Optimizing Teacher–Occupational Therapist Collaboration: A Multimethod Knowledge Translation Initiative

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Supporting students with special needs in inclusive schools requires collaboration between teachers and occupational therapists (OTs). While service models promoting health, in‐class support and shared knowledge are recommended, relational and organizational barriers persist. This multimethod study evaluates the impact of a tailored knowledge translation (KT) intervention on collaborative attitudes and behaviours of OT–teacher teams.

Methods

A 12‐week KT intervention, including six sessions with OTs and elementary teachers (n = 6), was conducted. Participants established two collaborative goals using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), rated weekly, and completed the Modified Index of Interdisciplinary Collaboration (MIIC) at three time points. Changes were analysed descriptively using mean scores to summarize. Postintervention, individualized interviews were conducted and analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

Results

While MIIC scores indicated stable perceived collaboration, improvements were observed in 11/12 collaboration‐based goals, with average changes of +3.25 and +4.25 points on COPM performance and satisfaction scales, respectively. Four themes supported this shift: Embracing collaboration is valued personally and professionally; organizational and relational contexts shape collaboration; engaging environments support reflection and active learning; and self‐efficacy and perspectives can shift postintervention.

Conclusion

Findings highlight the importance of adopting contextualized, tailored KT strategies in school settings to enhance OT–teacher collaboration and teamwork through dedicated time, space and intentional reflection.

Summary

• Collaboration is a multifaceted process that needs to be clearly conceptualized and operationalized to ensure everyone understands their roles and expectations.

• Successful collaborative teamwork depends heavily on micro and meso factors, specifically the intrinsic values and interpersonal dynamics of those involved.

• The broader school policy context is a major macro factor that determines how services are organized, who can access them and what resources are available.

• To bridge the gap between theory and practice, collaborative strategies must be deliberately designed to reflect the actual reality of the environment.

• Optimizing collaborative work requires intentionality, specifically by making time for reflection, practical application and goal‐setting.

1. Introduction

In the Canadian province of Québec, recent reports indicate that one in every five students enrolled in the school system has physical, intellectual or learning difficulties (Ducharme and Magloire 2018). Most students with special needs in Québec and Canada are integrated into mainstream classrooms as part of an inclusive education system (Gaudreau et al. 2008; Kohen et al. 2010; Dionne et al. 2023; Gouvernement du Québec 2018); however, their success rates, participation levels and overall well‐being remain diminished compared to their peers (Timmons and Wagner 2008). Although official education publications refer to inclusion, research data show that Québec lags in creating fully inclusive educational environments (Gaudreau et al. 2008; Rousseau et al. 2010; Bélanger and Gougeon 2009). Despite efforts made by the province to support the education and best interests of students with special needs, challenges remain in the equitable and efficient distribution of services (Ducharme and Magloire 2018). Recommended intersectoral and interdisciplinary service delivery models are needed to support inclusion (Pratte et al. 2024; Anaby et al. 2016). Rousseau et al. (2010) found that successful inclusive schools foster strong team collaboration and leadership that promote these exchanges. A team approach involving parents, teachers and other health or education stakeholders is essential for inclusion to effectively support students with special needs (Friend and Cook 2013; Nochajski 2002). Québec's Ministry of Education Strategic Plan emphasizes collaborative practices as a key strategy for educational success and encourages professional collaboration across all levels to transfer research into practice (Gouvernement du Québec 2023).

Occupational therapists (OTs) play a key role in schools by collaborating to support students with special education needs, promoting inclusion, fostering independence and enabling participation (Chandler 2013). In Québec, the scope of OT service delivery in public schools remains unclear (Cantin 2021). Although provincial regulations do not mandate OTs as educational staff, recent funding increases have encouraged schools to hire OTs for early intervention and as professional service providers (Cantin 2021; Ministère de l'Éducation, Centres de services scolaires et commissions scolaires 2022). Consequently, the number of OTs in Québec schools has doubled in the past 2 years, with OTs now part of professional teams in school service centres and school boards (Jasmin et al. 2019). Referral‐based models allocate services by diagnosis, which can result in long waitlists, large caseloads and limited OT capacity (Ducharme and Magloire 2018; Cantin 2021; Couturier and Hurteau 2018).

Current research shows that delivering rehabilitation services through classroom‐based, multitiered services is effective when aligned with the curriculum, focused on collaboration, and centered on capacity building (Anaby et al. 2019; Laverdure and Rose 2012; Meuser et al. 2022; VanderKaay et al. 2023). Examples include Ontario's Partnering for Change (P4C) model, Response‐to‐Intervention (RtI) and Multitiered Systems of Supports (MTSS) (Missiuna et al. 2012; Ball 2018; McIntosh et al. 2011; Eagle et al. 2015; Leonard et al. 2019). A core element of these models is strong collaboration among team members to support students with special needs.

Collaboration between teachers and OTs is essential but complex in inclusive schools. Although evidence shows that collaborative, in‐class and school‐wide services are more effective, barriers at the personal, school and organizational levels make collaboration difficult to define and implement (Jeremy et al. 2024). In healthcare, dedicated time for collaboration is crucial for successful interventions (Mander and Moore 2015), and simply placing professionals together does not guarantee true collaboration (D'Amour et al. 2005). School contexts vary, and OTs and teachers often face barriers such as unclear roles, feeling ‘out of place’ in classrooms or not being seen as part of the team (Benson 2013). How OTs view their own roles, and how others perceive their identity and expertise, also impact effective collaboration (Jeremy et al. 2024; Clough 2019).

Teachers often report that collaboration and communication with school OTs are limited, and that more opportunities for reciprocal interaction are requested (Truong and Hodgetts 2017). Time constraints, conflicting schedules and lack of ‘release’ time make collaboration difficult to arrange (Shasby and Schneck 2011; Wintle et al. 2017). Limited OT presence can lead teachers to see them as external (peripheral) team members, partly due to high caseloads and itinerant roles (Benson et al. 2016). Teachers may prefer direct, one‐on‐one services and feel OTs should better understand classroom constraints when recommending strategies (Truong and Hodgetts 2017; Bolton and Plattner 2019). As a result, OTs may stick to traditional pull‐out models despite evidence supporting collaborative, inclusive approaches (Anaby et al. 2019; Clough 2019). Finally, both OTs and teachers may lack the skills and knowledge needed for effective teamwork, as collaboration remains a complex process (Thomson et al. 2009).

To bridge this knowledge‐to‐practice gap, knowledge translation (KT), defined as an interactive process incorporating the synthesis, dissemination and application of research evidence in practice, is required. Research indicates that KT interventions are highly effective for building knowledge and capacity for collaborative practices (Ianni et al. 2025; Hunter and Brewer 2015; Davis and Davis 2010). Specifically, co‐designed KT interventions with school stakeholders can enhance teamwork and service quality. This study addressed the current gap by developing and implementing a KT intervention to improve OT–educator collaboration. Previous research also recommends joint professional development for teacher–professional dyads or teams to strengthen collaborative work (Benson 2013; LaRocca et al. 2012; Barrows 1996; Graham et al. 2006).

2. Aim/Purpose

This multimethod study is the second part of a larger, two‐phase project. The first phase involved conducting a qualitative descriptive study with OTs and educators to explore their perspectives of collaboration, associated contextual barriers and facilitators and preferred strategies and approaches for learning about collaboration (Ianni et al. 2025). The findings from this first phase informed the development of the KT intervention in this second phase. For this study, we aimed to answer the following research question: How does a collaborative KT intervention involving OTs and elementary teachers serve to support their attitudes and behaviours regarding inclusive practices for students with special needs in Québec schools?

3. Methods

Ethical approval was obtained from the research ethics board of McGill University. Written consent was obtained from each participant before the start of intervention sessions. Aliases are used to ensure confidentiality.

3.1. Study Design

A multimethod descriptive approach was employed in this study to explore the changes associated with a KT intervention on the collaborative behaviours and practices of school‐based OTs and elementary teachers in inclusive public schools in southern Québec. In the Québec context, inclusive schools refer to mainstream educational settings in which students with special needs are educated in general education classrooms, although inclusive models of service may vary across regions.

A multimethod perspective allows for the exploration of collective contextual influences by gathering data from different methods (Hunter and Brewer 2015). The study focused on two interprofessional groups comprising school‐based OTs and elementary school teachers participating in a synchronous virtual KT intervention centred on collaboration over a 10–14‐week period. Multiple data collection methods were used to capture participants' experiences and outcomes within their specific school contexts. Data were collected through a rating scale, a self‐report questionnaire and individual interviews.

3.2. Participant Inclusion Criteria and Characteristics

To be eligible for inclusion, participants had to be elementary school teachers or school‐based OTs working in public, inclusive schools who either currently worked together or had done so previously. The OTs had to be employed by a school board (for English‐language schools) or a school service centre (for French‐language schools). All participants had at least 1 year of experience working in an inclusive elementary school. The aim was to include two small groups to foster interaction and discussion, with the objective of improving performance (Davis and Davis 2010).

The first group consisted of English‐speaking participants working in an anglophone school: one OT and two teachers, all based in the greater Montreal area. The OT had previously collaborated with both teachers, consulting in their classrooms or for individual students. One teacher taught kindergarten, and the other taught Grade 2.

The second group included French‐speaking participants working in francophone schools: two OTs and one teacher. The teacher taught kindergarten and had previously worked with her OT partner in a school in the Capitale‐Nationale region of Québec. The second OT worked in a school in Montreal. Due to recruitment challenges, the second OT was included despite not having a teacher partner to participate in the project. See Table 1.

TABLE 1.

Participant and school characteristics.

Group 1	Years working in schools	School characteristics	Group 2	Years working in schools	School characteristics
OT1	5 years	Grade levels: Pre‐K to Grade 6 Number of students: ~210	OT2	3 years	Grade level: Pre‐K to Grade 6 Number of students: ~200
Teacher 1 (T1)	2 years		OT3	4 years	Grade levels: Pre‐K to Grade 6 Number of students: ~300
Teacher 1 (T2)	8 years		Teacher 3 (T3)	6 years

3.3. KT Intervention

Findings from Phase 1 informed the design of the Phase 2 KT intervention, which included joint learning opportunities for OTs and educators, active engagement strategies and follow‐up sessions for practice and feedback (Ianni et al. 2025). Phase 2 involved six 1.5‐h online sessions via Microsoft Teams, held biweekly over 10 weeks for Group 1 and 14 weeks for Group 2, adjusted for holidays and schedules. Spreading shorter sessions over a longer period enhanced exposure and active learning (LaRocca et al. 2012). Group 1 participated from April to June 2022; Group 2 from February to May 2023.

The intervention drew on elements of problem‐based learning (PBL), which uses real‐life problems to foster group collaboration and knowledge sharing (Barrows 1996), and the Knowledge‐to‐Action (KTA) framework, emphasizing adaptation to local contexts and addressing participants' learning needs (Graham et al. 2006; Graham and Tetroe 2010). Grounded in the social constructivist paradigm, the KTA framework was utilized to inform intervention planning, particularly to adapt the knowledge to the local context while considering the participants' existing barriers and learning needs (Graham and Tetroe 2010; Field et al. 2014). See Figure 1.

FIGURE 1.

The Knowledge to Action Framework from Graham and Tetroe (2010).

Throughout the sessions, via discussions and learning exercises, solutions and strategies to enhance collaboration were explored drawing on both the clinician knowledge and existing research evidence, while considering the participants' work context and organizational culture to facilitate knowledge uptake. Throughout the intervention, participants were asked to implement ideas or strategies introduced in the sessions to optimize collaboration to support ‘real‐life’ student cases. The participants were often invited to reflect on and discuss contextual enablers or obstacles to collaborative work throughout the sessions. See Table 2 below for a summary of the sessions, the topics discussed and the KT strategies or methods employed during the sessions. Participants also had access to a Google Drive where the session content, research articles and additional tools were made available throughout the intervention.

TABLE 2.

Examples of session topics, content and KT strategies.

Session	Topics discussed	KT strategies or KT elements methods?
1	Data collection: Modified Index of Interdisciplinary Collaboration Canadian Occupational Performance Measure	(Not applicable in this session.)
2	Background and rationale for collaborative practices Presentation on diverse service delivery models Evidence‐based recommendations for tiered interventions Challenges related to collaborative practices in schools Conceptual frameworks and continuum of collaboration of OT–teacher collaboration (Bronstein 2002; Wintle et al. 2017, 2022) Determinants of successful collaboration (San Martín‐Rodríguez et al. 2005)	Sharing of evidence‐based literature and recommendations Discussion questions regarding interpersonal skills needed for collaboration Group established learning priorities and needs based on information presented (use of Padlet as online tool to establish learning priorities)
3	Topic: Communication mechanisms and procedures Discussion on how to make team meetings more efficient Reflection on participants' communication styles Strategies and techniques to optimize communication	Reflection activity on existing mechanisms or procedures to facilitate communication among team members and ideas for improvement Sharing of team meeting intake document (Hanft and Shepherd 2016) Group exercise: ‘Jargon buster’ Group exercise: Case discussion
4	Topic(s): Communication and conflict resolution, collaborative practices in tiered models Ways to prevent conflict Ways to improve collaborative work Examples or tiered interventions at each level	Sharing of knowledge, e.g., Partnering for Change Model (Missiuna et al. 2012) Sharing of examples of tiered services and models Reflection exercise on tiered services and approaches; participants invited to share their own experiences and perspectives
5	Topic(s): Follow‐up from previous session on communication and conflict resolution Topic: Universal Design for Learning Topic: Example of collaborative tiered model—‘Every Moment Counts’ Initiative (Bazyk et al. 2015)	Sharing of knowledge and information, e.g., ‘Every Moment Counts’ programme (Bazyk et al. 2015), Universal Design of Learning (Kennedy et al. 2018; Missiuna et al. 2015) Sharing of worksheet ‘Roles and Responsibilities’ in response‐to intervention models
6	Summary of previous sessions Collaborative Toolkit assignment Universal Design group activity Participants completed postsession measures	Group discussions Vignette exercise: Participants read a case study and shared collaborative strategies to support the case Group assignment

3.4. Data Collection

During the first session, participants individually completed the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), an outcome measure with wide applicability, versatility and adequate test–retest reliability (Carswell et al. 2004; Law et al. 1998). With the COPM, respondents set goals for specific occupational domains and rate their performance and satisfaction on a scale of 1–10 as they work towards these goals (Carswell et al. 2004). Typically, the COPM is used with clients to set occupational performance goals; however, it has also been used in multidisciplinary teams and with teachers in a KT study (Hui et al. 2016; Stukstette et al. 2012). The COPM promotes engagement as clients actively think about their goals (Caire et al. 2022). The COPM was used at the onset of the intervention to identify practice issues in the occupational domain of ‘work’/‘productivity’, with a focus on collaboration, and to elicit goals related to collaborative role performance. Each participant set two goals. The COPM performance and satisfaction scales were measured weekly (with reminders) during the intervention and again at 4‐month follow‐up.

The participants also completed the Modified Index of Interdisciplinary Collaboration (MIIC) (Bronstein 2002; Oliver et al. 2007). This 42‐item self‐report questionnaire was initially designed to measure perceptions of collaboration between social workers and other professionals on interdisciplinary teams. It includes five subscales (see Table 3). Respondents rate items on a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree). The MIIC demonstrates adequate internal consistency across subscales (Oliver et al. 2007). The MIIC was used to capture participants' perceptions and attitudes towards collaborative practice. As the original instrument was developed with social workers, a modified version with generic terms to reflect the school context was administered at three time points: prior to the intervention, at the end of the intervention and 4‐month postintervention.

TABLE 3.

Quantitative outcome measures utilized.

Quantitative outcome measure	Type of measure	Scale range	What does it measure?	Administration time points
COPM (Law et al. 1998)	Rating scale	Visual analogue scale from 1 to 10 Performance: 1: Not able to do it 10: Able to do it extremely well Satisfaction: 1: Not satisfied at all 10: Extremely satisfied	Assesses and tracks changes of perceived occupational performance and satisfaction related to collaborative practice	Preintervention, weekly throughout the intervention, postintervention and 4‐month postintervention
MIIC (Bronstein 2002; Oliver et al. 2007)	Self‐report survey	5‐point Likert scale 1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Neither agree or disagree 4: Agree 5: Strongly agree	Includes 5 subscales: Interdependence: Refers to reliance on other team members on the accomplishment of goals and/or tasks. Newly created professional activities: Refers to acts or programmes that could be achieved by working collaboratively. Flexibility: Refers to deliberate role‐blurring, reaching compromises and alterations of professional roles. Collective ownership of goals: Refers to shared responsibilities in the process of reaching goals. Reflection on process: Refers to the collaborators' attention to their process of working together.	Preintervention, postintervention and 4‐month postintervention

All participants were individually interviewed at the end of the KT intervention sessions. To elicit sharing of any practice changes, the interview questions were guided by the Professional Evaluation and Reflection on Change Tool (PERFECT) (Menon et al. 2010). The PERFECT is a semi‐structured interview guide that measures actual changes in professional practice and the reasons for these changes or lack of changes. The questions were modified to reflect concepts of collaboration within school settings, directly addressing participants' attitudes and actionable behaviours towards collaborative practice. For example, participants were asked to reflect on their mindsets and practices since joining the study and describe any changes or intentions to change related to collaboration, teamwork and their reasons for these changes.

In each intervention session, the first author took memos to document thoughts, interpretations and insights. Memos were used to support reporting of results but were not treated as a primary data source. These notes were referred to for elaborating concepts and themes and to refine the analysis.

3.5. Data Analysis

Quantitative data collected weekly using the COPM scores are represented graphically.

Each trajectory, representing a change in collaborative practice goal achievement, was analysed graphically using descriptive statistics to detect variations in performance level and trends across the intervention. The COPM data are presented for each participant. Pre, post and 4‐month postintervention mean subscale scores of the MIIC questionnaire were tabulated.

The qualitative data from the interviews were analysed inductively using Braun and Clarke's (2006) six‐phase process (i.e., familiarize with the data, generate initial codes, search for themes, review themes, define and name themes and report results). The interviews were carried out by two research assistants (RAs), in English (n = 3) and French (n = 3), recorded and transcribed using Microsoft Teams. In regard to positionality, the first author is a female, practicing school‐based OT working in public schools and was a PhD student at the time of the study. This background provided familiarity with school‐based services and may have influenced the interpretation of participants' perspectives, particularly in relation to occupational therapy practice and service delivery.

The interviewers were independent of the study and had a similar understanding of school‐based services. The first author (OT background) and an RA (external to the study with a background in education) independently coded the interviews. Coding was done iteratively, with meetings between the two coders to discuss initial codes after coding 1–2 transcripts at a time. The coders met to discuss the final themes, which were then reviewed with members of the research team who have a background in OT and SLP and have extensive experience in school‐based services and KT. This ensured varying perspectives, reducing potential bias.

The KT intervention was delivered by the first author. Subsequently, qualitative interviews were carried out by two RAs who were external to the study but possessed an understanding of school‐based services; interviews were conducted in English (n = 3) and French (n = 3), recorded and transcribed using Microsoft Teams. Regarding analysis and positionality, the first author, who is female, a practicing school‐based OT and PhD candidate at the time of the study, co‐coded the data. While her background provided valuable familiarity with school‐based services, it may have influenced the interpretation of participants' perspectives regarding OT practice and service delivery. To mitigate this potential bias, the interviews were independently co‐coded by an external RA with a background in education. Coding was conducted iteratively, with the two coders meeting to resolve discrepancies after every one to two transcripts. Final themes were then critically reviewed by broader members of the research team, who hold backgrounds in OT and speech‐language pathology (SLP) with extensive expertise in school‐based services and KT. This ensured varying professional perspectives throughout the analytical process.

4. Results

4.1. Group 1 Quantitative Results

The participants in this group all worked in the same school and had previous experience working together. OT services are delivered via a referral‐based model, where individual students are referred by teachers. Both teachers had previously consulted with the OT to support individual students or provide whole‐class recommendations. Each participant set two learning goals with the COPM. Goals focused on communication, giving feedback, improving collaborative work, implementing recommendations, minuting meetings and role clarification.

Across all goals set by Group 1 participants, an increase in performance was noted in five out six goals, and four out six goals for satisfaction, from preintervention to 4‐month postintervention. The OT was the only participant who reported increased performance and satisfaction for both goals. The goal ratings of T1 remained relatively stable throughout the intervention session, with a +2 increase in performance and satisfaction in Goal #2. T2's Goal 2, related to role clarification, experienced an increase in performance and satisfaction in the middle of the intervention, which coincided with specific school events and meetings taking place. However, from preintervention to postintervention, there was no change in scores for this goal. The 4‐month rating was not conducted with T2 as she was not working in the school at the time of follow‐up. See Figure 2 and Table 4.

FIGURE 2.

Group 1—COPM goal ratings throughout KT intervention.

TABLE 4.

COPM goals set by Group 1and Group 2 participants.

Group 1
Participant	COPM Goal 1	COPM Goal 2
OT1	Improve my ability to provide feedback to teachers based on my classroom observations and recommendations (to not be seen as the expert)	Improve my ability to work collaboratively with other professionals involved with the same student (i.e., SLP, Psychologist and ASD consultants) in implementing recommendations from the various professionals.
T1	Improve a way to implement specialist recommendations in today's classroom	Improve communication and implication of families in student improvement
T2	Minute (resource) meetings and assign ‘tasks’ to ensure follow‐up	Clarify my role and the roles of others who work with/in my class.

Group 2
Participant	COPM Goal 1	COPM Goal 2
OT2	In order to increase the positive feeling of follow‐ups, I will meet with teachers weekly who have agreed to pair older students with their own to obtain feedback on the progress of the targeted students.	In order to increase collaboration between myself and teachers, I will meet with teachers once a week briefly to invite myself into kindergarten classrooms (a priority for the administration).
OT3	Improve my ability to explain the purpose of my proposed activities to teachers in order to facilitate reinvestment in the classroom.	Improve my ability to maintain ongoing and effective collaboration with teachers throughout the school year.
T3	Take systematic notes (follow‐up) after carrying out a specific intervention in class.	Make my consultation meetings more effective.

Participants also completed the MIIC measure. Overall, only OT1 experienced a positive change in the overall mean on the MIIC, with the greatest change of improvement in the interdependence and flexibility. Results for T1 showed some declines in collective ownership of goals (drop in 1 point from pre‐ to 4‐month post), reflection on process and overall score. T2's MIIC results showed a slight decrease across most areas, except the Interdependence subscale. Data for the 4‐month follow‐up are missing as the teacher was not available. Overall, changes in scores from preintervention to postintervention were minimal for T2. See Table 6.

TABLE 6.

Modified Index of Interdisciplinary Collaboration (MIIC)—Group 1 and Group 2 results.

Group 1
Subscale	OT1			T1			T2
	Pre	Post	4‐mth post	Pre	Post	4‐mth post	Pre	Post	4‐mth post
Interdependence	3.63	3.56	4.25	4.13	3.69	3.63	3.19	3.56	N/A
Newly created professional activities	4.43	4.57	4.57	3.57	3.71	3.71	4.00	3.86	N/A
Flexibility	3.33	3.00	4.00	3.33	3.33	3.17	3.50	3.33	N/A
Collective ownership of goals	3.78	2.56	3.11	3.56	2.78	2.56	3.56	3.33	N/A
Reflection on process	2.00	2.00	2.50	3.50	3.00	2.75	2.25	2.00	N/A
Total—overall mean	3.60	3.29	3.87	3.74	3.38	3.26	3.36	3.38	N/A

Group 2
Subscale	OT2			OT3			T3
	Pre	Post	4‐mth post	Pre	Post	4‐mth post	Pre	Post	4‐mth post
Interdependence	3.81	3.88	3.81	3.94	4.31	4.50	4.19	4.19	4.19
Newly created professional activities	3.43	3.29	4.14	4.14	4.00	4.14	4.14	3.71	4.14
Flexibility	3.67	3.33	3.67	3.67	3.83	4.00	3.83	3.50	3.83
Collective ownership of goals	3.67	3.22	3.33	3.22	3.56	3.76	3.89	3.67	3.44
Reflection on process	3.00	2.75	3.25	3.25	3.25	3.50	3.75	3.25	3.75
Total—overall mean	3.61	3.45	3.69	3.71	3.93	4.11	4.02	3.80	3.92

4.2. Group 2 Quantitative Results

The participants in Group 2 worked in two French‐language schools in two separate regions of Québec. OT2 joined the sessions without a teacher partner due to recruitment difficulties. For OT2, OT services were mandated based on the directives from the school principal. OT3, another OT, participated in sessions with her kindergarten teacher and colleague, T3. They had previous experience working together. OT3 was the sole OT in the school service centre, and school services were organized based on requests and referrals from teachers. OT3 stated that the OT service was relatively new in her school service centre and was still undergoing organization and definition. Similar to Group 1, all participants established two learning goals using the COPM (see Table 4). The set goals included increasing follow‐up visits with colleagues, enhancing collaboration, improving communication regarding service provision intentions, maintaining a collaborative relationship, refining note‐taking during meetings and increasing meeting efficiency.

All participants showed a net increase in both performance and satisfaction scales for all set goals. OT2 achieved a substantial increase in both goals (> 6 points) in both scales. Low ratings were given during weeks when OT2 was not in the school due to a holiday. OT3 also demonstrated steady gains throughout the intervention in the goal related to sustaining collaboration throughout the school year: +3 in performance and +5 in satisfaction. She also experienced an improvement in the second goal related to clarifying the purpose of suggested activities, with a net +4 in performance and +6 in satisfaction. Susan, the teacher participant, experienced some fluctuations with respect to performance and satisfaction throughout the intervention; however, she did increase +2 in performance and +3 in satisfaction with respect to her goal in enhancing the effectiveness of team meetings, particularly during weeks when she partook in team meetings at school. Her second goal of implementing systematic note‐taking indicated more modest improvements: +1 in both performance and satisfaction.

See Figure 3 for COPM goal progression throughout the intervention. See Figure 3 and Table 5.

FIGURE 3.

Group 2—COPM goal ratings throughout the KT intervention.

TABLE 5.

Changes in Group 1 and Group 2 COPM scores from preintervention to 4‐month postintervention.

Group 1
Participant	Goal	Performance	Satisfaction
OT1	G1	+3	+6
	G2	+5	+8
T1	G1	+1	0
	G2	+2	+2
T2 a	G1	+4	+7
	G2	0	0

Group 2
Participant	Goal	Performance	Satisfaction
OT2	G1	+6	+6
	G2	+8	+7
OT3	G1	+4	+6
	G2	+3	+5
T3	G1	+1	+1
	G2	+2	+3

^a For T2, the postintervention score is the rating provided at the time of the interview following the last session.

Group 2 MIIC measure results are indicated in Table 6. OT2 showed an increase in subscales newly created professional activities and reflection on process at 4‐month postintervention. There was a minor regression in collective ownership and flexibility subscales at postintervention. OT3 showed gains across all but one subscale from pre to 4‐month postintervention, with the largest increase in the interdependence subscale, which refers to the reliance on other team members to accomplish tasks. For the teacher, Susan, there was a slight overall decrease from preintervention to postintervention. Interdependence, newly created professional activities and reflection on process remained relatively stable from pre to 4‐month postintervention. To note, the teacher participant had the highest overall preintervention score compared to the OT participants.

4.3. Qualitative Results

Through the analysis of the postintervention interviews, four overarching themes were clarified: (1) collaboration aligns with personal and professional values; (2) context shapes the collaborative process; (3) an engaged learning environment fosters collaborative practice change; and (4) a multifaceted journey towards optimizing collaborative practice. See Figure 4. The themes, along with corresponding excerpts, are described below.

FIGURE 4.

Four overarching themes from postsession interviews.

4.3.1. Collaboration Aligns With Personal and Professional Values

This theme refers to how participants found collaboration to be in sync with their deeper core beliefs and goals from a personal and professional viewpoint. They truly cared about collaboration, and this was reflected in their desire to take part in the intervention and in the discussions about their respective school team experiences. This theme encompasses two subthemes: the personal and professional core beliefs and the importance of a growth mindset concerning collaborative work in teams.

4.3.1.1. Personal and Professional Core Beliefs

The first subtheme showcases how the participants personally and professionally valued teamwork and collaboration at their core. As one teacher explicitly stated, ‘I'm all about team sports and team, it is one of my values’ (T2, Group 1). They displayed an awareness of the benefit of working with others and learning from each other by joining school committees or by ‘not staying alone with questions’ when dealing with student needs (OT2, Group 2). As one OT described:

It's just in my personality to want to innovate, to want to change, to want to create links. […] I will go look for new ideas to facilitate collaboration because I know OT is pertinent for the students. (OT3, Group 2)

4.3.1.2. The Importance of a Growth Mindset

The growth mindset subtheme emphasizes the participants' intrinsic motivation to continuously learn and seek new knowledge to enhance both their collaborative practices and professional roles. This commitment was exemplified by the dedicated actions they took before participating in the KT sessions. For instance, the OTs shared they independently adjusted changes to their service delivery approaches. They were aware they needed to rely on their school team colleagues to support students, as one OT said, ‘I don't have the innate science on how to help students, I need to collaborate with others’. (OT3, Group 2). They were naturally inclined to consult with their teacher colleagues when it came to prioritizing classroom needs within the scope of school OT practice. They seemed to understand the essential importance of establishing partnerships with their teacher colleagues and families, as noted by one OT:

I was already thinking about ways on how I could better service my schools and support teachers and families. I was feeling very inefficient. That's what motivated me to reflect on how I could do things differently. (OT1, Group 1)

The OTs seemed to be aware of collaborative practices and the need to shift towards this model of practice, as well as the research evidence to support such a shift. Importance was placed on approaching a new way to provide and offer services to their students, by both the teachers and OTs:

I can go try new things with the professionals, and with my collaboration with the parents, that's always something that I've found important. (T3, Group 2)

I think it's to keep learning, try to keep gaining experience, try new things, and then with the passage of time, it also helps. (OT2, Group 2)

4.3.2. Context Shapes the Collaborative Process

This theme describes the impact of both the relational (or relationship) context (characteristic) and the organizational policy and structural context on collaborative teamwork.

4.3.2.1. Impact of the Relational Context

The first subtheme—the impact of the relational context—describes how the nature of the relationship between the collaborators, such as the teacher and the OT, will influence the quality and depth of the collaboration. Having a sound and mutual understanding of the other's professional role will influence how collaboration takes place. For example, one teacher revealed her improved understanding of the roles of the different individuals in supporting students:

Considering the roles that different players play, the importance of having each player understand that information […] It's who I am, like the belief that we all have to work together. Understanding the roles helped me to move it forward. (T1, Group 1)

Furthermore, the participants discussed how they felt like they had to take on challenges on their own, as if they were solely accountable or supporting their students with needs. This ‘feeling’ appeared to stem from their perspectives of professional roles and identities. As one teacher described professional ‘pride’ may interfere with one's drive to initiate a collaborative relationship and reach out for support:

That's one barrier for teachers, is like that pride piece‐to ask for help and say “I'm not sure how to do it, please come and show me.” (T2, Group 1)

The same teacher also stated she would listen to what professionals said and then try to implement the recommendations on her own. OT3 in Group 2 also described a similar reflection on the collaboration difficulties he had experienced prior to the sessions:

I think that if there were difficulties in terms of collaboration, I think that maybe I was trying to find the solutions on my own. Whereas here I think it's about soliciting more people to avoid it becoming a problem between just me and the other person, that we look together for solutions to help students. (OT3, Group 2)

When initiating a collaborative relationship, professional roles and attitudes may influence who takes the lead. OT1 in Group 1 highlighted the ‘bystander effect’, where there can be significant delays in implementing interventions or strategies as individuals wait for someone else to ‘get it together’. In addition, one OT shared how taking on the expert role can potentially limit collaborative work, as this may be expected in a professional role.

Having a pre‐existing relationship facilitates open communication and teamwork and positively impacts collaboration. The participants, particularly the OTs, invited teacher colleagues they already knew and had an established working relationship with. This familiarity was evident in discussions throughout the sessions. For example, as one teacher described:

I met [the OT] in a professional context, but it's been several years that I ask her to do presentations in my class or to provide advice on certain motor disorders. So, I started to establish a friendship with her after so many years, and it took that time. (T3, Group 2)

As mentioned in Theme 1, the participants personally and professionally valued collaboration. Aligning similar views, values or perspectives positively impacts the collaborative relationship. For example, all participants in Group 1 discussed how they valued inclusion and felt responsible for advocating and implementing inclusive practices to support students with special needs. This common value facilitated communication, sharing information and implementing strategies to promote students' participation. As the OT described.

Depending on the personality of the people you work with—if you're working with teachers that are not very open to inclusivity, then it will be difficult to collaborate with them. (OT1, Group 1)

Adopting an open and willing attitude benefited the sharing of ideas in the collaborative relationship. As one OT described, creating a link with her teacher colleague to work towards a unified vision helped strengthen the collaborative bond.

4.3.2.2. Impact of Organizational Policy and Structural Contexts

This subtheme describes the situational and organizational characteristics of the context, which can positively or negatively impact the flow of collaboration among school teams. The participants discussed how administrative factors, such as teacher workload, staff shortages, assigned schools per OT and challenges with coordinating schedules can hinder opportunities for collaboration.

Establishing collaborations is not simple, it's complex and it's long. So, just the time is an obstacle with the quantity of schools that I cover. (OT2, Group 2)

The nature and delivery of school health professional services, inclusive of OT services, further direct the extent to which collaboration occurs. For example, one teacher expressed dissatisfaction following an assessment, where she received recommended strategies and tools to support a student but had difficulty with implementation on her own:

I was like “I don't know how to use these tools.” Honestly, I just don't have the time. So how do I help the parents and how do I get the parents involved? I'm not the only person, other people are supposed to be helping me but they're not because they're too busy. (T1, Group 1)

OT3 (Group 2) also described that her service may not be ‘equitable’ across her assigned schools, as services are only provided to those who request them. Thus, in situations where students may have needs, collaboration between the OT and teacher can be challenging or non‐existent if support is imposed. Contrary to this example, there were examples in both groups where adopting flexible approaches to service delivery led to mutually positive collaborative experiences and outcomes:

The OT came in and helped me recreate my whole classroom to make it less stimulating, especially for the students with special needs. […] The OT was really the only one that sat down and made a plan with me. (T2, Group 1)

It's about allowing flexibility in the services, so really allowing ourselves to try things, to facilitate collaboration at the beginning to have success. To not hesitate to respond to certain requests. (OT2, Group 2)

Another contextual aspect brought up by participants was the role of management. Most participants (five out of six) highlighted the impact of leadership from either their principals or educational service administrators. OT3 (Group 2) noted that managers who emphasize collaboration can foster teamwork. For effective collaboration within school teams, it needs to be supported ‘from the top’, meaning through school board or school‐level guidelines (OT1, Group 1). Conversely, principals or administrators may impede changes in service delivery if they lack understanding of professional roles or the scope of OT interventions.

4.3.3. An Engaged Learning Environment Fosters Collaborative Practice Change

This theme highlights the key learning elements identified by participants that contribute to changes in practice. The subthemes include learning through doing and reflection, and being intentional.

4.3.3.1. Learning Through Doing and Reflection

The sessions offered a conducive environment for both discussion and personal reflection. Participants had opportunities to share diverse perspectives and think about their respective realities as OTs and teachers. In addition, the weekly check‐in via email from the facilitator to re‐evaluate participants' self‐set goals appeared to be an important factor in practice change, as participants were reminded to orient towards and frequently reflect on their goals. Reflection as a repeated component of the sessions appeared to help participants internalize their learning.

The sessions also included group assignments, such as discussing fictional cases, brainstorming collaborative ideas to support students, jointly creating a toolkit of inclusive classroom strategies, working together to develop a universally designed math lesson plan and participating in a ‘jargon buster’ activity (where participants translated profession‐specific jargon into common lay terms). These activities were viewed positively and led to rich discussions among participants. They also appeared to support participants in linking knowledge to their own settings and student cases and in putting ideas into practice. As one participant described:

The activity gave me the opportunity to put those skills into practice. It also helped to reflect. You got that knowledge, now you got to put it in place. […] So I really appreciated that there were tools. How can you change, what could you do, just facilitating the thought process. I found it very helpful. (OT1, Group 1)

This integration of action and reflection appeared to support practice change, as illustrated by another participant:

I would say that there is perhaps a certain rigour that is more present, because we had to evaluate goals on a regular basis. So I think that these reminders have helped me to follow up on certain objectives (OT2, Group 2)

Similarly, participants highlighted the value of setting goals grounded in prior reflection:

I found it interesting that we were asked to set goals to change or improve our practice. I really went with things that I had reflected on for a while … Having the goal in mind helped us a lot. Seeing the benefits, that's the precursor of real change. (T3, Group 2)

4.3.3.2. Being Intentional

An important element of the research project was being mindful of collaboration, as it was not typically a deliberate topic of discussion among colleagues, as indicated by OT3. Additionally, affording intentional time and space to broach the collaboration topic was considered essential. The participants discussed how there is often insufficient time to collaborate or, for teachers, to have ‘easy access’ to the professionals (T2, Group 1). The nature of the sessions offered a dedicated time and space for the participants to specifically address the topic of collaboration, tailored to their learning needs and contexts. In addition, the reminders to re‐evaluate their respective goals using the COPM brought about a sense of purposeful intentionality, as explained:

I think that kind of collaborative format of an hour, an hour and a half, was very rewarding. So if we were fortunate enough to have that kind of supervision, or space, I think it's a space that could be beneficial. (OT2, Group 2)

4.3.4. A Multifaceted Journey Towards Optimizing Collaborative Practice

This theme pertains to the changes in practices described by participants following their participation in the KT sessions. These changes are multifaceted, including shifts in perspectives, attitudes and practices. The three subthemes include: broadening perspectives of collaborative practices, developing confidence with collaboration and transforming practices.

4.3.4.1. Broadening Perspectives of Collaborative Practices

This subtheme highlights the changes in knowledge or perspectives related to the mutual understanding of the roles, responsibilities, realities and expectations (i.e., of the OT and teacher). As mentioned in the previous theme, the dedicated time and space to discuss the topic of collaboration was essential to further delve into the intricacies of collaboration. T1 in Group 1 described how she appreciated hearing the different perspectives from the OT and her colleague, and that she ‘never really thought this’ in referring to collaboration. Both OTs and teachers described how they gained insight into how they can better work together to learn from each other and maximize support to students in the classroom. By putting the spotlight on collaboration, participants developed an awareness of the importance of regular, consistent exchange to further cultivate those relationships, as stipulated:

The regularity, that is sometimes missing in collaboration. The more you collaborate with someone, the more you create strong bonds with that person (OT2, Group 2)

Participants in Group 1 further referred to changes in perspective by being better listeners and ‘to let other people in’ both in a literal sense (i.e., in the classroom) and in a figurative sense (i.e., in a collaborative relationship).

4.3.4.2. Developing Confidence With Collaboration

This subtheme builds on the previous one, as once participants had a sound knowledge of their colleagues' roles and expectations, it seemed to clarify their respective duties and roles within the collaborative relationship. This clarification of roles appeared to elucidate mutual expectations and responsibilities. For instance, the participants discussed how they felt more confident to: ‘take action’, (OT1); express clearly about what is needed regarding student support, and to be ‘more communicative’ (T1); have ‘better skills in terms of soliciting other collaborators’ (OT2); set more targeted objectives with teachers (OT3); and ‘not hesitate or feel judged to ask for help’ (T3). Listening and ‘being willing to step back a bit’ (T1) were also reflected on as essential to enhancing collaborative communication. In general, the participants discussed gaining confidence in their collaborative approach, asking for the appropriate services for their students, and they felt better prepared for formal meetings and discussions. Gaining confidence in communication skills also seemed to generalize to their relationships with parents and other colleagues as well, as expressed by teachers in both groups.

4.3.4.3. Transforming Practices

Change in perspective, knowledge and confidence ultimately led to changes, or intended changes, to practices. As described, the participants shared how they felt better equipped to communicate professionally and clarify their roles within a collaborative work relationship. For instance, one OT shared she intended to clarify her role and focus on developing relationships with her teacher colleagues by putting up notices in the staffroom or setting up blocks of time to be available to discuss. Additionally, T2 (Group 1) expressed how setting joint goals alongside the professionals would be part of her practice moving forward. She also stated she would clarify her requests for support by professionals by asking for demonstrations or modelling of strategies within the classroom. Transforming practices also led an OT to describe her plan to diversify her offer of service in schools, while considering the reality of the classroom and the teachers' needs:

I think I'll be more focused on intervening in the classroom setting, and modelling and coaching, working more collaboratively with teachers. One of the main things I got out of this study is that teachers appreciate [us] modelling strategies as opposed to providing them with a document. They really want you more hands‐on. (OT1, Group 1)

She also intended to include more team members when consulting a case and expressed a desire to be more involved in special needs meetings. Practice change as described by T3 (Group 2) was the creation of an assessment grid co‐developed with the OT to monitor the progress of students in her class as well as the development of in‐class yoga activities. OT3 also stated how they were able to establish a clear mandate for the OT service for next year, basing the mandate on collaborative teamwork. Several participants recommended that the notion of collaborating should be directly addressed among school team members to become more cognizant and aware of how to collaborate more effectively within the school context.

5. Discussion

This study provides initial evidence on the processes and outcomes of a KT intervention on enhancing the knowledge, attitudes and behaviours related to collaborative practices of OTs and teachers working in inclusive elementary schools in the Canadian province of Québec. Collaboration is a complex phenomenon encompassing several challenges to effective practice; thus, prior research has recommended joint professional development to enhance collaborative skillsets among OTs and teachers (Jeremy et al. 2024; Wintle et al. 2017; Friedman et al. 2022). Our findings aimed to address this important research gap of addressing the intricacies of collaboration and exploring learning strategies on how to enhance collaborative work among school team members (Hillier et al. 2010; Seruya and Garfinkel 2020; Edick et al. 2023; Blackwell and Dunn 2016). These unique initial findings contribute to the growing body of evidence supporting increased opportunities for collaborative practice in OT service delivery. Key factors that supported the implementation of the KT collaboration intervention found in this study, including participants' intrinsically positive attitudes, the role of the organization, the effective KT strategies employed and the methodological approaches with potential applicability in school‐based contexts, are discussed.

Firstly, our findings show that the participants were intrinsically motivated and valued inclusion and teamwork. Although perceptions and attitudes towards collaborative practice, measured by the MIIC, remained relatively stable from preintervention to postintervention, the initial score (although not conclusive) implied that participants already highly valued collaboration. Additionally, these positive attitudes towards collaborative work likely contributed to the trends observed in the gains made in their COPM goals. A common vision, similar core beliefs and a growth mindset fostered productive dialogue and supported inclusive classroom practices, aligning with recommended best practices (Edick et al. 2023; Blackwell and Dunn 2016; Laverdure et al. 2017). Individuals who value collaboration are more likely to initiate and engage in collaborative work (Friedman et al. 2022; Orentlicher et al. 2019). Interpersonal attitudes significantly influence collaborative relationships, as described by the participants during the interviews, as they demonstrated openness, a growth mindset and a desire to create links and interact with their colleagues. Constructivist theory states that peer social interactions are essential for ongoing teacher learning (Klein and Shapira‐Lishchinsky 2016; Mukhalalati and Taylor 2019), but personality traits may influence the quality of these interactions. For example, individuals high in openness often show greater flexibility and divergent thinking, which can enhance collaboration (Benoliel and Schechter 2017). Although Mallidou et al. (2018) did not inform this study design, the inductive analysis revealed KT core competencies that closely align with their results: having trust, valuing research, lifelong commitment to learning and valuing teamwork. Several participants also shared improvements in confidence and self‐efficacy in collaborative interactions. Exploring the role of personalities may be valuable for tailoring KT interventions, as they may inform educational interventions and predict educational outcomes (Jach et al. 2023; Benoliel and Schechter 2017).

Secondly, the organizational context plays a crucial role in the delivery of professional school services. Consistent with prior research, our findings underscore the need for a flexible approach to service delivery, one that favours a workload or tiered service model over a traditional caseload approach to ensure timely, integrated and authentic interventions (VanderKaay et al. 2023; Seruya and Garfinkel 2020). Our study also revealed that while educators may have limited awareness of the full scope of OT practice in schools, collaboration serves as a bridge to expand this understanding. Conversely, it is equally important for OTs to be well‐versed in the unique dynamics and demands of the school environment (Meuser et al. 2024). Fostering a climate of relational agency—where collaborators build common knowledge and share expertise—is essential for effective interprofessional work (Edwards and Montecinos 2017). School administrators are particularly well‐positioned to support this collaborative work (Phoenix et al. 2021). However, they may have different levels of knowledge about the roles of school professionals, including OTs, as well as differing familiarity with tiered service delivery models (e.g., RtI) (Camden et al. 2022). Thus, although our study focused on teacher–OT teams, one recommendation is to extend KT initiatives to include administrators and decision‐makers, who hold influential positions in educational systems to scaffold service delivery based on collaborative practices. Additionally, leaders' knowledge of individual personality styles, attitudes and skills can also assist in developing effective team dynamics in inclusive schools (Sider et al. 2021).

Thirdly, our KT sessions employed a variety of KT methods and strategies, which demonstrated promising potential in supporting the development of school team collaborative practices. The structure of the KT intervention involved dedicated sessions that provided protected time and space for participants to engage meaningfully with the content. While lack of time is often cited as a key barrier to collaboration (Wintle et al. 2017), our findings highlight the necessity of intentionally allocating time for reflective discussion. Investing time is valuable as it builds team capacity resulting in more efficient services. These sessions allowed participants to explore collaborative concepts in depth and apply them to real‐world situations. The dedicated time also allowed the participants to reflect. Reflection specifically aided knowledge acquisition and practice change (Alley et al. 2015; Lowe et al. 2007). Participants shared challenges in seeking guidance or support from colleagues, while also describing collaborative strategies, including effective communication, idea sharing and feedback exchange. Throughout the intervention, they were prompted to reflect on their practices through weekly COPM goal ratings, case vignette discussions and brief assignments, such as collaboratively developing a universally designed lesson plan. These activities align with key principles of competency‐based KT or professional development, including structured opportunities for collaboration, practical application of strategies and reflection that fosters critical thinking and supports practice change (Laverdure 2014).

Intentional goal‐setting as a KT strategy appeared to drive changes, or intended changes, in practice. Our study highlighted the utility of the COPM as a purposeful tool for facilitating such goal‐setting to support practice change. Although teachers and OTs may differ in their familiarity with the COPM, the goals identified were personally meaningful and relevant to each participant, serving as a tangible focal point for addressing the collaborative challenges they encountered in practice. In the majority of goals set, minimal important changes were achieved (Yuine et al. 2025). One consideration for future application is the potential value of using a tool like the COPM, or expanding its utility, to collaboratively set shared goals within school teams to support students (Ianni et al. 2022).

Our findings have the potential to inform educational guidelines, resource allocation and influence policy development, as well as highlight future directions for research. Furthermore, from a KT perspective, fostering collaboration and exchange between teachers and OTs supports inclusive approaches by supporting the engagement of students with special educational needs in the everyday classroom contexts. These implications are relevant given that collaborative challenges encountered in inclusive schools are also reported internationally, particularly in recent years (Meuser et al. 2024; Suc et al. 2017; Kaelin et al. 2019; López‐de‐la‐Fuente et al. 2024). These challenges are also evident in Québec, especially as the development of school‐based OT services in the province is still in its early stages (Cantin 2021). As the organization of services varies from region to region, this can be considered an opportune moment to further optimize the provision of school OT services in the province.

5.1. Limitations and Future Directions

There are study limitations to consider. Firstly, self‐selection bias may have resulted in participants who already had strong motivation and collaborative attitudes, which could help explain the relatively stable MIIC results. In addition, the MIIC may not have been sufficiently sensitive to detect change, and the study relied on self‐reported rather than direct observational data of actual classroom practices. The results may not be representative of groups or teams where motivation or collaboration may be lower. Secondly, having a longer baseline of participant data points prior to the KT intervention would have allowed for more rigorous comparisons of COPM performance and satisfaction scores over time. Thirdly, while the qualitative data analysis could have been influenced by researcher bias, this risk was mitigated by involving two coders with different educational and experiential backgrounds. Fourthly, although teams were recruited from English and French‐speaking school boards and multiple data sources were considered over time, the sample was small and drawn from a few school contexts in the province, which may limit the generalizability of the results. Finally, this targeted KT intervention may present real‐world feasibility challenges for school staff. Given the quasi‐experimental nature of this design, future research should include diverse contexts, newly formed teams and perspectives to enhance the transferability of results. Future studies should also consider the use of direct observation to confirm actual practice changes and explore the application of the COPM as an indicator of collaborative goal progress. Future studies are needed to test this KT intervention with larger and more varied samples, exploring scalable delivery methods such as asynchronous or digital formats to optimize KT feasibility for schools.

6. Conclusion

Collaboration can be understood as both a process and an outcome Ianni et al. (2022). Our KT intervention embraced this dual perspective by examining collaborative processes—such as communication skills and the exchange of ideas—within the sessions, with the aim of fostering improved collaboration outcomes, including enhanced teamwork in participants' respective settings. This study contributes to the growing evidence that targeted KT interventions can enhance collaborative practices among OTs and teachers working in inclusive school settings. By addressing organizational, interpersonal and contextual factors, and by embedding reflection, goal‐setting and practical application into the intervention, participants were better equipped to navigate real‐world challenges and foster inclusive practices. These findings underscore the importance of designing KT initiatives that are competency‐based, contextually responsive and aligned with professional values. Expanding such interventions to include school administrators and adopting tools like the COPM for joint goal‐setting may further strengthen collaboration and service delivery.

Author Contributions

Lina Ianni: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing – original draft. Chantal Camden, Wenonah Campbell and Heather Colquhoun: writing – review and editing, supervision, validation. Dana Anaby: formal analysis, writing – review and editing.

Funding

This research was supported by a doctoral research grant from the Fonds de Recherche du Québec—Société et Culture (FRQSC) (Grant #: 302925).

Ethics Statement

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of McGill University.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article.