the classroom materials.

For English Language Learners, this often starts with small, intentional moves. It might be sentence stems and visuals that make it easier to participate. It might be a buddy system that helps with translations. Sometimes, it means providing time to think before speaking or allowing students to write instead of talk. It can be as simple as learning to pronounce their names correctly or encouraging them to share a story from their home country. It’s about creating a space where language isn’t a barrier to connection.

For students receiving special education services, inclusion safety comes through clarity, consistency, and kindness. Clear expectations. Predictable routines. A structure they can trust. It’s offering a quiet spot when the noise feels like too much. It often means giving students choices in how to participate while still holding students to high standards. It’s about looking beyond the label and seeing the whole child.

For gifted learners, inclusion safety might look like giving permission to be different (I wish I had experienced that more often as a kid). Here, they realize it’s safe to geek out on obscure topics or go deep into an idea that others might not understand. It’s reminding them that intensity isn’t something to hide. It’s something to celebrate.

One of my favorite strategies is actually a choice-based show and tell activity. You can check it out below. If you don’t follow my Instagram, that’s where I post short, practical content like this:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Dr. John Spencer (@spencereducation)

Here are a few other ways we can build inclusion safety into our early routines at the start of the school year.

• Include team-building activities that allow for quiet reflection or creative thinking.
• Use small group roles intentionally so every student has a way to contribute.
• Normalize silence as part of learning.
• Create check-ins that let students share how they’re feeling in ways that feel safe.
• Show curiosity about who they are, not just what they know.

 

Stage 2: Learner Safety

Once included, you might feel free to ask questions, try, fail, and grow without fear of ridicule. In this stage you are experiencing learner safety. Here, students experience the freedom to wrestle with new ideas without fear of looking “dumb.” We see this with the student who raises their hand to say, “I don’t get this,” and doesn’t feel shame in doing it. This happens when a small group admits they failed their first prototype and still jumps in to try again.

This kind of safety allows students to focus on learning rather than protecting their image. They’re more likely to ask follow-up questions in a Socratic Seminar or offer an imperfect answer during a math talk. They see struggle not as a sign of weakness but as a natural part of the learning process.

So how do we build learner safety? We start by normalizing struggle. Use language that celebrates effort and revision. Say things like, “This is the part where it gets tricky,” or “If you’re confused, you’re probably right where you need to be.”

One of my favorite Learner Safety protocols involves sharing “epic fails” as a class:

Step 1: Write down your epic fail with the sentence stem, “My epic fail was _____. What I learned was ______. Next time I will _____.”

Step 2: Share your epic fail with a partner in a time pair-share.

Step 3: Do epic fails as a whole class and each person gets a standing ovation.

You can also create sentence stems that invite uncertainty. Things like, “I’m wondering if…” or “Could it be that…” Instead of calling on the first hand raised, provide wait time, and let students process their ideas. Structure peer feedback around strengths and next steps. We can also be mindful of the small structures that kill learner safety. This includes giving out small group grades on assignments or projects (students will have higher learner safety if they know that no one else’s mistakes will impact their grades).

 

Stage 3: Contributor Safety

As confidence builds, you might feel empowered to use your skills and ideas to make a meaningful difference. You might notice that you have a distinct role and that others will respect what you offer. With confidence safety, there’s this feeling that your voice actually matters to your group. It’s the sense that your ideas are valued even if you don’t get your way all the time.

This is where students lead discussions, take charge of projects, or bring their creativity to the table. It’s not just about participating; it’s about shaping the learning experience. They don’t just take feedback; they give it. They’re not just following a plan; they’re helping build it.

Contributor safety is where we start to see true interdependence emerge. We see it when we teach students specific Kagan Cooperative Learning structures like think-pair-share, Rally Robin, or Stand Up, Hand Up, Pair Up. We can see it with some of the Visible Thinking strategies from Harvard’s Project Zero.

Early on in the year, we can start by building low-stakes moments for each member to participate in the group. Here are a few ideas.

• Invite students to share ideas anonymously through digital tools or quick write reflections.
• Make sure that you create moments of silence within groups to allow students some additional think time. This is especially helpful for introverts, for English Learners who need to think through the language, or for anyone who is wrestling with ideas in-depth.
• Use group warm-ups that focus on curiosity instead of correctness.
• Celebrate questions just as much as answers.
• Find ways to value quality over quantity (so each member might contribute ideas, research, or questions, but you don’t require the same number from each person)
• Create rotating group roles so every student has a turn leading, questioning, and documenting ideas. This helps students try on different ways of contributing.
• Offer multiple ways to contribute, such as speaking, writing, sketching, or using manipulatives, so students can express ideas in a format that fits their style.
• Start group work with a silent brainstorm where everyone jots down their ideas before discussion. This levels the playing field before the louder voices emerge.
• Use “idea bundling,” where each group member contributes one idea, and then the group works together to combine or build on them. This helps students see their input in the final product.
• Build in reflection time after collaborative tasks. Students can share what helped them feel heard and what they might do differently next time. This creates a feedback loop that reinforces contributor safety.

Stage 4: Challenger Safety

Finally, at the highest level, you might experience challenge safety, where you can question norms, challenge the status quo, and push for change. With this sense of safety, there is an underlying trust you can disagree without being shut down. You won’t be viewed as “negative” or “mean.”

This is the student who says, “What if we did it a different way?” or, “I’m not sure I agree with that article.” And when the classroom culture is strong, that challenger safety can spark deeper thinking instead of defensiveness. I’ve found that it can help to teach students the distinction between offering critical feedback and being mean. Here’s a grid that explains what I mean.

We can design structures such as the 20-minute feedback system that helps walk students through this critical feedback in a way that builds challenger safety.

Even so, this fourth stage of safety is hard to reach. And that’s okay. It can feel vulnerable to give and receive that kind of critical feedback. The fear of being judged, rejected, or simply being wrong can be a significant barrier.

Yet without this sense of psychological safety, innovation stalls, and collaboration becomes shallow. Students might go along with the first idea that sounds acceptable rather than pushing for something better. Building challenger safety takes intentional effort and consistent modeling from teachers. It means showing students that disagreement can be respectful and productive and that making mistakes is part of the learning process.

But this is also a reminder that we have a whole school year to reach this type of psychological safety. It’s often a slow evolution that occurs through mutual trust.  Clark’s stages remind us that risk-taking and resilience don’t just happen out of nowhere. They grow in safe spaces where students feel included, encouraged, empowered, and trusted to speak up.

As educators, we’ve seen examples of each of these stages of psychological safety. You watch in amazement as teams generate creative ideas, offer meaningful feedback, and create something together that they could never create on their own. In these moments, you realize that your students have moved beyond shallow cooperation and into deeper collaboration. And all because of your intentionality in designing for psychological safety.