Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Building A Collective Teacher Efficacy Process in Your School and District
ASLI 2018 Handouts
Lexie Domaradzki
1
Introduction:
1. Homeofourown:ResearchforLeadershipinEducation
2. Plan/Do/Study/ActasalearningcycleNotes:
Plan/Do/Study/Act
Stage1:Plan
A.RecruitTeam
1. Assembleateamthathasknowledgeoftheproblemoropportunityforimprovement.Considerthestrengthseachteammemberbrings—lookforengaged,forward-thinkingstaff.
2. Afterrecruitingteammembers,identifyrolesandresponsibilities,settimelines,andestablishameetingschedule.
B.DraftanAimStatement(goalstatement)
DL:ReadPage59-60tosetanchorforVision,GoalStatement,ActionSteps
1. Describewhatyouwanttoaccomplishinanaimstatement.Commitmentvsconsensus.Studentlearningfocused
2. Trytoanswerthosethreefundamentalquestions:a. Whatarewetryingtoaccomplish?b. Whatdatarelatestothisaccomplishment?
i. QuantitativeandQualitative
2
C.DescribeCurrentContextandProcess:
DLReadpages91-931. ThreecapabilitiesinGatheringandApplyingInformationforChange
a. GatherandOrganizeneededdatab. UseQuantitativeandQualitativeDatatoinformactionsc. DevelopandNurtureanenvironmentofinquiry
Brainstorm
DLReadPages105textbox.UncompromisingPractices
DLReadpages106-107.InquiryQuestions…
2. Examineyourcurrentprocess.Startbydiscussingthesebasicquestions:a. Whatarewedoingnow?b. Howdowedoit?c. Whoisinvolved?d. Whatdotheydo?e. Whatisdonewell?f. Whatcouldbedonebetter?
GatherMoreDetail
3. Oncethegeneralstructureiscompleted,thesecanbesomemorehelpfulquestionstoask:
a. Istherevariationinthewaytheprocessiscurrentlyimplemented?b. Iseveryonecurrentlyawareofthewaywehaveimplementedthis
process?
D.DescribetheProblem
4. UsingtheaimstatementcreatedinStepB,stateyourdesiredaccomplishments,andusedataandinformationtomeasurehowyourorganizationmeets/doesnotmeetthoseaccomplishments.
WriteaProblemStatement
5. Writeaproblemstatementtoclearlysummarizeyourteam'sconsensusontheproblem.Youmayfindithelpfultoprioritizeproblems,ifyourteamhas
3
identifiedmorethanone,and/orincludeajustificationofwhyyouchoseyourproblem(s).
1. Whatdatarelatestothisproblemstatement?1. QuantitativeandQualitative
E.IdentifyCausesandAlternatives
AnalyzeCauses
6. Fortheprobleminyourproblemstatement,worktoidentifypotentialcausesoftheproblem.Theendofthecauseanalysisshouldsummarizethecauseanalysisbydescribingandjustifyingtherootcauses.
DevelopAlternatives
7. Trytomitigateyourrootcausesbycompletingthestatement,a. "Ifwedo__________,then__________willhappen."
8. Chooseanalternative(orafewalternatives)thatyoubelievewillbesthelpyoureachyourobjectiveandmaximizeyourresources.
a. Includedevelopmentofroutines.Neworimplementingestablishedroutines
9. Developanactionplan,includingnecessarystaff/resourcesandatimeline.a. Addressstudentlearning,adultlearningandroutinesinyouraction
plan(DLpg64)
Stage2:Do
A. Implement10. Starttoimplementyouractionplan.Besuretocollectdataasyougo,tohelp
youevaluateyourplanandinformadjustments.
4
Stage3:Study
A. UsingtheaimstatementdraftedinStage1:Plan,anddatagatheredduringStage2:Do,determine:
1. Didyourplanresultinanimprovement?Byhowmuch/little?2. Wastheactionworththeinvestment?3. Doyouseetrends?4. Werethereunintendedsideeffects?
Stage4:Act
A. ReflectonPlanandOutcomes1. Ifyourteamdeterminedtheplanresultedinsuccess,standardizethe
improvementandbegintouseitregularly.2. Aftersometime,returntoStage1:Planandre-examinetheprocesstolearn
whereitcanbefurtherimproved.3. Ifyourteambelievesadifferentapproachwouldbemoresuccessful,returnto
Stage1:Plan,anddevelopanewanddifferentplanthatmightresultinsuccess.
Reflectionsfromsession:
5
Leading for Instructional Excellence in Mathematics
ASLI 2018 Handouts
Bobbi Jo Erb
6
Guiding Principles for School MathematicsFull statements of the Guiding Principles follow; Principles to Actions elaborates the unique importance of each, as summarized brie� y below each statement. � e � rst Guiding Principle, Teaching and Learning, has primacy among the Guiding Principles, with the others serving as the Essential Elements that support it.
Teaching and Learning. An excellent mathematics program requires effective teaching that engages students in meaningful learning through individual and collaborative experiences that promote their ability to make sense of mathematical ideas and reason mathematically.
� e teaching of mathematics is complex. It requires teachers to have a deep understanding of the mathematical content that they are expected to teach and a clear view of how student learning of that mathematics develops and progresses across grades. It also calls for teachers to be skilled at using instructional practices that are e� ective in developing mathematics learning for all students. � e eight Mathematics Teaching Practices (see � g. 1) describe the essential teaching skills derived from the research-based learning principles, as well as other knowledge of mathematics teaching that has emerged over the last two decades.
Access and Equity. An excellent mathematics program requires that all students have access to a high-quality mathematics curriculum, effective teaching and learning, high expectations, and the support and resources needed to maximize their learning potential.
Equitable access means high expectations, adequate time, consistent opportunities to learn, and strong support that enable students to be mathematically successful. Instead of one-size-� ts-all practices and the di� erential expectations for students who are placed in di� erent academic tracks, equitable access means accommodating di� erences to meet a common goal of high levels of learning by all students.
Curriculum. An excellent mathematics program includes a curriculum that develops important mathematics along coherent learning progressions and develops connections among areas of mathematical study and between mathematics and the real world.
A robust curriculum is more than a collection of activities; instead, it is a coherent sequencing of core mathematical ideas that are well articulated across the grades. Such an e� ective curriculum incorporates problems in contexts from everyday life and other subjects whenever possible. � ese tasks engage students and generate interest and curiosity in the topics under investigation.
Tools and Technology. An excellent mathematics program integrates the use of mathematical tools and technology as essential resources to help students learn and make sense of mathematical ideas, reason mathematically, and communicate their mathematical thinking.
Available tools and technology help teachers and students visualize and concretize mathematics abstractions, and when these resources are used appropriately, they support e� ective teaching and meaningful learning.
Assessment. An excellent mathematics program ensures that assessment is an integral part of instruction, provides evidence of profi ciency with important mathematics content and practices, includes a variety of strategies and data sources, and informs feedback to students, instructional decisions, and program improvement.
E� ective assessment supports and enhances the learning of important mathematics by furnishing useful formative and summative information to both teachers and students. Productive mathematics assessment is a process that is
4
7
5
coherently aligned with learning goals and makes deliberate use of the data gathered as evidence of learning and provides guidance for next instructional steps and programmatic decision making. Students learn to assess and recognize high quality in their own work.
Professionalism. In an excellent mathematics program, educators hold themselves and their colleagues accountable for the mathematical success of every student and for personal and collective professional growth toward effective teaching and learning of mathematics.
E� ective schools communicate a tangible sense of the professional imperative to grow personally and collectively and to hold one another accountable for this growth. Professionals who are responsible for students’ mathematics learning are never satis� ed with their accomplishments and are always working to increase the impact that they have on their students’ mathematics learning. Moreover, they cultivate and support a culture of professional collaboration and continual improvement that is driven by an abiding sense of interdependence and collective responsibility.
ActionsAlthough principles provide guidance and structure, actions determine impact. Principles to Actions argues that ensuring mathematical success for all will take teachers who, among other actions—
◆ plan and implement e� ective instruction as described by the Mathematics Teaching Practices;
◆ develop socially, emotionally, and academically safe environments for mathematics teaching and learning—environments in which students feel secure and con� dent in engaging with one another and with teachers;
◆ evaluate curricular materials and resources to determine the extent to which these materials align with the standards, ensure coherent development of topics within and across grades, promote the mathematical practices, and support e� ective instruction that implements the Mathematics Teaching Practices;
◆ incorporate mathematical tools and technology as an everyday part of the mathematics classroom, recognizing that students should experience “mathematical action technologies” and physical or virtual manipulatives to explore important mathematics;
◆ provide students with descriptive, accurate, and timely feedback on assessments, including strengths, weaknesses, and next steps for progress toward the learning targets;
◆ work collaboratively with colleagues to plan instruction, solve common challenges, and provide mutual support as they take collective responsibility for student learning.
Principles to Actions argues that ensuring mathematical success for all will take principals, coaches, specialists, and other school leaders who, among other actions—
◆ make the eight Mathematics Teaching Practices a schoolwide focus that is expected for all teachers to strengthen learning and teaching for all students, and provide professional development, training, and coaching to make the implementation of these practices a priority;
◆ maintain a schoolwide culture with high expectations and a growth mindset;
8
◆ allocate time for teachers to collaborate in professional learning communities;
◆ support improvement with multifaceted assessments used to monitor progress and inform changes to instruction;
◆ make the mathematical success of every student a nonnegotiable priority.
Principles to Actions argues that ensuring mathematical success for all will take leaders and policymakers in districts, states or provinces, including commissioners, superintendents and other central o� ce administrators, who, among other actions—
◆ make ongoing professional development that supports the implementation of the eight Mathematics Teaching Practices as a priority;
◆ allocate resources to ensure that all students are provided with an appropriate amount of instructional time to maximize their learning potential;
◆ eliminate the tracking of low-achieving students and instead structure interventions that provide high-quality instruction and other classroom support, such as math coaches and specialists;
◆ understand the devastating impact of professional isolation and create collaborative structures to maximize professional growth;
◆ Support risk taking and encourage new approaches that advance student learning.
Only when these words become actions and the actions lead to more productive beliefs, new norms of instructional practice, and implementation of the essential supporting elements will we overcome the obstacles that currently prevent school mathematics from ensuring success for all students.
� e National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is the world’s largest professional organization dedicated to improving mathematics education for all students. Growing out of its visionary Agenda for Action in 1980, the Council launched the education standards movement with its publication of Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (1989), which presented a comprehensive vision for mathematics teaching and learning in K–12 mathematics. In 2000, NCTM’s Principles and Standards for School Mathematics expanded on the 1989 Standards and added underlying Principles for excellence in school mathematics. Subsequent publications, Curriculum Focal Points for Prekindergarten through Grade 8 Mathematics: A Quest for Coherence and Focus in High School Mathematics: Reasoning and Sense Making, extended this work by identifying the most signi� cant mathematical concepts and skills at each level from prekindergarten through grade 8 and advocating practical changes to the high school mathematics curriculum to refocus learning on reasoning and sense making, respectively. � ese NCTM publications have signi� cantly in� uenced the development of mathematics education standards worldwide. NCTM’s recently published Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All describes the principles and actions, including speci� c research-informed teaching practices, that are essential for a high-quality mathematics education for all students. � e Council is committed to a constructive public dialogue to ensure a mathematics education of the highest quality for all students.
6
9
Principles of Effective Mathematics Leadership
National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics (NCSM), 2018
10
© 2014 National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics • It’s TIMEmathedleadership.org • solution-tree.com
REPRODUCIBLE
Stages of Team DevelopmentWhile the process of developing a professional learning team may feel uniquely personal, there are certain
stages of development common across teams. By understanding that these stages exist—and by describing both the challenges and opportunities inherent in each stage—school leaders can improve the chances of success for every learning team. Use the following quick reference guide to evaluate the stages of team development in your building and to identify practical strategies for offering support.
Characteristics of Stage Strategies for Offering Support
Stage: Filling the Time
• Teams ask, “What is it exactly that we’re supposed to do together?”
• Meetings can ramble.
• Frustration levels can be high.
• Activities are simple and scattered rather than a part of a coherent plan for improvement.
� Set clear work expectations.
� Define specific tasks for teams to complete (for example, identifying essential objectives or developing common assessments).
� Provide sample agendas and sets of norms to help define work.
Stage: Sharing Personal Practices
• Teamwork focuses on sharing instructional practices or resources.
• A self-imposed standardization of instruction appears.
• Less-experienced colleagues benefit from the planning acumen of colleagues.
• Teams delegate planning responsibilities.
� Require teams to come to consensus around issues related to curriculum, assessment, or instruction.
� Require teams to develop shared minilessons delivered by all teachers.
� Structure efforts to use student learning data in the planning process.
� Ask questions that require data analysis to answer.
Stage: Developing Common Assessments
• Teachers begin to wrestle with the question, “What does mastery look like?”
• Emotional conversations around the characteristics of quality instruction and the importance of individual objectives emerge.
• Pedagogical controversy is common.
� Provide teams with additional training in interpersonal skills and conflict management.
� Moderate or mediate initial conversations around common assessments to model strategies for joint decision making.
� Ensure that teams have had training in how to best develop effective common assessments.
� Create a library of sample assessments from which teams can draw.
page 1 of 2
11
© 2014 National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics • It’s TIMEmathedleadership.org • solution-tree.com
REPRODUCIBLE
Characteristics of Stage Strategies for Offering Support
Stage: Analyzing Student Learning
• Teams begin to ask, “Are students learning what they are supposed to be learning?”
• Teams shift attention from a focus on teaching to a focus on learning.
• Teams need technical and emotional support.
• Teachers publically face student learning results.
• Teachers can be defensive in the face of unyielding evidence.
• Teachers can grow competitive.
� Provide tools and structures for effective data analysis.
� Repurpose positions to hire teachers trained in data analysis to support teams new to working with assessment results.
� Emphasize a separation of “person” from “practice.”
� Model a data-oriented approach by sharing results that reflect on the work of practitioners beyond the classroom (for example, by principals, counselors, and instructional resource teachers).
Stage: Differentiating Follow-Up
• Teachers begin responding instructionally to student data.
• Teams take collective action, rather than responding to results as individuals.
• Principals no longer direct team development. Instead, they serve as collaborative partners in conversations about learning.
� Ask provocative questions about instructional practices and levels of student mastery.
� Demonstrate flexibility as teams pursue novel approaches to enrichment and remediation.
� Provide concrete ways to support differentiation.
� Identify relevant professional development opportunities; allocate funds to after-school tutoring programs.
� Redesign positions to focus additional human resources on struggling students.
Stage: Reflecting on Instruction
• Teams begin to ask, “What instructional practices are most effective with our students?”
• Learning is connected back to teaching.
• Practitioners engage in deep reflection about instruction.
• Action research and lesson study are used to document the most effective instructional strategies for a school’s student population.
� Facilitate a team’s efforts to study the teaching-learning connection.
� Create opportunities for teachers to observe one another teaching.
� Provide release time for teams to complete independent projects.
� Facilitate opportunities for cross-team conversations to spread practices and perspectives across an entire school.
� Celebrate and publicize the findings of team studies.
Source: Graham, P., & Ferriter, W. (2010). Building a Professional Learning Community at Work™. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Used with permission.
page 2 of 2
12
Effective Mathematics Teaching Practices
Establish mathematics goals to focus learning. Effective teaching of mathematics establishes clear goals for the mathematics that students are learning, situates goals within learning progressions, and uses the goals to guide instructional decisions.
Implement tasks that promote reasoning and problem solving. Effective teaching of mathematics engages students in solving and discussing tasks that promote mathematical reasoning and problem solving and allow multiple entry points and varied solution strategies.
Use and connect mathematical representations. Effective teaching of mathematics engages students in making connections among mathematical representations to deepen understanding of mathematics concepts and procedures and as tools for problem solving.
Facilitate meaningful mathematical discourse. Effective teaching of mathematics facilitates discourse among students to build shared understanding of mathematical ideas by analyzing and comparing student approaches and arguments.
Pose purposeful questions. Effective teaching of mathematics uses purposeful questions to assess and advance students’ reasoning and sense making about important mathematical ideas and relationships.
Build procedural fluency from conceptual understanding. Effective teaching of mathematics builds fluency with procedures on a foundation of conceptual understanding so that students, over time, become skillful in using procedures flexibly as they solve contextual and mathematical problems.
Support productive struggle in learning mathematics. Effective teaching of mathematics consistently provides students, individually and collectively, with opportunities and supports to engage in productive struggle as they grapple with mathematical ideas and relationships.
Elicit and use evidence of student thinking. Effective teaching of mathematics uses evidence of student thinking to assess progress toward mathematical understanding and to adjust instruction continually in ways that support and extend learning.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author. Writing Team: Steve Leinwand, Daniel J. Brahier, DeAnn Huinker, Robert Q. Berry III, Frederick L. Dillon, Matthew R. Larson, Miriam A. Leiva, W. Gary Martin, and Margaret S. Smith. http://www.nctm.org/principlestoactions
13
Self-Evaluation Rubric for Teaching Learning Leadership in Mathematics
We have no understanding and have taken no action.
We have a basic understanding.
We have a deep understanding.
We use our understanding to take action and model for others.
We develop awareness in others, but often inconsisently.
We ensure collaborative discussion by teams.
We follow up on discussion with collaborative action by teacher teams.
We systematically and intentionally ensure complete implementation by all teachers and teaching teams.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. There are opportunities for educators to plan and prepare together.
2. There are opportunities for all educators to envision and implement high-quality instructional practices.
3. Student engagement and learning is monitored and feedback is given to educators.
4. Every educator engages in reflection about instruction and learning.
Stage 1Know and Model
What is our progress on the indicators for
Math Teaching & Learning Leadership?To what extent does
our leadership ensure:
Stage 2Collaborate and Implement
14
Self-Evaluation Rubric for Curriculum Knowledge Leadership in Mathematics
We have no understanding and have taken no action.
We have a basic understanding.
We have a deep understanding.
We use our understanding to take action and model for others.
We develop awareness in others, but often inconsisently.
We ensure collaborative discussion by teams.
We follow up on discussion with collaborative action by teacher teams.
We systematically and intentionally ensure complete implementation by all teachers and teaching teams.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Every educator understands how and why focus, depth, and coherence make a mathematics curriculum effective.
2. Every educator develops and deepens their understandings of learning progressions of key math topics within a grade and across grades.
3. Math standards and content expectations for each grade or course are organized into feasible teaching guides that link content standards, big ideas, and instructional resources.
Stage 1Know and Model
What is our progress on the indicators for
Math Curriculum Knowledge Leadership?
To what extent does our leadership ensure:
Stage 2Collaborate and Implement
15
© 2014 National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics • It’s TIMEmathedleadership.org • solution-tree.com
REPRODUCIBLES
elf-
Eva
luat
ion
Ru
bri
c fo
r P
RIM
E A
sses
smen
t Le
ader
ship
Prin
cipl
e 4: E
nsur
e tim
ely,
accu
rate
mon
itorin
g of
stud
ent l
earn
ing
and
adju
stmen
t of t
each
er in
struc
tion
for i
mpr
oved
stud
ent l
earn
ing.
Wh
at is
my
pro
gre
ss o
n t
he
PR
IME
ind
icat
ors
fo
r Ass
essm
ent
Lead
ersh
ip?
To w
hat
ext
ent
do
es m
y le
ader
ship
en
sure
:
STA
GE
1K
now
an
d M
od
elS
TAG
E 2
Co
llab
ora
te a
nd
Imp
lem
ent
I hav
e no
un
ders
tand
ing
and
have
ta
ken
no
actio
n.
I hav
e a
basi
c un
ders
tand
ing.
I hav
e de
ep
unde
rsta
ndin
g.I u
se m
y un
ders
tand
ing
to ta
ke a
ctio
n an
d m
odel
for
othe
rs.
I dev
elop
aw
aren
ess
in o
ther
s,
but o
ften
inco
nsis
tent
ly.
I ens
ure
colla
bora
tive
disc
ussi
on b
y te
ams.
I fol
low
up
on
disc
ussi
on
with
co
llabo
rativ
e ac
tion
by
teac
her t
eam
s.
I sys
tem
atic
ally
an
d in
tent
iona
lly
ensu
re c
ompl
ete
impl
emen
tatio
n by
al
l tea
cher
s an
d te
achi
ng te
ams.
12
34
12
34
1.
Eve
ry t
each
er u
ses
stu
den
t as
sess
men
ts
that
are
co
ng
ruen
t an
d a
lign
ed b
y g
rad
e le
vel o
r co
urs
e co
nte
nt?
2.
Eve
ry t
each
er
use
s fo
rmat
ive
asse
ssm
ent
pro
cess
es t
o in
form
te
ach
er p
ract
ice
and
st
ud
ent
lear
nin
g?
3.
Eve
ry t
each
er
use
s su
mm
ativ
e as
sess
men
t d
ata
to e
valu
ate
mat
hem
atic
s g
rad
e-le
vel,
cou
rse,
an
d p
rog
ram
ef
fect
iven
ess?
Sour
ce: N
ation
al C
ounc
il of
Supe
rviso
rs of
Mat
hem
atics
. (20
08).
The P
RIM
E le
ader
ship
fram
ewor
k: P
rincip
les an
d in
dica
tors
for m
athe
mat
ics ed
ucat
ion
leade
rs. B
loom
ingt
on, I
N:
Solu
tion
Tree
Pre
ss.
16
Self-Evaluation Rubric for Summative Assessment Leadership in Mathematics
We have no understanding and have taken no action.
We have a basic understanding.
We have a deep understanding.
We use our understanding to take action and model for others.
We develop awareness in others, but often inconsisently.
We ensure collaborative discussion by teams.
We follow up on discussion with collaborative action by teacher teams.
We systematically and intentionally ensure complete implementation by all teachers and teaching teams.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Educator teams analyze the structure and context of summative assessments, and disaggregate the data reflecting performance of subpopulations and content topics as input for instructional planning and improved student learning.
2. Every educator understands summative assessments and can interpret the data.
3. There are opportunities for professional development based on learning gaps identified by the disaggregation of summative assessment data.
Stage 1Know and Model
What is our progress on the indicators for
Summative Assessment Math Leadership?
To what extent does our leadership ensure:
Stage 2Collaborate and Implement
17
Math Action Step 1 Principals and teachers systematically and routinely use assessment data by establishing specific times and dates to review decisions about student placement and adjustments to student program needs in math. Learning Environment Implications for Student Learning Adult Learning Routines
18
Math Action Step 2 Learning Environment Implications for Student Learning Adult Learning Routines
19
Seven Norms of Collaborative Work
Pausing Pausing before responding or asking a question allows time for thinking and enhances
dialogue, discussion and decision-making.
Paraphrasing Using a paraphrase starter that is comfortable for you. “So . . . ” or “You’re feeling . . . ”
or “You’re thinking . . . ” and following the starter with a paraphrase assists members of
the group to hear and understand one another.
Posing questions Two intentions of posing questions are to explore and specify thinking. Questions may be
posed to explore perceptions, assumptions and interpretations and invite others to inquire
into their own thinking.
Putting ideas on the table Ideas are the heart of a meaningful dialogue. Label the intention of your comments. For
example, you might say, “Here is one idea...” or “One thought I have is...” or “Here is a
possible approach . . . ”
Providing data Providing data in a variety of forms supports group members in constructing shared
understanding from their work. Data have no meaning beyond that which we make of
them; shared meaning develops from collaboratively exploring, analyzing and
interpreting data.
Paying attention to self and others Meaningful dialogue is facilitated when each group member is conscious of self and of
others, and is aware of not only what he or she is saying, but also how it is said and how
others are responding.
Presuming positive intentions Assuming that others’ intentions are positive promotes and facilitates meaningful
dialogue and eliminates unintentional putdowns. Using positive intentions in your speech
is one manifestation of this norm.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
21
Template for Establishing Working Agreements
Circle the number on top of the box indicating where you are personally and the
number at the bottom indicating where we are as a team.
1 2 3 4 5
Example: Be present means speaker has our full attention. (Cell phones and
computers are turned off, grading papers is reserved for another time, side bar
conversations are inappropriate.)
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
22
Working Agreement Term Bank
“Golden Rule” – Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
Rotate facilitators / known facilitators
Ask questions
No side conversations Focus on critical tasks Engage in discussions
Begin and end on time Establish time frame for discussions
Ask for and offer feedback
Active participation by all Don't judge ideas during brainstorm
Encourage others to ask questions and share ideas
Leave the past in the past End on time Offer different, perhaps unpopular perspectives
Silence cell phones/pagers No interruptions; don't dominate Listen actively
Deal with issues, not personalities Teams for discussion breakout Seek to understand
“Time out” when needed OK to walk around during meeting Disagree respectfully
Be committed to the process Time keeper Provide options
Be open and honest Raise your hand to discuss Be open to changing your position
“What you see here, what you say here, when you leave here, let it stay here.”
Everyone has a fair chance to speak their mind (expand discussion time)
Promote creative ideas and approaches
No side meetings Time for discussion is up to facilitator
Avoid aggressive language, posture, and tone
Have fun and relax Agreement on voting item Practice candor
Be on time Include discussion in minute’s comments
Develop and express trust
Established break times Stay focused and on time Refer to meeting norms
Be courteous No rehashing Ask for information
State all concerns at meeting Table/parking lot for future discussion
Express concerns
Listen Please turn off all cell phones and pagers for the duration of the meeting
Balance inquiry and advocacy
Agenda beforehand w/relevant information
Focus on strategic issues Honor confidentiality
Review meeting action items, include dates and times
Share ideas
23
Options for Interacting and Talking
Coaching (P-P-P pattern)
3-Point Conversation (by Michael Grinder)
Collaborating
Consulting (Use Sparingly in Collaborative Groups)
Pausing (to enhance Thinking and Thoughtfulness)
Paraphrasing
Clarifying and acknowledging
Summarizing and organizing
When appropriate, get “sign-off”
Posing Questions
Not as personal
Less emotional
The “data” is the topic of conversation, not the person
Co-planning or Co-teaching
Mutual sharing of ideas, approaches or solutions
Focus on inquiring into the ides of others
Creating and Maintaining equal status
Ask permission (transition into consulting)
Discuss resources
Provide options (brainstorming)
Build capacity
Guidance and teaching
Assistance and support
Consulting is used when a person lacks resourcefulness or experience
24
Learning Configurations
You will be asked to participate in different learning configurations. We will
have opportunities to learn from others, obtain feedback, and provide
feedback.
1. The Solo - Opportunities to read, write, and reflect.
2. An Elbow Partner - For a quick check-in with someone near you to
compare thoughts, analyze a problem or situation.
3. A New-to-You Partner -A chance to meet someone you might not know for
a quick check-in.
4. The Home Group - For comparing notes, creating draft documents, and
using protocol with Collaborative Team members or a table group.
5. The Whole Group - The entire room working together.
How might we use this as a Collaborative Team?
25
Got Trust?
Ron Heifetz, in Leadership Without Easy Answers (1994) notes: “Trust has two
components: predictable values and predictable skills” (p. 107)
Practicable Values-model and support respect, listening, and integrity
Predictable Skills-role competence
What are my predictable values and predictable skills?
How do I model these values and skills?
26
Group Member Capabilities (p. 35)
A) Know one's intentions and choose congruent behaviors
B) Set aside unproductive patterns of listening, responding and
inquiring
C) Know when to self-assert and when to integrate
D) Know and support the group’s purposes, processes, topics, and
development
Successful Meeting Standards (p. 71)
1. Address only one process at a time
2. Use only one topic at a time
3. Achieve interactive and balanced participation
4. Respect cognitive conflict by eliciting disagreements and respecting
other viewpoints
5. Have all understand and agree to meeting roles and responsibilities
(Source: Garmston and Wellman. 2013. Adaptive Schools Foundation Seminar: Learning Guide)
27
A Three Legged Stool: Relationship, Process & Task
Attention to Relationship Teams balance task and process dimensions with equal attention to developing the team as a whole. It is essential to establish and maintain productive professional relationships.
Congruence with shared norms and values: Productive teams ensure psychological safety for all group members by behaving congruently with agreed-upon norms.
Balanced participation: Teams become more cohesive when members encourage and elicit contributions from others and when team members seek and honor diverse perspectives.
Attention to Process Shared tools and structures: An expert team applies tools and structures for focusing its tasks and follows agreed-upon protocols. Effective processes preserve healthy relationships, as well as ensure that team tasks will be accomplished.
Verbal and nonverbal skillfulness Teams seek shared understanding of ideas, opinions, and perspectives, and give their full attention to all team members through an appropriate level of eye contact, listening non-judgmentally, and listening without interrupting.
Attention to Task Results: Achieving results calls for clarifying success criteria for the team’s products, performances, and decisions. The criteria should be identified at the beginning of the team meetings.
Actions: The decisions that a team makes lead to a series of potential actions. These actions typically come in one or more of three forms: implementation of some new program or practice, transfer of knowledge and skills to a new arena, or desisting from continuing some practice or habits.
Adapted from Wellman, B. and Lipton, L. (2004). Data-Driven Dialogue A Facilitator's Guide to Collaborative Inquiry
1
2
3
28
Team Refection or Soliciting Feedback from Another Team
Low level of
awareness or
willingness
Emerging with some frequency
of awareness
or willingness
Frequently with
awareness and
willingness
High level of
awareness and
willingness
Attention to Relationship
1. The team develops Professional Norms and Responsibilities that insure the psychological safety of all team members.
2. Team members behave congruently with the agreed upon Professional Norms and Responsibilities.
3. Team members balance participation, encourage, and elicit contributions by all team members (The use of “I pass” is valued).
4. Team members seek and honor diverse perspectives.
5. Team members anticipate, accept, and resolve productive conflict.
Attention to Process
6. The team follows agreed upon discussion protocols (examples: problem solving, planning, consulting, and collaborating).
7. The team refocuses if it deviates from a protocol or the Professional Norms and Responsibilities.
8. Team members invite and sustain the thinking of other team members by pausing, paraphrasing, and inquiring.
9. Team members fully attend to others by maintaining an appropriate level of eye contact, monitoring body language, listening non-judgmentally, and listen without interrupting.
10. Team members balance advocacy of their own ideas with inquiring into the ideas of other team members.
Attention to Task
11. The team establishes and maintains clear product and success criteria.
12. The team establishes and maintains clear task agendas.
13. The team maintains a clear time frame (schedules topics) and manages time wisely (assigns times to topics).
14. The team collects, selects, prioritizes information to be discussed and decided.
15. The team develops and applies agreed upon roles of facilitator, process observer/time keeper, recorder/information disseminator, and information organizer/agenda builder.
Adapted from the work of Wellman & Lipton by G. Whiteley.
29
Team Meeting Profile Survey
INSTRUCTIONS: Reflect on your team functioning as a whole. For each item circle the appropriate number which
corresponds best with your view/opinion.
Almost
Never
Sometimes Often Frequently Almost
Always
Str
uct
ure
1. Meeting roles are assigned prior to meetings (facilitator,
recorder, and timekeeper).1 2 3 4 5
2. Meetings start and end on time, as scheduled. 1 2 3 4 5
3. All team members attend meetings. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Agenda is developed and made available prior to meetings. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Minutes/notes are taken during meetings and distributed to
all team members after the meeting.1 2 3 4 5
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n
6. All team members engage fully (e.g., verbal input,
attention, willingness to complete tasks).1 2 3 4 5
7. Discussions stay on track; no sidebar conversations. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Team members communicate effectively (e.g., speak
directly, ask questions, express support, paraphrase ideas).1 2 3 4 5
9. Disagreements/conflicts are addressed (e.g., problem
solving, respect, listening).1 2 3 4 5
10. Members value each other's roles and contributions. 1 2 3 4 5
11. All viewpoints are shared and given adequate time prior to
decision-making (e.g., discussion of options and
consequences).
1 2 3 4 5
12. Decision making is shared with balanced influence of team
members (e.g., voting on decisions, discussion of options).1 2 3 4 5
Fo
cus
13. Meetings have a clear purpose, which is communicated in
advance.1 2 3 4 5
14. Status of action items from last meeting is reviewed. 1 2 3 4 5
15. Clear action plans/items (e.g., who will do what by when)
are developed.1 2 3 4 5
16. Meetings are productive, with continual progress made
toward team goals.1 2 3 4 5
Pu
rpo
se
17. RTI/MTSS is a standing agenda item. 1 2 3 4 5
18. Self-assessment data and outcome data are used to identify
strengths, needs, and action plans.1 2 3 4 5
19. Data are reviewed regarding goals. 1 2 3 4 5
20. Data inform decision-making (i.e., relevant data is
reviewed and discussed; decisions clearly influenced by
data).
1 2 3 4 5
21. Results of data analysis are used to make changes to the
district’s action/improvement plan.1 2 3 4 5
Adapted from: (1) Gaumer Erickson & Noonan (2012). Team Functioning Scale. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Center for
Research on Learning; (2) Montana Behavioral Initiative Team Process Evaluation, Montana Office of Public Instruction - http://opi.mt.gov/Programs/SchoolPrograms/MBI/; and (3) Illinois Self-Assessment of Problem Solving Implementation at the District
Level (SAPSI-D), 2012-2013, Illinois RTI Network
30
Team Name (Insert name)
Four Team Roles: Facilitator (Insert name )
Information Organizer and Processor (Insert name )
Recorder, Disseminates Information (Insert name )
Process Observer/Timer (Insert name )
Actively facilitates meeting with the agreed upon agenda, protocols and task completion topics. Alerts group to whether the team is having a dialogue or a discussion-reminds team of Norms and Protocols.
Organizes the agenda, the materials and documents for the meeting.
Collects products and takes summary notes for distribution.
The process observer looks for and documents the Smart Team Skills, behaviors and processes-reports out at the team the ratios or specific instances a skill was used-(examples paraphrases, inquiries into the thinking of others). If turn taking is timed-remind speakers. Briefly leads the team in REFLECTION with DATA.
Team Meeting Format
31
Optional Step (Toss the unhelpful furniture overboard.) Spend a few minutes, if needed, venting or debriefing, so the team time will be focused and discussion purposeful.
Step One: Establish the agenda by prioritizing topics, and assign times if appropriate - Hot Topics at the end!
Step Two: Select the desired meeting outcome (identify success criteria) and then select a protocol.
1
1
2
32
Step Three: Facilitator and process observer actively run the meeting.
Step Four: The recorder takes summary notes. 4
3
33
Step Five: The team reviews meeting outcomes, decisions, or products and determines the tasks that need to be completed as an outcome of the meeting. Teams that reflect have the opportunity to learn and improve. Briefly discuss the effectiveness of the norms, protocols, and task agenda before concluding the meeting.
5
34
Meeting Agenda [Location]
Meeting
called by: Type of meeting:
Facilitator:
Timekeeper:
Notetaker:
Attendees:
Please read:
Please bring:
Agenda Items:(group configuration)
Topic (Dialogue or discussion?) PresenterTime allotted
Protocol(s)
35
PROTOCOLS
&
Resources
36
3 – 2 – 1
3 – 2 – 1 is an exit slip strategy that provides a quick “dipstick” of learning. Participants are
instructed to use a piece of paper or index card to record the following: Three things that are
clearer to them regarding the day’s topic or concept; two connections they are making to the
new concept and their prior knowledge or experience; and one question/piece that needs
further clarification. The presenter collects the slips as participants leave the room and uses the
information to inform the next day’s lesson and/or to differentiate instruction.
3
2
1
37
Give One, Get One
Give One, Get One is a strategy for mixing a group, creating connections among participants
and exchanging information. In a classroom or at a meeting, it also provides participants with a
structured opportunity to move around the room…get on their feet and get their blood flowing
to their brains!
Each participant is generally given a 3 x 5 card and asked to respond in writing to a prompt. For
example, participants might be asked to think about a school improvement goal that they feel is
most important and write it on the card.
Next, music is played and participants walk around the room greeting one another until the
music stops. Each person then finds a partner; reads his/her card and listens to their partner’s
card. Then partners exchange cards and circulate around the room again until the music stops
and the process is repeated. Teachers and facilitators can add in paraphrasing to make sure
he/she understands what is written on their partner’s card before traveling on to the next
person to share the new information.
38
Inside/Outside Circle
Inside/Outside Circle is a group building strategy identified by Spencer and Laurie Kagan. It is
intended to get all participants up moving around the room and interacting with one another.
Because participants are standing and moving it helps get the blood flowing to their brains and
breaks the “sitting in your seat” routine. It also allows participants to interact with others in an
organized, productive manner.
Inside/Outside Circle works like this: one-half of the participants stand and form a circle facing
OUT. The other half of the participants form a circle around (outside) of the first group, the
outside circle participants face inside out so that each participant is facing a person from the
‘other’ circle. Next, the presenter instructs on circle to rotate. For example, the presenter may
say, “Outside circle move two persons to your right.” The newly formed partners then respond
to a question. For example: “Inside partner, share with your partner everything you know about
the three shifts in the new ELA standards.” Next the presenter may say, “Inside circle rotate
three persons to your left” and then ask, “Outside partner, share with your partner everything
you can remember about the Kenneth Leithwood’s Leadership Capabilities.”
Inside/Outside Circle works well as a review strategy and it can also be used in the beginning of
a lesson or unit to bring to mind previous knowledge regarding a concept or topic.
Inside/Outside Circle also works well as a get-acquainted strategy at the beginning of a session
to help build community.
39
Jigsaw
Jigsaw strategy, also known as Expert Groups, is a cooperative learning strategy for working
together and sharing new information. Originally developed by Elliot Aronson, the Jigsaw
strategy enables each person of a base group to become an “expert” and bring the information
back to other group members. Just like a puzzle, each piece of information is necessary for the
final product to be complete.
The Jigsaw works like this:
1.The presenter places participants in groups of 5, known as base groups;
2. Participants number off 1 to 5, ad each number is assigned a reading;
3. All of the number ones, twos, threes, etc. move into “expert” groups of like numbers;
4. In the expert groups, participants read the material and have dialogue about its meaning;
5. Expert group members determine what ideas should be shared with their base groups;
6. Participants return to their base groups and share what they have learned in their expert
groups.
Participants and presenters alike will agree this is an efficient way to learn, with accountability
as well as support.
40
Pairs Squared
Pairs Squared is a cooperative learning strategy for information sharing which builds on the
familiar “Pair Share” strategy. Pairs Squared works like this: A-B partners share information
around a given question or topic. Then each pair is asked to form a foursome by matching with
another pair. The new group then shares information and synthesizes the collaborative thought
of the four individuals.
Quick Write
A strategy called “Quick Write” is used with the intention of opening up thinking and allowing
participants to “go deep” with their thoughts. It encourages “freedom” in writing and promotes
focus. It also gives participants time to collect their ideas before verbalizing them to others.
Quick Write works like this: Individuals are given a question, topic, or writing stem from which
to work. Individuals are provided a set amount of time for responding (usually between one
and ten minutes), and the room is completely silent for that amount of time. Participants are
asked to simply write whatever comes into their heads. The Quick Write strategy can be used to
introduce topics and have participants focus on what they already know or what questions they
have. It can also be used at the end of a lesson to promote synthesis and reflection. The Quick
Write strategy is often followed by some sharing of the information participants have been
writing.
41
Diamond Reflection
(Complete Solo then share with Elbow Partner)
Your Name____________________ Elbow Partner’s Name_______________
Thinking Box after Elbow Partner’s Feedback
An item of value for
me to remember is
(take away)….
After reflecting on our work together, a key
learning for me is….
Some of the ways this new learning has
impacted my thinking are….
Something for me
to continue thinking about is….
Some things I will do
immediately as a result of
this time together are….
42
Pass the Question Protocol Adapted from Science Formative Assessment, by Page Keeley
Pass the Question is a protocol that provides an opportunity for participants to collaborate in activating their own ideas and examining other people’s thinking. Partners work together to create a partial response to a question, then switch their work with another pair of participants. They then take the response that the other partnership began and add to it and revise it. It is okay to reword what has been written, but not to completely remove an idea or concept. In the end, the four participants merge their pairs and take a look at what has been created.
It is important to develop a question for this activity that will elicit a rich explanatory response. It can be used after reading a text as a way to debrief the information in the passage.
Directions:
Have them work on their response for only about five to seven minutes before askingthem to find another “partnership” to switch responses with.
Give them another five to seven minutes to work on completing their “new” response.
At that point the two partnerships join together to create a group of four.
In their groups of four, they can examine the two responses that all four people havehad input in creating.
43
POMS
Configuration: Solo and then Partner
1. Read assigned pages2. Identify “Points of Most Significance” – POMS3. Share with a New-to-You Partner
Points of Most Significance POMS
44
Chalk Talk
A Chalk Talk is an uncomplicated, silent reflection or a spirited, but silent,
exchange of ideas about a thought-provoking question.
Facilitator Directions:
1. Chart paper with an oval in the center is placed in the center of a table or
hung on the wall. A question is either pre-written or can be copied into the
oval on the chart paper. Today’s question is:
2. Markers are needed for participants to respond.
3. Explain VERY BRIEFLY that the “Chalk Talk” is a silent activity. No one
may talk at all and anyone may add to the “Chalk Talk” as they please.
4. The participants begin by writing answers to the question. Participants write
as they feel moved. They can comment on other people’s responses simply
by drawing a connecting line to the different responses and adding to it with
their own question or comment.
5. Timing: Approx. 5-7 minutes depending on the group size. There are likely
to be long silences — that is natural, so allow plenty of wait time before
deciding it is over.
6. In your table team, discuss the following reflecting questions:
Which ideas resonated with you?
45
Structured Dialogue
Individuals
1. Make 3- 5 post-it note statements-one statement per post-it-about an
important topic
Table Groups
2. When all are ready, one person places a note in the center of the table
saying, “This makes sense to me because…”
3. Another person places a note connecting to the first saying, “This makes
sense to me because…and it relates to the first one in these ways…”
4. Repeat the pattern, or start a new pattern.
Reflect on the Process (Groups learn by reflecting on the process)
• What are some ways the structured dialogue helped your thinking with…?
• Under what conditions might you use, or not use, this strategy with your
colleagues in your school or district?
Important Reminders:
a) A dialogue is about listening to others without comment or judgment.
b) A dialogue is for generating ideas without making a decision.
c) A structured dialogue takes between 20 and 30 minutes to complete.
d) The topic selected should be of enough significance to warrant using up to
30 minutes.
e) It is an opportunity for a leader to observe “from the balcony” and collect
formative data.
f) A structured dialogue is a good process to use for introducing the idea of
dialogue since it includes language stems that frame the way participants
interact.
g) It is important for participants to adhere to the use of the language stems in
bold.
46
Traffic Lighting Alignment Collaboration
DISCUSSION GUIDE
1. Begin by identifying curriculum or materials with current classroom
assessments. What, in your own words, is being assessed?
Traffic Lighting Key
Green = Good Alignment
Yellow = Minimal Evidence of Alignment
Red = No Evidence of Alignment
2. Traffic lighting the level of alignment. What is your reasoning?
3. What can be done to improve the alignment of the assessment?
4. Was there something in the assessment that was unclear or might cause
confusion for the student?
5. What levels of cognitive complexity (DOK) were evident in the
assessment?
6. How did this analysis process inform your understanding of alignment of
assessments?
47
Data Hypotheses Protocol
Criteria for Writing Observations and Hypotheses
Observations Be sure each statement indicates:
What was the pattern and over what period of time?
What was the source?
Which subjects or skills?
Which students?
Examples Percent of students at proficient and above has increased every year for the past
three years for third grade students with disabilities.
Attendance rate was below 80% for girls in grades 6, 7, and 8.
Mean math scores have increased for the past five years for all students in 10th
grade.
Hypotheses
Hypotheses should:
Be explanations that come from school and classroom factors.
Be explanations about practices that can be altered.
Hypotheses should NOT:
Be based on characteristics of individuals or groups of people.
Be explanations about unalterable facts.
Example:
Instead of saying, “These students are poor.”
Say, “Students of poverty are not gaining ample access to reading materials from
our school.”
Judy Sargent CESA 7 Data Retreat
48
Engagement and Intensity
School Leaders’ Implementation Guide: Designing and Supporting High Performance Teams (Supplement to page 21)
High Engagement Low Engagement
Hig
h In
tens
ity
The Solo (IndividualResponse)
Elbow Partner (FocusedQuestion)
Small Group (Chalk Talk)
Whole Group (Risky)
Low
Inte
nsity
49
Protocol Selection
School Leaders’ Implementation Guide: Designing and Supporting High Performance Teams
(Supplement to page 21
Protocol Bank
High Engagement Low Engagement
Hig
h In
tens
ity
Low
Inte
nsity
50
Consider the Relationship Between
Briefly describe what it is you hope to accomplish with the meeting:
Learning pairs
Triads, trios
Learning Team (4 to 6 members)
Grade-level teams
Subject area teams
Cross team (grade or subject)
Cross Team with specialists
Self-selected groups
Structured dialogue
Chalk talk
POMS
Round robin (1 minute)
Round robin (only speak once)
First turn/last turn
Inside/Outside Circle
Concept attainment
2 to 4 to 8
Carousel
Whip around
1. Task
2. Configuration
3. Process/Protocol
4. Skillful Use of Strategies by the Facilitator
Seven Norms of Collaboration
Dialogue v. Discussion
Hands-up/hands-down
Physical paragraphing
Pace and Lead
Show Don’t Say
Closing Window
Credible Voice
Invitational Voice
Team self-assessment
Team reflection
Plural forms
Paraphrasing
Pausing
Meditative questions
Third-point
Exploratory language
Tentative language
Positive pre-suppositions
51
READINGS
52
Fostering Smart Groups (revised with permission) Arthur L. Costa
and
Robert J. Garmston
Given the reality that group development is dynamic, not linear; following are some strategies
for skillful leaders to employ in working toward developing smarter groups that embrace
positivity, inquiry, and effective collaboration.
To develop shared understanding and be ready to take collective action, working groups need
knowledge and skill in two ways of talking. One way of talking — dialogue — leads to
collective meaning making and the development of shared understanding. The other way of
talking — discussion — leads to decisions that stay made.
Dialogue honors the social-emotional brain, building a sense of connection, belonging and
safety. As a shape for conversations, it connects us to our underlying motivations and mental
models. This way of talking forms a foundation for coherent sustained effort and community
building. In dialogue, we hear phrases like, “An assumption I have is . . . ,” and “I’d be curious
to hear what other people are thinking about this issue.”
Discussion, in its more skillful form, requires conversation that is infused with sustained critical
thinking, careful consideration of options and respect for conflicting points of view. This way of
talking leads to decision making that serves the group’s and school’s vision, values and goals. In
discussion, we hear phrases like, “We need to define the problem we are solving before jumping
to solutions,” and “I’d like to see the data that these assumptions are based on before we go
much further.”
8. The Path of Dialogue
Dialogue is a reflective learning process in which group members seek to understand one
another’s viewpoints and deeply held assumptions. The word dialogue comes from the Greek
dialogos. Dia means “through” and logos means “word.” In this meaning making through words,
group members inquire into their own and others’ beliefs, values and mental models to better
understand how things work in their world. In dialogue, listening is as important as speaking. For
skilled group members, much of the work is done internally.
Dialogue creates an emotional and cognitive safety zone in which ideas flow for examination
without judgment. Although many of the capabilities and tools of dialogue and skilled discussion
are the same, their core intentions are quite different and require different personal and collective
monitoring processes.
53
Monitoring Dialogue
Mindful group members pay attention to three essential elements during productive dialogue.
They monitor:
themselves
the processes of the dialogue
the new whole that is emerging within the group.
Self
Dialogue is first and foremost a listening practice. When we “listen to our listening,” we notice
whether we are internally debating with the speaker, reviewing our mental catalogue of related
information and personal anecdotes or composing a response. Noticing these common internal
processes allows us to switch them off so that we can hear others without judging.
Dialogue requires choice making. Typical choices include how and when to talk:
Do we paraphrase prior comments to check for understanding and/or synthesize?
Do we inquire into the ideas and assumptions of others?
Do we put a new idea or perspective on the table to widen the frame?
Suspension is an essential internal skill in dialogue. To suspend judgment, group members
temporarily set aside their own perceptions, feelings and impulses and carefully monitor their
internal experience. Points of personal conflict can easily emerge when we believe that others
are not hearing us or that they are distorting our point of view. Points of conflict also surface
when our own values conflict with those of a speaker. These areas of discomfort influence our
listening and our responses, which in turn influence the thoughts and behaviors of other group
members.
Process
Dialogue as a process requires focusing on the goal of developing shared understanding. In our
action-oriented work environments, this is often countercultural. Yet, in every group with which
we’ve worked, all the participants could recite examples of decisions that were poorly conceived,
poorly communicated, simply ignored or, in the worst cases, violated by many organizational
members without consequence. At the root of all these stories were group processes that were
not thought out, but rather often hurried and inappropriately facilitated. The rush to action
pushed unclear decision-making processes and timelines onto the group without sufficient
attention to developing a shared understanding of both problems and solutions.
Understanding as the Outcome
Well-crafted dialogue leads to understanding. This is the foundation for conflict resolution,
consensus and professional community. Decisions that don’t stay made are often the result of
group members feeling left out and/or having their ideas discounted by the group. Dialogue gives
voice to all parties and all viewpoints.
54
9. The Path of Discussion
Discussion, in its Latin root discutere, means “to shake apart.”
It focuses on the parts and their relationships to one another — the causes, the effects and the
ripple effects of proposed actions and solutions. In its most ineffective form, discussion consists
of serial sharing and serial advocacy without much group-member inquiry into the thinking and
proposals of others. Participants attempt to reach decisions through a variety of voting and
consensus techniques. When discussion is unskilled and dialogue is absent, decisions are often
low quality, represent the opinions of the most vocal members or leader, lack group commitment
and do not stay made.
Three elements shape skilled discussions:
clarity about decision-making processes and authority
knowledge of the boundaries surrounding the topics open to the group’s decision making
authority
standards for orderly decision-making meetings Most meetings are, in fact, structured
discussions.
Monitoring Discussion
Mindful group members pay attention to three essential elements during productive discussion.
They monitor:
themselves
the processes of skilled discussion
the details of the problem-solving, planning and decision-making processes in which they
are engaged
Self
Productive discussions require group members to have emotional and mental flexibility. When
our goal is to influence the thinking of others and we give up the model of “winning and losing,”
we are more able to notice our thoughts and actions, and the effects of those thoughts and actions
on others.
From the balcony, we can make the most strategic choices about how and when to participate;
Should I advocate or should I inquire?
At what points should I press?
When should I probe for detail or let go?
How might I phrase an idea for greatest influence?
These are the same internal skills that teachers employ when they monitor and adjust in their
classrooms.
55
Process
Skilled discussion as a process requires mindfulness about focusing on one topic and applying
one process tool at a time. When topics and processes blur, group members lose focus. To
maintain focus requires clear structure, purposeful facilitation, impulse control on the part of
individual group members and recovery strategies if the group strays off course.
Effective group members share responsibility with the facilitator for maintaining the flow of the
discussion, for encouraging other group members to share knowledge and ideas, for hearing and
exposing points of confusion or murkiness.
Decision as the Outcome
Decision, in its Latin root decidere, means “to cut off or determine.” In practice this means to cut
off some choices. The purpose of discussion is to eliminate some ideas from a field of
possibilities and allow the stronger ideas to prevail. Groups must learn to separate people from
ideas in order for this to work effectively. If individuals “own” ideas, then to cut the idea away is
the same as cutting the person away. Ideas, once stated, should belong to the group, not to
individuals. In this way they can be shaped, modified and discarded to serve the group’s greater
purposes
Notes:
56
www.NeuroLeadership.org
NeuroLeadershipjournalissue oNe 2008
This article was published in the
The attached copy is furnished to the author for non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the author’s institution, sharing with colleagues and providing to institutional administration.
other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third-party websites are prohibited.
in most cases authors are permitted to post a version of the article to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding the neuroleadership journal’s archiving and management policies are encouraged to send inquiries to: [email protected]
sCARF: a brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing othersDavid rock
57
1 © N
euro
Lead
ersh
ip in
stitu
te 2
008
For
Per
mis
sion
s, e
mai
l inf
o@ne
urol
eade
rshi
p.or
g
sCARF: a brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing othersDavid rock
Ceo, Results Coaching systems international, GPo Box 395, sydney, NsW Australia 2001
Faculty, CiMBA
Co-founder, NeuroLeadership institute
editor, NeuroLeadership Journal
In a world of increasing interconnectedness and rapid change, there is a growing need to improve the way people work together. understanding the true drivers of human social behavior is becoming ever more urgent in this environment.
The study of the brain, particularly within the field of social, cognitive and affective neuroscience is starting to provide some underlying brain insights that can be applied in the real world (Lieberman, 2007). social neuroscience explores the biological foundations of the way humans relate to each other and to themselves and covers diverse topics that have a different degree to which they can be operationalized and unambiguously tested. Topics include: theory of mind, the self, mindfulness, emotional regulation, attitudes, stereotyping, empathy, social pain, status, fairness, collaboration, connect-edness, persuasion, morality, compassion, deception, trust and goal pursuit.
From this diversity, two themes are emerging from social neuroscience. Firstly, that much of our motivation driving social behavior is governed by an overarching organizing principle of minimizing threat and maximizing reward (Gordon, 2000). secondly, that several domains of social experience draw upon the same brain networks to maximize reward and minimize threat as the brain networks used for primary survival needs (Lieberman and eisenberger, 2008). in other words, social needs are treated in much the same way in the brain as the need for food and water.
The sCARF model summarizes these two themes within a framework that captures the common factors that can activate a reward or threat response in social situations. This model can be applied (and tested) in any situation where people collaborate
in groups, including all types of workplaces, educational environments, family settings and general social events.
The sCARF model involves five domains of human social experience: status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness and Fairness.
status is about relative importance to others. Certainty concerns being able to predict the future. Autonomy provides a sense of control over events. Relatedness is a sense of safety with others, of friend rather than foe. And fairness is a perception of fair exchanges between people.
These five domains activate either the ‘primary reward’ or ‘primary threat’ circuitry (and associated networks) of the brain. For example, a perceived threat to one’s status activates similar brain networks to a threat to one’s life. in the same way, a perceived increase in fairness activates the same reward circuitry as receiving a monetary reward.
The model enables people to more easily remember, recognize, and potentially modify the core social domains that drive human behavior. Labelling and understanding these drivers draws conscious awareness to otherwise non conscious processes, which can help in two ways. Firstly, knowing the drivers that can cause a threat response enables people to design interactions to minimize threats. For example, knowing that a lack of autonomy activates a genuine threat response, a leader or educator may consciously avoid micromanaging their employees or students. secondly, knowing about the drivers that can activate a reward response enables people to motivate others more effectively by tapping into internal rewards, thereby reducing the reliance on external rewards such as money. For example, a line manager might grant more autonomy as a reward for good performance.
research58
2© N
euro
Lead
ersh
ip in
stitu
te 2
008
For
Per
mis
sion
s, e
mai
l inf
o@ne
urol
eade
rshi
p.or
g
3
NeuroLeadershipjournal research
Before exploring the domains of sCARF individually a brief context of the underlying science of the sCARF model, Namely, the approach (reward)-avoid (threat) response and the impact of this response on mental performance, is provided.
Foundations of the scarF model
The approach (reward)-avoid (threat) response: a survival instinct
According to integrative Neuroscientist evian Gordon, the ‘minimize danger and maximize reward’ principle is an overarching, organizing principle of the brain (Gordon, 2000). This central organizing principle of the brain is analogous to a concept that has appeared in the literature for a long time: the approach-avoid response. This principle represents the likelihood that when a person encounters a stimulus their brain will either tag the stimulus as ‘good’ and engage in the stimulus (approach), or their brain will tag the stimulus as ‘bad’ and they will disengage from the stimulus (avoid). if a stimulus is associated with positive emotions or rewards, it will likely lead to an approach response; if it is associated with negative emotions or punishments, it will likely lead to an avoid response. The response is particularly strong when the stimulus is associated with survival. other concepts from the scientific literature are similar to approach and avoidance and are summarized in the chart below.
The approach-avoid response is a survival mechanism designed to help people stay alive by quickly and easily remembering what is good and bad in the environment. The brain encodes one type of memory for food that tasted disgusting in the past, and a different type of memory for food that was good to eat. The amygdala, a small almond-shaped object that is part of the limbic system, plays a central role in remembering whether something should be approached or avoided. The amygdala (and its associated networks) are believed to activate proportionally to the strength of an emotional response.
The limbic system can processes stimuli before it reaches conscious awareness. one study showed that subliminally presented nonsense words that were similar to threatening
words, were still categorized as possible threats by the amygdala (Naccache et al, 2005). Brainstem – Limbic networks process threat and reward cues within a fifth of a second, providing you with ongoing nonconscious intuition of what is meaningful to you in every situation of your daily life (Gordon et al. Journal of integrative Neuroscience, sept 2008). such studies show that the approach-avoid response drives attention at a fundamental level – nonconsciously, automatically and quickly. it is a reflexive activity.
it is easy to see that the ability to recognizing primary rewards and threats, such as good versus poisonous food, would be important to survival and thus a part of the brain. social neuroscience shows us that the brain uses similar circuitry for interacting with the social world. Lieberman and eisenberger explore this finding in detail in a paper in this journal entitled ‘The Pains and Pleasures of social Life’ (Lieberman & eisenberger, 2008).
The effects of approaching versus avoiding
The significance of the approach-avoid response becomes clearer when one discovers the dramatic effect that these states can have on perception and problem solving, and the implications of this effect on decision-making, stress-management, collaboration and motivation.
in one study, two groups of people completed a paper maze that featured a mouse in the middle trying to reach a picture on the outside. one group had a picture of cheese on the outside, the other a predator – an owl. After completing the maze both groups were given creativity tests. The group heading towards the cheese solved significantly more creative problems than those heading to the owl (Friedman and Foster, 2001). This study, supported by several other similar studies, shows that even subtle effects of this approach-avoid response can have a big impact on cognitive performance.
Translating this effect to the social world, someone feeling threatened by a boss who is undermining their credibility is less likely to be able to solve complex problems and more likely to make mistakes. This reduced cognitive performance is
response synonyms in literature Which traditional primary factors activate the response
What social factors/situations activate the response
approach Advance, attack, reward, resource, expand, solution, strength, construct, engage.
Rewards in form of money, food, water, sex, shelter, physical assets for survival.
Happy, attractive faces. Rewards in the form of increasing status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, fairness.
avoid Withdraw, retreat, danger, threat, contract, problem, weakness, deconstruct.
Punishment in the form of removal of money or other resources or threats like a large hungry predator or a gun.
Fearful, unattractive, unfamiliar faces. Threats in the form of decreasing status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, fairness.
59
2 3 © N
euro
Lead
ersh
ip in
stitu
te 2
008
For
Per
mis
sion
s, e
mai
l inf
o@ne
urol
eade
rshi
p.or
g
driven by several factors. Firstly, when a human being senses a threat, resources available for overall executive functions in the prefrontal cortex decrease. There is a strong negative correlation between the amount of threat activation, and the resources available for the prefrontal cortex (Arnsten, 1998). The result is literally less oxygen and glucose available for the brain functions involved in working memory, which impacts linear, conscious processing. When feeling threatened by one’s boss, it is harder to find smart answers because of diminished cognitive resources. secondly, when threatened, the increased overall activation in the brain inhibits people from perceiving the more subtle signals required for solving non-linear problems, involved in the insight or ‘aha!” experience (subramaniam et al, 2007). Thirdly, with the amygdala activated, the tendency is to generalize more, which increases the likelihood of accidental connections. There is a tendency to err on the safe side, shrinking from opportunities, as they are perceived to be more dangerous. People become more likely to react defensively to stimuli. small stressors become more likely to be perceived as large stressors (Phelps, 2006). When the boss appears threatening, perhaps they just do not smile that day, suddenly a whole meeting can appear threatening and the tendency can be to avoid taking risks.
Clearly the threat or avoid response is not an ideal state for collaborating with and influencing others. However, this response is the default situation that often occurs in teams. Due to the overly vigilant amygdala, more tuned to threats than rewards, the threat response is often just below the surface and easily triggered. Just speaking to one’s supervisor, or someone of higher status is likely to activate this response. Thus it is much easier to cause aggravation (activate an avoid response) than it is to help others think rationally and creatively (the approach response). Many psychological and brain studies now support this idea, showing that the avoid response generates far more arousal in the limbic system, more quickly and with longer lasting effects than an approach response (Beaumeister, 2001). This discovery that our brain is inherently attuned to threatening stimuli helps explain many disquieting parts of life, from why the media focuses on bad news to why people are self-critical. it also points to the need to understand the social nature of the brain and proactively minimize common social threats.
on the other hand, an approach response is synonymous with the idea of engagement. engagement is a state of being willing to do difficult things, to take risks, to think deeply about issues and develop new solutions. An approach state is also closely linked to positive emotions. interest, happiness, joy and desire are approach emotions. This state is one of increased dopamine levels, important for interest and learning. There is a large and growing body of research which indicates that people experiencing positive emotions perceive more options when trying to solve problems (Frederickson, 2001), solve more non-linear problems that
require insight (Jung-Beeman, 2007), collaborate better and generally perform better overall.
in summary, the sCARF model is an easy way to remember and act upon the social triggers that can generate both the approach and avoid responses. The goal of this model is to help minimize the easily activated threat responses, and maximize positive engaged states of mind during attempts to collaborate with and influence others.
The scarF model
While the five domains of the sCARF model appear to be interlinked in many ways, there is also value in separating out and understanding each domain individually. Let’s look now at some of the supporting research for each domain then explore how threats and rewards might be managed in each.
status
in researcher Michael Marmot’s book The status syndrome: How social standing Affects our Health and Longevity, Marmot makes the case that status is the most significant determinant of human longevity and health, even when controlling for education and income. This finding is supported by sapolski’s work with primates (sapolski, 2002). sapolski found that in primate communities, status equals survival: higher status monkeys have lower baseline cortisol levels, live longer and are healthier.
status is about relative importance, ‘pecking order’ and seniority. Humans hold a representation of status in relation to others when in conversations, and this affects mental processes in many ways (Zink, 2008). The brain thinks about status using similar circuits for processing numbers (Chaio, 2003). one’s sense of status goes up when one feels ‘better than’ another person. in this instance the primary reward circuitry is activated, in particular the striatum, which increases dopamine levels. one study showed that an increase in status was similar in strength to a financial windfall (izuma et al, 2008). Winning a swimming race, a card game or an argument probably feels good because of the perception of increased status and the resulting reward circuitry being activated.
The perception of a potential or real reduction in status can generate a strong threat response. eisenberger and colleagues showed that a reduction in status resulting from being left out of an activity lit up the same regions of the brain as physical pain (eisenberger et al., 2003). While this study explores social rejection, it is closely connected to the experience of a drop in status.
reducing status threat
it can be surprisingly easy to accidentally threaten someone’s sense of status. A status threat can occur through giving advice or instructions, or simply suggesting someone is
NeuroLeadershipjournal research60
4© N
euro
Lead
ersh
ip in
stitu
te 2
008
For
Per
mis
sion
s, e
mai
l inf
o@ne
urol
eade
rshi
p.or
g
5
NeuroLeadershipjournal research
slightly ineffective at a task. Many everyday conversations devolve into arguments driven by a status threat, a desire to not be perceived as less than another. When threatened, people may defend a position that doesn’t make sense, to avoid the perceived pain of a drop in status.
in most people, the question ‘can i offer you some feedback’ generates a similar response to hearing fast footsteps behind you at night. Performance reviews often generate status threats, explaining why they are often ineffective at stimulating behavioral change. if leaders want to change others’ behavior, more attention must be paid to reducing status threats when giving feedback. one way to do this is by allowing people to give themselves feedback on their own performance.
Increasing status reward
organizations know all about using status as a reward and many managers feel compelled to reward employees primarily via a promotion. This may have the unfortunate side effect of promoting people to the point of their incompetence. The research suggests that status can be increased in more sustainable ways. For example, people feel a status increase when they feel they are learning and improving and when attention is paid to this improvement. This probably occurs because individuals think about themselves using the same brain networks they use for thinking about others (Mitchell, 2006). For example, when beating one’s own best time at a task or sporting activity, the reward circuitry from a sense of being ‘better than’ is activated, but in this case, the person one is ‘better than’ is oneself in the past.
Many everyday conversations devolve into arguments driven by a status threat, a desire to not be perceived as less than another.
status can go up when people are given positive feedback, especially public acknowledgment. one study showed activation of the reward circuitry in children being as strong as money as when told ‘that’s correct’ by a repetitive computer voice. (scott, Dapretto, et al., 2008, under review). Leaders can be afraid of praising their people for fear of the
request for promotion. However, given the deeply rewarding nature of status, giving positive feedback may reduce the need for constant promotions, not increase it.
Finally, status is about one’s relative position in a community of importance such as a professional group or social club based on what is valued. While society, especially advertising and the media, would have people spend money in order to be ‘better than others’, it doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game. status can be increased without cost to others or an effect on relatedness. As well as playing against oneself, one can also change the community one focuses on, as when a low level mailroom clerk becomes the coach of a junior baseball team. or, one can change what is important, for example deciding that the quality of one’s work is more important than the quantity of one’s work.
certainty
The brain is a pattern-recognition machine that is constantly trying to predict the near future. For example, the motor network is useless without the sensory system. To pick up a cup of coffee, the sensory system, sensing the position of the fingers at each moment, interacts dynamically with the motor cortex to determine where to move your fingers next. Your fingers don’t draw on fresh data each time; the brain draws on the memory of what a cup is supposed to feel like in the hand, based on expectations drawn from previous experiences. if it feels different, perhaps slippery, you immediately pay attention (Hawkins, 2004). The brain likes to know the pattern occurring moment to moment, it craves certainty, so that prediction is possible. Without prediction, the brain must use dramatically more resources, involving the more energy-intensive prefrontal cortex, to process moment-to-moment experience.
even a small amount of uncertainty generates an ‘error’ response in the orbital frontal cortex (oFC). This takes attention away from one’s goals, forcing attention to the error (Hedden, Garbrielli, 2006). if someone is not telling you the whole truth, or acting incongruously, the resulting uncertainty can fire up errors in the oFC. This is like having a flashing printer icon on your desktop when paper is jammed – the flashing cannot be ignored, and until it is resolved it isdifficult to focus on other things. Larger uncertainties, likenot knowing your boss’ expectations or if your job is secure,can be highly debilitating.
The act of creating a sense of certainty is rewarding. examples are everywhere in daily life: music that has simple repeating patterns is rewarding because of the ability to predict the flow of information. Meeting expectations generates an increase in dopamine levels in the brain, a reward response (schultz, 1999). Going back to a well-known place feels good because the mental maps of the environment can be easily recalled.
61
4 5 © N
euro
Lead
ersh
ip in
stitu
te 2
008
For
Per
mis
sion
s, e
mai
l inf
o@ne
urol
eade
rshi
p.or
g
reducing the threat from uncertainty
Any kind of significant change generates uncertainty. Yet uncertainty can be decreased in many simple ways. This is a big part of the job of managers, consultants and leaders. As people build business plans, strategies, or map out an organization’s structure, they feel increasing levels of clarity about how an organization might better function in the future. even though it is unlikely things ever go as planned, people feel better because certainty has increased. Breaking a complex project down into small steps does the same. Another key tool involves establishing clear expectations of what might happen in any situation, as well as expectations of desirable outcomes.
Increasing the reward from certainty
some examples of how increase certainty include making implicit concepts more explicit, such as agreeing verbally how long a meeting will run, or stating clear objectives at the start of any discussion. in learning situations, the old adage is ‘tell people what you are going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you told them’, all of which increases certainty.
The perception of certainty can be increased even during deeply uncertain times. For example, when going through an organizational restructure, providing a specific date when people will know more information about a change may be enough to increase a sense of certainty. Much of the field of change management is devoted to increasing a sense of certainty where little certainty exists.
autonomy
Autonomy is the perception of exerting control over one’s environment; a sensation of having choices. Mieka (1985) showed that the degree of control organisms can exert over a stress factor determines whether or not the stressor alters the organism’s functioning. inescapable or uncontrollable stress can be highly destructive, whereas the same stress interpreted as escapable is significantly less destructive. (Donny et al, 2006). The difference in some rodent studies was life and death (Dworkin et al, 1995).
An increase in the perception of autonomy feels rewarding. several studies in the retirement industry find strong correlations between a sense of control and health outcomes (Rodin, 1986). People leave corporate life, often for far less income, because they desire greater autonomy.
A reduction in autonomy, for example when being micro managed, can generate a strong threat response. When one senses a lack of control, the experience is of a lack of agency, or an inability to influence outcomes.
reducing autonomy threat
Working in a team necessitates a reduction in autonomy. in healthy cultures, this potential threat tends to be counteracted
with an increase in status, certainty and relatedness. With an autonomy threat just below the surface, it can be helpful to pay attention to this driver. The statement ‘Here’s two options that could work, which would you prefer?’ will tend to elicit a better response than ‘Here’s what you have to do now’.
Increasing rewards from autonomy
Providing significant autonomy in an organization can be difficult. Yet even a subtle perception of autonomy can help, for example by having self-directed learning portals, where employees get to design their learning curriculum, and self-driven human resource systems.
Allowing people to set up their own desks, organize their workflow, even manage their working hours, can all be beneficial if done within agreed parameters. sound policy establishes the boundaries within which individuals can exercise their creativity and autonomy. sound policy should enable individual point-of-need decision-making without consultation with, or intervention by, leaders. in this regard, sound policy hard-wires autonomy into the processes of an organization.
relatedness
Relatedness involves deciding whether others are ‘in’ or ‘out’ of a social group. Whether someone is friend, or foe. Relatedness is a driver of behavior in many types of teams, from sports teams to organizational silos: people naturally like to form ‘tribes’ where they experience a sense of belonging. The concept of being inside or outside the group is probably a by-product of living in small communities for millions of years, where strangers were likely to be trouble and should be avoided.
in the absence of safe social interactions the body generates a threat response…
The decision that someone is friend or foe happens quickly and impacts brain functioning (Carter & Pelphrey, 2008). For example, information from people perceived as ‘like us’ is processed using similar circuits for thinking one’s own thoughts. When someone is perceived as a foe, different circuits are used (Mitchell, 2006). Also, when treating someone as a competitor, the capacity to empathise drops significantly (singer et al, 2006).
NeuroLeadershipjournal research62
6© N
euro
Lead
ersh
ip in
stitu
te 2
008
For
Per
mis
sion
s, e
mai
l inf
o@ne
urol
eade
rshi
p.or
g
7
NeuroLeadershipjournal research
Neuroscientist John Cacioppo talks about the need for safe human contact being a primary driver, like the need for food (Cacioppo, 2008). in the absence of safe social interactions the body generates a threat response, also known as feeling lonely. However, meeting someone unknown tends to generate an automatic threat response. This explains why one feels better at a party knowing three people rather than one. Alcohol helps to reduce this automatic social threat response, enabling strangers to communicate more easily, hence its use as a social lubricant the world over. in the absence of alcohol, getting from foe to friend can be helped by an oxytocin response, an experience of connecting with the other person. oxytocin is a hormone produced naturally in the brain, and higher levels of this substance are associated with greater affiliative behavior (Domes et al, 2007). studies have shown far greater collaboration when people are given a shot of oxytocin, through a nasal spray. (Kosfield, 2005). A handshake, swapping names and discussing something in common, be it just the weather, may increase feeling of closeness by causing the release of oxytocin (Zak et al, 2005). The concept of relatedness is closely linked to trust. one trusts those who appear to be in your group, who one has connected with, generating approach emotions. And when someone does something untrustworthy, the usual response is to withdraw. The greater that people trust one another, the stronger the collaboration and the more information that is shared.
reducing threats from lack of relatedness
increasing globalization highlights the importance of managing relatedness threats. Collaboration between people from different cultures, who are unlikely to meet in person, can be especially hard work. The automatic foe response does not get diminished by social time together. This response can be mitigated by dedicating social time in other forms. For example, using video to have an informal meeting, or ensuring that people forming teams share personal aspects of themselves via stories, photos or even social-networking sites. in any workplace it appears to pay off well to encourage social connections. A Gallup report showed that organizations that encourage ‘water cooler’ conversations increased productivity (Gallup, November 2008).
Increasing the rewards from relatedness
Positive social connections are a primary need; however, the automatic response to new social connections involves a threat. To increase the reward response from relatedness, the key is to find ways to increase safe connections between people. some examples include setting up clearly defined buddy systems, mentoring or coaching programs, or small action learning groups. small groups appear to be safer than large groups. The Gallup organizations research on workplace engagement showed that the statement ‘i have a best friend at work’ was central to engagement in their ‘Q12’ assessment
(Gallup organization). Perhaps even having one trusting relationship can have a significant impact on relatedness.
Fairness
studies by Golnaz Tabibnia and Matthew Lieberman at uCLA showed that 50 cents generated more of a reward in the brain than $10.00, when it was 50 cents out of a dollar, and the $10 was out of $50 (Tabibnia & Lieberman, 2007). This study and a number of others illustrate that fair exchanges are intrinsically rewarding, independent of other factors. The need for fairness may be part of the explanation as to why people experience internal rewards for doing volunteer work to improve their community; it is a sense of decreasing the unfairness in the world.
unfair exchanges generate a strong threat response (Tabibnia & Lieberman, 2007). This sometimes includes activation of the insular, a part of the brain involved in intense emotions such as disgust. unfair situations may drive people to die to right perceived injustices, such as in political struggles. People who perceive others as unfair don’t feel empathy for their pain, and in some instances, will feel rewarded when unfair others are punished (singer et al, 2006).
reducing the threat from unfairness and increasing the reward from fairness
A threat response from a sense of unfairness can be triggered easily. The following statements are examples of what employees might say in reaction to a threat to fairness:• ‘He has a different set of rules for Mike and sally than for
the rest of us.’ • ‘Management tell us that we need to lose headcount, but
our sales are carrying the other division and they don’t have to cut anyone.’
• ‘They do all this talk about ‘values’ but it’s business as usual at the top.’
The threat from perceived unfairness can be decreased by increasing transparency, and increasing the level of communication and involvement about business issues. For example, organizations that allow employees to know details about financial processes may have an advantage here.
establishing clear expectations in all situations – from a one-hour meeting to a five-year contract – can also help ensure fair exchanges occur. A sense of unfairness can result from a lack of clear ground rules, expectations or objectives. Allowing teams to identify their own rules can also help. in an educational context, a classroom that creates the rules of what is accepted behavior is likely to experience less conflict. examples of the success of self-directed teams in manufacturing abound (semler, 1993). Much of what these self-driven teams do is ensure fairness in grass-roots decisions, such as how workloads are shared and who can do which tasks.
63
6 7 © N
euro
Lead
ersh
ip in
stitu
te 2
008
For
Per
mis
sion
s, e
mai
l inf
o@ne
urol
eade
rshi
p.or
g
The issue of pay discrepancies in large organizations is a challenging one, and many employees are deeply unhappy to see another person working similar hours earning 100 times their salary. interestingly, it is the perception of fairness that is key, so even a slight reduction in senior executive salaries during a difficult time may go a long way to reducing a sense of unfairness.
The wider implications of the scarF model
Managing oneself
The sCARF model helps individuals both minimize threats and maximize rewards inherent in everyday experience. For minimizing threats, knowing about the domains of sCARF helps one to label and reappraise experiences that might otherwise reduce performance. Labelling (Lieberman et al, 2007) and reappraisal (ochsner & Gross, 2005) are cognitive tools that have been verified in brain studies to be effective techniques for reducing the threat response. These techniques have been shown to be more effective at reducing the threat response than the act of trying to suppress an emotion (Goldin et al, 2007). Knowing about the elements of sCARF helps one understand issues such as why you can’t think clearly when someone has attacked your status, instead of just trying to push the feeling aside.
Knowing the domains of sCARF also allows an individual to design ways to motivate themselves more effectively. An example might be focusing attention on increasing one’s sense of autonomy during a time of uncertainty, such as focusing on the thrill of doing whatever you like when suddenly out of work.
education and training
successful educators, trainers and facilitators intuitively use the sCARF model. They know that people learn best when they are interested in something. interest is an approach state. Teaching children who feel threatened, disconnected, socially rejected or treated unfairly is an uphill battle. For example, educators can create a nurturing learning environment by pointing out specifically how people are improving, which increases a sense of status. This is particularly important when learning anything new, which can create a threat response. educators can also create certainty by presenting clear outlines of what is being learned, and provide a perception of some autonomy by introducing choice into the classroom. The key here is for educators, trainers and coaches to value the approach state as the necessary state for learning, and to put effort and attention into maintaining this toward state.
coaching
Personal and executive coaching can increase all five sCARF domains. status can be increased through regular positive feedback, attention to incremental improvements, and the achievement of large goals. Certainty can be increased
by identifying central goals, and subsequently reducing the uncertainty inherent in maintaining multiple focuses. Breaking down large goals into smaller steps increases certainty about how a goal can be reached. Finding ways to take action when challenges appear insurmountable can increase autonomy. Relatedness can be increased through the relationship with the coach. Fairness can be reduced through seeing situations from other perspectives. The sCARF model helps explain why coaching can be so effective at facilitating change, and points to ways of improving its delivery.
The sCARF model points to more creative ways of motivating that may not just be cheaper, but also stronger and more sustainable.
leadership development
The sCARF model provides a robust scientific framework for building self-awareness and awareness of others amongst leaders. Many new leaders may negatively impact the domains of sCARF by accident. They may know how things should be done, and subsequently provide too much direction and not enough positive feedback, thereby affecting people’s status. They often don’t provide clear expectations, impacting certainty. They micro manage, impacting autonomy. They want to maintain a professional distance, impacting relatedness. And, they may impact fairness by not being transparent enough. When the opposite happens and you meet someone who makes you feel better about yourself, provides clear expectations, lets you make decisions, trusts you and is fair, you will probably work harder for them as you feel intrinsically rewarded by the relationship itself. spending time around a leader like this activates an approach response and opens up people’s thinking, allowing others to see information they wouldn’t see in an avoid state.
organizational systems
sCARF has many implications for how organizations are structured, including reward systems, communications systems, decision processes, information flow and
NeuroLeadershipjournal research64
8© N
euro
Lead
ersh
ip in
stitu
te 2
008
For
Per
mis
sion
s, e
mai
l inf
o@ne
urol
eade
rshi
p.or
g
9
NeuroLeadershipjournal research
remuneration structures. in the space available in this article we will explore just one of these – reward systems. Techniques for motivating and rewarding staff are largely based on the carrot and stick principle, with the carrot mostly involving money or a promotion. The sCARF model points to more creative ways of motivating that may not just be cheaper, but also stronger and more sustainable. For example, success could be rewarded by increasing people’s autonomy by allowing them to have greater flexibility in their work hours. or, rewards could be provided via increasing the opportunity for learning new skills, which can increase a sense of status. or, people could be rewarded through increasing relatedness through allowing more time to network with peers during work hours.
summary
While the five domains of sCARF reflect core brain networks of greatest significance when it comes to collaborating with and influencing others. understanding these drivers can help individuals and organizations to function more effectively, reducing conflicts that occur so easily amongst people, and increasing the amount of time people spend in the approach state, a concept synonymous with good performance.
understanding the domains in the sCARF model and finding personalized strategies to effectively use these brain insights, can help people become better leaders, managers, facilitators, coaches, teachers and even parents.
in the early 2000s, the philosopher Theodore Zeldin said, ‘When will we make the same breakthroughs in the way we treat each other as we have made in technology?’ These findings about the deeply social nature of the brain, and the deep relevance of the domains of sCARF in everyday life, may provide some small steps in the right direction.
suggestions for future research
An abbreviated list of potential research issues includes the following questions:• Which of the domains of sCARF generate the strongest
threats or rewards?• Which domains have the longest-term impact?• What are the links between the domains?• How can studies be designed to identify individual
domains?• What are the best techniques for minimizing threat and
maximizing reward in each of the domains?• Do people vary in the importance of the 5 domains, and
if so are there patterns across men and women, agegroups or cultures?
• is there value in assessing these domains in individualsor culturally in organizations?
• What are the organizational implications of this modelfor how systems are set up?
• Testing what aspects of the model are most effective towhich individual leaders?
acknowledgments
This article was written with the help of several reviewers, including Rachel sheppard, Dr. evian Gordon Joanne Capritti and Karen Jayne eyre. i am grateful to the dozens of interviews with many of the scientists referenced for their input as well, with special thanks to Dr. Jeffrey M. schwartz, Dr. Matthew Lieberman, Dr. Mark Jung-Beeman and Dr. Yi-Yuan Tang for their informal mentoring over recent years on these topics.
references
Arnsten, A. F. T. (1998). The Biology of Being Frazzled. science, 280, 1711-1712.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, e., &Vohs, K.D. (2001). Bad is stronger Than Good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323-370.
Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Patrick, B. (2008). Loneliness: human nature and the need for social connection. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Carter, e. J. & Pelphrey, K. A., (2008). Friend or foe? Brain systems involved in the perception of dynamic signals of menacing and friendly social approaches. Journal social Neuroscience, Volume 3, issue 2 June 2008 , pages 151-163.
Chiao, J. Y., Bordeaux, A. R., Ambady, N. (2003). Mental representations of social status. Cognition, 93, 49-57.
Domes , G., Heinrichs, M., Gläscher J., Büchel, C., Braus, D., Herpertz, s. (2007). oxytocin Attenuates Amygdala Responses to emotional Faces Regardless of Valence. Biological Psychiatry, 62(10), 1187-1190.
Donny, e. C., Bigelow, G. e., & Walsh s. L. (2006). Comparing the physiological and subjective effects of self-administered vs yoked cocaine in humans. Psychopharmacology, 186(4), 544-52.
Dworkin, s i., Mirkis, s., smith J. e. (1995). Response-dependent versus response-independent presentation of cocaine: differences in the lethal effects of the drug. Psychopharmacology, 117(3), 262-266.
eisenberger, N. i., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRi study of social exclusion. science, 302, 290-292.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The Role of Positive emotions in Positive Psychology: The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226.
Friedman R. and Foster J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 81, 1001-1013.
65
8 9 © N
euro
Lead
ersh
ip in
stitu
te 2
008
For
Per
mis
sion
s, e
mai
l inf
o@ne
urol
eade
rshi
p.or
g
Gallup, 13 November 2008, Newsflash: Workplace socializing is Productive Gallup organization. employee engagement. Retrieved November 20, 2009 http://www.gallup.com/consulting/52/employee-engagement.aspx
Gilbert, D. (2006). stumbling upon happiness. Knopf Publishing Group.
Goldin, P. R., McRae, K., Ramel, W., & Gross, J. J. (2007). The Neural Bases of emotion Regulation: Reappraisal and suppression of Negative emotion, Biological Psychiatry, 63, 577-586.
Gordon, e. (2000). integrative Neuroscience: Bringing together biological, psychological and clinical models of the human brain. singapore: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Gordon, e. et al. (2008), An “integrative Neuroscience” platform: application to profiles of negativity and positivity bias, Journal of integrative Neuroscience.
Hawkins, J. & Blakeslee, s. (2004). on intelligence. Times Books.
Hedden, T., & Gabrieli, J. D. e. (2006). The ebb and flow of attention in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 863-865.
izuma, K., saito, D., sadato, N. (2008). Processing of social and Monetary Rewards in the Human striatum. Neuron, 58(2), 284-294.
Kosfeld, M. Heinrichs, M., Zak, P. J., Fischbacher, u., & Fehr, e. (2005). oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature, 435, 673-676.
Lieberman, eisenberger, Crockett, Tom, Pfeifer, & Way (2007). Putting Feelings into Words: Affect Labelling Disrupts Amygdala Activity in Response to Affective stimuli. Psychological science, 18(5), 421-428.
Lieberman & eisenberg (2008) The pains and pleasures of social life, NeuroLeadership Journal, edition 1.
eisenberger & Lieberman (2004). Why it hurts to be left out: The neurocognitive overlap between physical and social pain. Trends in Cognitive sciences, 8, 294-300.
Jung Beeman, M., (2007), presented at the first NeuroLeadership summit, Asolo, italy.
Lieberman, M. D. (2007). social Cognitive Neuroscience: A Review of Core Processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 259-289.
Mason, M. F., Norton, M. i., Van Horn, J. D., Wegner, D. M., Grafton, s. T., & Macrae, C. N. (2007). Wandering minds: the default network and stimulus-independent thought. science, 315, 393-395.
Mather, M., Mitchell, K. J., Raye, C. L., Novak, D. L., Greene, e.J., & Johnson, M. K. (2006). emotional Arousal Can impair Feature Binding in Working Memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 614-625.
Mineka, s. & Hendersen, R. W. (1985). Controllability and
predictability in acquired motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 495-529.
Mitchell, J. P., Macrae, C. N., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). Dissociable Medial Prefrontal Contributions to Judgments of similar and Dissimilar others. Neuron, 50, 655-663.
Naccache, L., Gaillard, R.L., Adam, C., Hasboun, D., Clemenceau, s., Baulac, M., Dehaene, s., & Cohen, L. (2005). A direct intracranial record of emotions evoked by subliminal words. Proceedings of the National Academy of science, 102, 7713-7717.
ochsner, K. N., & Lieberman, M. D. (2001). The emergence of social cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 56, 717-734.
ochsner K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion. Trends in Cognitive sciences, 9(5), 242-249.
Phelps, e. A. (2006). emotion and cognition: insights from studies of the Human Amygdala. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 27-53.
Rodin, J. (1986). Aging and health: effects of the sense of control. science, 233, 1271-1276.
sapolski, R.M. (2002). A Primate’s Memoir: A Neuroscientist’s unconventional Life Among the Baboons. scribner.
schultz, W. (1999). The Reward signal of Midbrain Dopamine Neurons. News in Physiological sciences, 14(6), 249-255.
scott, Dapretto, et al., under review (2008), social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Journal.
semler, R. (1993). Maverick: The success story behind the World’s Most unusual Workplace. Warner Books.
seymour, B., singer, T., & Dolan, R. (2007). The neurobiology of punishment. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 300-311.
singer, T., seymour, B., o’Doherty, J.P., stephan, K.e., Dolan, R.J., Frith, C.D., 2006. empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature, 439, 466-469.
subramaniam, K., Kounios, J., Bowden, e.M., Parrish, T.B., & Jung-Beeman, M. (in press 2008). Positive mood and anxiety modulate anterior cingulate activity and cognitive preparation for insight. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
Tabibnia, G., & Lieberman M. D. (2007). Fairness and Cooperation Are Rewarding: evidence from social Cognitive Neuroscience. Annals of the New York Academy of sciences, 1118, 90-101.
Zak, P. J., Kurzban, R., Matzner, W. T. (2005). oxytocin is associated with human trustworthiness, Hormones and Behavior, 48(5), 522-527.
Zink, C. F., Tong, Y., Chen, Q., Bassett, D. s., stein, J. L., & Meyer-Lindenberg A. (2008). Know Your Place: Neural Processing of social Hierarchy in Humans. Neuron, 58, 273-283.
NeuroLeadershipjournal research66
© N
euro
Lead
ersh
ip In
stitu
te 2
010
For
Per
mis
sion
s, e
mai
l sup
port
@ne
urol
eade
rshi
p.or
g
Neuroscience of engagement and SCARF: why they matter to schoolsDr. Giselle O. Martin-Kniep
www.NeuroLeadership.org
NeuroLeadershipjOurnalISSue THRee 2010
This article was published in the
The attached copy is furnished to the author for non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the author’s institution, sharing with colleagues and providing to institutional administration.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third-party websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post a version of the article to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding the neuroleadership jOurnal’s archiving and management policies are encouraged to send inquiries to: [email protected]
67
1© N
euro
Lead
ersh
ip In
stitu
te 2
010
For
Per
mis
sion
s, e
mai
l sup
port
@ne
urol
eade
rshi
p.or
g
This article was published in the neuroleadership jOurnal. The attached copy is furnished to the author for non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the author’s institution, sharing with colleagues and providing to institutional administration.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third-party websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post a version of the article to the personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding the neuroleadership jOurnal’s archiving and management policies are encouraged to send inquiries to: [email protected]
68
1 © N
euro
Lead
ersh
ip In
stitu
te 2
010
For
Per
mis
sion
s, e
mai
l sup
port
@ne
urol
eade
rshi
p.or
g
nOTES
More than 50 years ago Professor james B. Conant, former president of Harvard, wrote that the education system “works, most of us like it, and it appears to be as permanent a feature of our society as most of our political institutions” Conant (1959). In the years of debate over the efficacy of the education system that ultimately ensued, it is probably most fair to say that at least the latter part of his statement remains true. With regard to the former, within a decade of Professor Conant’s optimistic assessment, demands for education improvement, reform, and change began to be raised (Holt, 1969; Silberman, 1970; Illich, 1971). a variety of both government and non-government studies brought to light system shortcomings in fundamental skill mastery (particularly in the sciences), school-to-work relationships, dropout rates, teacher turnover, school leadership, and other ailments (Goldberg, 1996; u.S. national Commission, 1983; ravitch, D., 2010). The situation confronting the education system, and the stakeholders it was intended to serve, was perhaps best expressed by Mr. Silberman, who at the time of his writing was an editor at Fortune magazine:
“It is not possible to spend any prolonged period visiting public school classrooms without being appalled by the mutilation visible everywhere – mutilation of spontaneity, of joy in learning, of pleasure in creating, of sense of self. The ... schools... are the kind of institution one cannot really dislike until one gets to know them well. Because adults take the schools so much for granted, they fail to appreciate what grim, joyless places most ... schools are, how oppressive and petty are the rules by which they are governed, how intellectually and aesthetically barren the atmosphere.” (Silberman, p. 10)
In the decades that followed, educational reform took on a variety of forms, all intended to bring about needed changes. These reforms can be categorized generally as calling for changes in content (evans, 2005; Goodson, 1993), expectations (Weinstein, 2004), time (Kneese, 2009), teaching and assessment (Martin-Kniep & Picone-Zocchia, 2009), and infrastructure (Adelman & Taylor, 2007; Donaldson, 2006). Virtually all Western governments responded by enacting legislation and creating commissions intent on reforming the educational process (Boyd-Barret & O’Malley, 1995; Ibáñez-Martín & Jover, 2010). Despite these well intended efforts, and with educational improvement and reform a continuing priority worldwide, the search for viable solutions continues today.
A more recently proposed solution showing considerable promise is the application of neuroscience to the educational environment (Sousa, 2010). Over the past decade significant advances in brain-imaging technology, most specifically in the use of the fMRI, have provided neuroscientists, social psychologists and instructional theorists with significant new insights into the functioning of the brain (Ochsner & Lieberman 2001; Geary, 2007). In fact, back in 1997 there were just ten such studies published; in 2007, there were nearly eight per day (editorial, 2008). Taken together, and particularly in the case of driving change, this neuroscience and social psychology research has the potential to significantly advance our understanding of how school leaders can improve the quality of their areas of responsibility – improving both student and teacher productivity, creativity, and ability to solve problems. Despite its relative youth, neuroscience research and the
Neuroscience of engagement and SCARF: why they matter to schoolsDr. Giselle O. Martin-Kniep
President, LCI Learner-Centered Initiatives, Ltd, Floral Park, New York
69
NeuroLeadershipjOurnal ISSue THRee 2010 nOTES
2© N
euro
Lead
ersh
ip In
stitu
te 2
010
For
Per
mis
sion
s, e
mai
l sup
port
@ne
urol
eade
rshi
p.or
g
NeuroLeadershipjOurnal ISSueTHRee2010 nOTES
3
tools it suggests have brought about considerable interest
in neuroscience’s applications to teaching (Jensen, 2005);
learning (Sousa, 2005); the curriculum (Costa, 2009); and
education science in general (Tokuhama-espinosa, 2010).
utilizing the lens of neuroscience, this note looks at the
potential application of the Status, Certainty, Autonomy,
Relatedness and Fairness (SCARF) model (Rock, 2008, 2009)
to the education system, specifically considering its ability
to elevate the engagement level of the school learning and
teacher working environments.
The notion of engagement in schools
In general, the term ‘engagement’ refers to the degree to which a person is committed or dedicated to an organization or relationship (Rutledge, 2005); Rock & Tang, 2009). In the workplace, it refers to the degree of positive emotion a person attaches to the organization, their job and their colleagues. When a person is engaged, they are attracted to, inspired by, committed to, and even fascinated by their work, or their input to the relationship. Students are said to be ‘engaged’ when they make a psychological investment in learning, are involved in their school and its activities, persist despite challenges and obstacles, and take visible pride in accomplishing learning objectives beyond grades (Newmann, 1989; Newmann, 1992; Gordon, 2006). Student engagement in schools has been found to be one of the most robust predictors of student achievement (Guthrie et al., 2001), regardless of the student’s economic and social stature (Klem & Connell, 2004).
In exploring the issue of the ‘engaged student’, students fall into five main categories of engagement (see Figure 1):
• actively disengaged: a high average threat state.• Disengaged: an average threat state.• neutral: midway between threat and reward states.• Engaged: on average a reward state.• Deeply engaged: strong average reward state.
Student engagement in schools has been found to be one of the most robust predictors of student achievement . . .
Students in the first category have the potential to undermine the learning environment. By contrast, an engaged student is positive for everyone – fellow students, teachers, administrators, and parents (Gordon, 2006).
Figure 1: Levels of engagement.
70
NeuroLeadershipjOurnal ISSueTHRee2010 nOTES
2
NeuroLeadershipjOurnal ISSueTHRee2010 nOTES
3 © N
euro
Lead
ersh
ip In
stitu
te 2
010
For
Per
mis
sion
s, e
mai
l sup
port
@ne
urol
eade
rshi
p.or
g
The neuroscience of SCarF
SCARF is a summary of major findings in social, cognitive and affective neurosciences that reflect a pattern in human behavior (Rock, 2008, 2009). It includes five domains of human social experience that provide an organizing principle for the brain and its motivational circuitries. The brain considers these domains as important as ‘life and death’, assessing them as either threatening or rewarding (Gordon, 2000; Lieberman & eisenberger, 2008). These five domains are status (Zink et al., 2008; eisenberger & Lieberman, 2003; Chiao et al., 2004); certainty (Hedden & Gabrieli, 2006); autonomy (Donny et al., 2006; Dworkin et al., 1995); relatedness (Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008; Kosfeld et al., 2005; Mitchell et al., 2006); and fairness (Tabibnia, et al., 2008; Seymour et al., 2007).
As defined by Rock (2009): “Status is about relative importance to others. Certainty concerns our ability to predict the future. Autonomy provides a sense of control over events. Relatedness is a sense of safety with others, of friend rather than foe. And fairness is a perception of fair exchanges between people.”
These domains activate either primary rewards, or primary threat circuitries of the brain. Reward states are associated
with more cognitive resources (Arnsten, 1998); more creativity
(Friedman & Foster, 2001); greater ability to solve problems
with insight (Frederickson, 2001); and experiencing a wider
perceptual field (Schmitz, De Rosa & Anderson, 2009). On
the other hand, a threat state is associated with less creative
thinking (Jung-Beeman, 2009); mental fatigue (Tang &
Posner, 2009); and poor health and avoidance responses,
such as sadness, anxiety, lack of safety, depression, and mind
wandering (Rock & Tang, 2009).
Self-regulation is a critical function of our brain and is
central to our capacity to control our impulses, make
strategic decisions, moderate our emotions, and pursue
our goals (McDonald, 2009; Diaz, Neal, & Amaya-Williams,
1990). It enables us to set and adjust our goals and
expectations as we face new events and situations (Paris,
Byrnes, & Paris, 2001). Self-regulation and motivation are
intrinsically related. Motivating behavior is very much related
to maximizing rewards and minimizing dangers as far as
the brain is concerned. Since understanding the SCARF
domains can increase our self-understanding and enhance
our self-regulation, it may very well have an application for
educators and students in schools.
Figure 2: SCARF.
Rock (2009)
71
NeuroLeadershipjOurnal ISSue THRee 2010 nOTES
4© N
euro
Lead
ersh
ip In
stitu
te 2
010
For
Per
mis
sion
s, e
mai
l sup
port
@ne
urol
eade
rshi
p.or
g
NeuroLeadershipjOurnal ISSueTHRee2010 nOTES
5
SCarF in schools: an illustration
How might using SCARF increase students’ ability to assume greater responsibility for their own learning? How might it help parents expand on their use of rewards for motivating their children? What role might SCARF play in the development and support of teachers’ learning and work? Let’s begin with a brief preview of how SCARF plays out in the world of schools from first the student perspective and then from that of teachers and administrators.
Self-regulation is a critical function of our brain and is central to our capacity to control our impulses, make strategic decisions, moderate our emotions and pursue our goals.
SCarF elements and the student
Janira is a 12-year-old student in an urban middle school. She is an avid doodler in class. She is also prone to distractions and has a hard time sitting still during her teacher’s lectures. She is articulate, opinionated, and passionate about lots of things including art, music, animals, people, and culture, but has a difficult time connecting any of her interests with the actual classroom material provided by her teachers. Her disengagement reveals itself in constant acts of defiance, including talking back to her teachers, refusing to complete work, doing homework, or finishing tests. These acts have earned her a long-standing reputation of a rebel if not a bully. In the past three months, she has gone to school detention ten times and has been suspended twice. Despite her parents’ attempts to reason with her, or with the school, nothing has changed. Her parents mirror the school’s punishments with curfews and loss of privileges that Janira finds a way to defy on a regular basis. Janira feels increasingly alienated and disengaged. She has befriended a small group of peers who
no longer attend school and who do all kinds of drugs, and has become the leader of that group.
Janira experienced very little status in her school so she sought it elsewhere. The constant detentions and suspensions did little to change her negative outlook about school or to provide her with a sense of fairness. Her ability to relate to her peers at school was greatly diminished by her being singled out and separated from them, so she found relatedness with her new peers. She sought autonomy outside of the school setting since no one had legitimately involved her in shaping the scenarios that could lead her to experience a different reality at school. Her certainty was situational and was limited to the positive and negative consequences she could predict from her experiences in school and with her new friends. Now, what might have happened if Janira’s parents and the school had increased her autonomy by providing her with the opportunity to shape some of her work in school, perhaps by asserting greater control over what she learned, or how she could demonstrate her learning? How might her sense of certainty and fairness have changed if she had been encouraged to define goals and accept the consequence for not meeting them, or if she could have defined and monitored the actions she was taking towards meeting her goals? How might her status have increased if her teachers, or the school administrator, had enabled her to share her talents and passion at school?
SCarF elements: teachers and administrators
While one may think that Janira represents a rather extreme case of a student, she is not unique. Many schools struggle to accommodate the needs of students who do not conform in one way or another. Furthermore, alienation such as Janira’s is found among other school actors as well. A few months ago I was faced with a group of educators immobilized by a deep collective anxiety. The group included school superintendents, technology and data specialists, and school officials charged with helping schools use inquiry and data. The anxiety they displayed resulted from changes in city and state government legislation that called for a reorganization of the Department of education. As a result, many of the people wondered about what their new positions would be. Whereas one might consider this situation as one that warranted such anxiety, these individuals had deep familiarity with changing legislation and its consequences for schools. Approximately 85 percent of these individuals had experienced at least two reorganizations in the past, and most of them had been working in the educational system for over 15 years. However, despite their prior experiences with significant reorganizations, the group felt demoralized and anxious about their future. During my time with them, they struggled to assimilate the material we were exploring, arguing that they were not sure of the specific situations in which they could apply them.
72
NeuroLeadershipjOurnal ISSueTHRee2010 nOTES
4
NeuroLeadershipjOurnal ISSueTHRee2010 nOTES
5 © N
euro
Lead
ersh
ip In
stitu
te 2
010
For
Per
mis
sion
s, e
mai
l sup
port
@ne
urol
eade
rshi
p.or
g
On the morning of my third day with the administrators, I referred to SCARF as a means to help individuals reframe their thinking around the domains they had some control over. We determined that status, certainty, autonomy, and fairness were not rewards they could access or tap into in their present situation. We then explored the role that relatedness had played in building the individual and collective resilience of this group, and brainstormed additional strategies for explicitly using relatedness to strengthen their motivation and increase their collective self-efficacy. We identified the givens and uncertainties of their positions, and the group was able to generate tangible strategies for strengthening their social and professional relatedness, including scheduled meetings, informal gatherings and information-technology networks. Having SCARF as a framework for identifying coping strategies lightened the load everyone was carrying and changed the tenor of the room, thereby enabling them to operate as learners rather than reactors.
The case for SCarF in schools in building an engaged school
I found my SCARF experience with administrators to be quite enlightening and insightful. What follows is a modest attempt at exploring the status and value of different SCARF rewards for different stakeholders in schools along with some guiding questions they could pose as they consider those rewards within schools.
Recent studies have revealed that there is a positive relationship between our status and our dopamine receptors.
Status
Status refers to the ascribed position in which we place ourselves relative to others in our different communities. Recent studies have revealed that there is a positive relationship between our status and our dopamine receptors (Martineza et al., 2010). This suggests that people who have higher status have a greater ability to experience pleasure. For the most part, administrators possess high status among teachers and students in terms of defining the terms of engagement and enacting policies, programs
and practices. This status is higher for building and district leaders than for middle-level administrators. With ever-increasing external accountability requirements (Abernathy, 2007), such status is threatened if the school is not meeting standards, but can be enhanced when administrators are able to redirect their attention to the ways in which they inspire, enable or influence the people they are responsible for. Administrators can increase the status of adults and students in the school by identifying formal leadership roles and providing them with greater autonomy. Questions that administrators could pursue if they wanted to develop distributed leadership structures in the school and increase status rewards for teachers and other adults include:
• How can teachers feel empowered? What actions wouldincrease their status?
• What policies could result in a greater distribution ofstudent status?
• How might the school leverage high quality work in theschool to increase the status of those who produce it?
• How might the teacher evaluation process be redirectedtowards a focus on growth and improvement?
• How might listening and communication behaviors beused to increase status among staff members, students,and parents?
• What routines or policies might increase our regardfor parent input or contributions towards theirchildren’s education?
Teachers tend to have high status among students in terms of enforcing rules and policies, enacting practices, and ascribing value to student work. Their status among peers is less dependent on seniority than on their perceived influence in school. Such status can be threatened by low student performance or by political strife among staff within the school. Teachers can increase the status of students in their classes by ascribing them with formal leadership roles, providing them with a structure that maximizes their choice and autonomy, and giving them opportunities to excel in self-defined areas. Some of the questions that teachers can pursue as they consider enhancing their own status and the status of their students include:
• How can you use or disseminate your expertise aboutteaching and learning to help others?
• What projects, activities or routines might rewardstudents for their thinking, work or values?
• What are the different ways in which students’ talentsand interests could be acknowledged and fostered?
• What activities or structures could you use to increasethe status of students in your own classes and in theschool at large?
• What grouping structures might increase students’ability to relate to each other in ways that could increasetheir status and interdependence?
73
NeuroLeadershipjOurnal ISSue THRee 2010 nOTES
6© N
euro
Lead
ersh
ip In
stitu
te 2
010
For
Per
mis
sion
s, e
mai
l sup
port
@ne
urol
eade
rshi
p.or
g
NeuroLeadershipjOurnal ISSueTHRee2010 nOTES
7
Teachers tend to have high status among students in terms of enforcing rules and policies, enacting practices, and ascribing value to student work.
Parents have significant status at home, but their perceived status in schools varies depending on a number of factors, including the school’s culture and the ways in which schools invite and engage parental input and participation. In many schools students have low status in terms of decision-making about rules, norms, and work in the school. Their status with peers is dependent on the perceived pecking order of the traits that students in the school community value. Student status is increased by grades, awards, and by excelling in behaviors that are valued. Status is threatened if they do not meet minimum standards or if they go against student-developed norms and behaviors. Questions students and parents could consider to enhance their status include:
• What do you know, do well, or care about that could helpyour peers, teachers, or someone else in the school?
• How can you share or use your passions and interests tohelp others?
• How can your work help someone else learn or dosomething?
• In what ways could you share what you care about withothers?
• Who can you support or help?
Certainty
Certainty refers to the ability to predict the future based on previous experiences and patterns. Having access to new information, in and of itself, is highly connected to certainty and is rewarding to the brain. For both administrators and teachers certainty is high in terms of job security when they are tenured, but it is often compromised in terms of knowing what is expected of them with increasing external accountability demands.
Middle-level managers and teachers experience more or less certainty depending on their specific school assignments since such assignments are sometimes made with limited
input from them. Administrators can increase the certainty among those who work for them through transparent and continuous communication, and by involving them in decision making, securing their input in terms of job-related responsibilities and giving them greater control over the allocation or use of school and other resources.
Students’ sense of certainty is high in terms of classes, school routines, and expectations. It is also high in terms of their anticipating future subjects, grades, and standards.
When students’ locus of control is external, or when their teachers are inconsistent in terms of their routines, standards and expectations, their certainty in terms of predicting their ability to cope or succeed may be compromised.
School administrators and teachers can increase student certainty by ensuring that teachers share similar expectations for student behavior, performance and work quality, through access to explicit and attainable opportunities to learn, and through the enforcement of consistent norms.
Questions that increase certainty for all school stakeholders include:
• What can we do to increase our sense of certainty aboutour values and commitments (at home or at school)?
• What are some non-negotiables we want to abide to (inschool, at home)?
• What policies, processes and practices do we needto establish, and consistently enforce, to increaseeveryone’s sense of certainty?
• Who can students, teachers, administrators, and othersdepend on for advice? Support? How can support bemore accessible to others?
• In what contexts do individuals and group members feelsafe?
• How do we increase the sense of safety for everyone?• How can we manage information flow and exchanges to
promote certainty?• How can we create a bridge between the sense of
certainty all stakeholders feel at home and at school?
autonomy
Autonomy is the ability to have and make choices, and in a sense, to have the illusion of control. It is highly connected to our sense of efficacy. For administrators, autonomy is very much dependent on their specific job assignment. District and building leaders tend to have a high degree of autonomy in terms of hiring, allocating and managing resources, and setting policies. The autonomy of middle-level administrators and other staff members is very much dependent on the leadership style of their supervisors and on opportunities they provide related to the allocation of resources and the shaping and implementation of policies, processes, programs, and practices.
74
NeuroLeadershipjOurnal ISSueTHRee2010 nOTES
6
NeuroLeadershipjOurnal ISSueTHRee2010 nOTES
7 © N
euro
Lead
ersh
ip In
stitu
te 2
010
For
Per
mis
sion
s, e
mai
l sup
port
@ne
urol
eade
rshi
p.or
g
Teachers who are tenured operate mostly without significant oversight or supervision. untenured teachers have far less autonomy and experience a great degree of oversight during their untenured period. Their autonomy is greatly increased when they have opportunities to design or revise curriculum and assessment, and when they can provide input on policies, programs, and schedules. Both tenured and untenured teachers operate under the pressure of external accountability forces that greatly curtail their perceived autonomy.
Administrators and teachers can increase their own autonomy and the autonomy that they provide others by addressing questions such as:
• How can teachers assume greater control andresponsibility for curriculum, instruction, or assessmentdecisions while staying true to the mission and vision ofthe school?
• In what ways could teachers support each other’slearning and work without administrative oversight?
• What school or classroom routines could be implementedand monitored by others? Could be self-monitored?
• How might we increase the amount of discretion orchoice that teachers and other staff members havewithout compromising a unified vision?
• In what context could students have greater choice aboutwhat they learn, how they learn, or how they demonstratetheir learning attainment?
• How can the evaluation process for both staff membersand students incorporate greater attention to goalsetting and strategic planning?
• How might teacher and other staff members’ goalsbecome a greater focus of school-related activitiesand work?
In many schools student autonomy is low in terms of determining what to learn, how to learn, and how to demonstrate such learning. Teachers and parents can greatly enhance student autonomy by enabling students to set learning goals, determine the means to attain them, and helping them monitor them. They can also increase students’ autonomy by providing students with choice in terms of what they learn or how they can demonstrate an understanding of what they have learned.
• In what contexts could students have greater choiceabout what they learn or do, how they learn it or do it,and how they demonstrate their learning attainment?
• What culminating projects or experiences wouldincrease students’ choice and control over their workand presentations?
• How can classroom routines incorporate more andclearer options for students to exercise?
• How could students be encouraged to have greatercontrol over how they spend time in class? At home?
• How can the student evaluation process incorporategreater attention to goal setting and strategic planning?
relatedness
Relatedness has to do with whether we consider others friends or foes, and about who is in our ‘in group’ and who is in our ‘out group’. The degree to which relatedness is a reward in a school depends very much on the size and the culture of the school. For the most part, much of the school day is structured in ways that minimize opportunities for significant adult-to-adult communication so relatedness occurs informally and is fostered primarily among students and between teachers and students.
The degree to which relatedness is a reward in a school depends very much on the size and the culture of the school.
Administrators can increase relatedness for teachers and other adults in the school with opportunities for teachers to work with their peers and with school staff and community members. Teachers can increase relatedness by providing students with varied learning configurations including peer-to-peer, and varied forms of group work. Students’ sense of relatedness varies in terms of their formal and informal opportunities for relationships with peers and family. Parents’ sense of relatedness varies depending on the extent to which they feel welcomed and an integral part of the school community. Schools can increase relatedness with opportunities for students to learn and work collaboratively with peers and with other students and adults in the school and in the community. Questions that increase relatedness between and among all school stakeholders include:
• Who has a sense of community in our school?• What do we celebrate? When do we celebrate? How
can we structure formal and informal opportunities tocelebrate what we care about or value?
• What opportunities could we create for teachers,parents, students, and others to learn more about eachother’s interests, passions, and work?
• How might we increase our ability to work togethertowards shared goals and interests?
• In what ways and to what ends do we encouragecollaboration?
• What can we collaborate on which might increase ourregard for each other’s expertise?
• How do we minimize cliques?
75
8© N
euro
Lead
ersh
ip In
stitu
te 2
010
For
Per
mis
sion
s, e
mai
l sup
port
@ne
urol
eade
rshi
p.or
g
9
NeuroLeadershipjOurnal ISSue THRee 2010 nOTES
Fairness
Fairness is the perception of, and need for, equitable exchange and has to do with our feeling that we are treated justly and equitably. According to various neuroscientists, the social pain system in the brain that relates to fairness may have been piggybacked onto the physical pain system during mammalian evolution (eisenberg & Lieberman, 2004; Panksepp, 1998).
Depending on their position, administrators may experience a sense of fairness with respect to defining policies, processes, and practices, that establish what is fair or not. Depending on their place within the school hierarchy, they may have more or less control related to transmitting or enforcing regulations and policies. They can increase a sense of fairness for adults and students with clear external expectations for policies and practices and by consistently enforcing incentives and consequences.
Teachers’ sense of fairness may be different in terms of their perceptions of the school at large vis-à-vis their own classrooms where they can generate and enforce rules, responsibilities, and expectations. They may have a low sense of fairness if they equate fairness with equal treatment, and if they feel unfairly treated by externally driven policies and regulations. Their sense of fairness can be increased by clear expectations for practices and consistently enforced incentives and consequences and by opportunities to inform expectations and policies. Students are highly sensitive to ‘unfair’ treatment by peers and others. Teachers and administrators can increase their sense of fairness with clear, explicit expectations and consistently applied norms, incentives and consequences, and by opportunities to participate in the norm-setting or review processes.
The following questions might help teachers and administrators who want to engender a greater sense of fairness for them and for other members of the school community.
• What social justice agendas do we want to promote?• How do we help everyone understand the distinction
between fair and equitable?• What school initiatives, programs, or activities can we
incorporate which include explicit opportunities forstudents and others to do good deeds?
• What appeals processes could we implement topromote fair treatment or a more equitable allocation ofresources?
• How might we increase the transparency of our standardsand expectations?
• How can we ensure a greater constancy in teachers orparent expectations?
• In what ways could we engage staff, student or parentinput in the development, review, or evaluation of policiesor in the identification of standards?
Summary and conclusion
Learning occurs only if we are motivated to learn.
SCARF enables us to better understand motivation,
rewards, and threats in a far more sophisticated manner
than the ‘carrot-and-stick’ approach. If status, certainty,
autonomy, relatedness and fairness serve as stimuli to
the brain’s threat and reward circuitries, contributing to
our motivation to learn, it is critical for individuals and for
schools to consider ways of allocating these rewards so as
to maximize learning for all.
A growing body of neuroscience research shows that
every action a teacher takes, and every decision a teacher
makes, either supports or undermines the perceived levels
of status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness and fairness
among students. In fact, this may be why teaching is so
challenging – knowing that every word and glance carries
with it social meaning. Sentences and gestures are noticed
and interpreted, magnified, and combed for meanings the
teacher often never intended. Neuroscience supports the
notion that often what the teacher is saying may not be what
the students are hearing.
The SCARF model provides a means of alerting the teacher
(bringing conscious awareness) to students’ core concerns
(which they may not even understand themselves) and shows
the teacher how to calibrate his or her words and actions
to better effect. The process starts by reducing the threats
inherent in the classroom and in teacher behavior. Students
cannot think creatively, work well with others, or make
informed decisions when their threat responses are on high
alert. Skilled teachers understand this and act accordingly.
The SCARF model also provides a means for students to
become more aware of their own needs and the conditions
that support their learning. Advancing school practices
could enable students to appropriate this knowledge and
use it to become more efficacious learners.
For years economists have argued that people will
change their behavior if they have sufficient incentive. We
now have reason to believe that economic incentives are
effective only when people perceive them as supporting
their social needs. The SCARF model thus provides
students, teachers, and administrators with more nuanced
and effective ways to expand the definition of reward. In
doing so, SCARF principles also provide a more granular
understanding of the state of engagement, in which
students can give their best performance. engagement
can be induced when people working toward objectives
feel rewarded by their efforts, with a manageable level of
threat: in short, when the brain is generating rewards in
SCARF-related dimensions.
76
8 9 © N
euro
Lead
ersh
ip In
stitu
te 2
010
For
Per
mis
sion
s, e
mai
l sup
port
@ne
urol
eade
rshi
p.or
g
NeuroLeadershipjOurnal ISSueTHRee2010 nOTES
references
Abernathy, S. (2007). No Child Left Behind and the Public Schools. Ann Arbor: university of Michigan Press.
Adelman, H. S. & Taylor, L. (2007). Systematic change for school improvement. Journal of educational and Psychological Consultation, 17(1), 56-77.
Arnsten, A. F. T. (1998). The biology of being frazzled. Science, 280, 1711-1712.
Boyd-Barret, O. & O’Malley, P. (1995). education Reform in Democratic Spain. New York: Routledge education.
Cacioppo, J. T. & Patrick, B. (2008). Loneliness: human nature and the need for social connection. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Chiao, J. Y., Bordeaux, A.R. & Ambady, N. (2004). Mental representations of social status. Cognition, 93(2), 49-57.
Cohen, D. K., Hill, H. C. & Hill, H. (2001). Learning Policy: When State education Reform Works. New Haven: Yale university Press.
Conant, J. B. (1959). The American High School Today. New York: Signet Books.
Costa, A. L. (2009). Habits of mind across the curriculum: Practical and creative strategies for teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Diaz, R. M., Neal, C. J. & Amaya-Williams, M. (1990). The social origins of self-regulation. In L. C. Moll (ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (127–154). New York: Cambridge university Press.
Donaldson, G. A. (2006). Cultivating leadership in schools: Connecting people. Purpose & Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Donny, e. C., Bigelow, G. e. & Walsh S. L. (2006). Comparing the physiological and subjective effects of self-administered vs yoked cocaine in humans. Psychopharmacology, 186(4), 544-52.
Dworkin, S. I., Mirkis, S. & Smith J. e. (1995). Response-dependent versus response-independent presentation of cocaine: differences in the lethal effects of the drug. Psychopharmacology, 117(3), 262-266.
editorial: Connecting the dots. Nature Neuroscience, 12(2), 99 (February 2009).
eisenberger, N. I. & Lieberman, M. D. (2004). Why it hurts to be left out: The neurocognitive overlap between physical and cognitive pain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 294-330.
eisenberger, N. I. & Lieberman, M. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion, Science: 302(5643), 290-292.
evans, N. (2005). Curriculum change in secondary schools, 1957-2004: A curriculum roundabout? New York: Routledge education.
Frederickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226.
Friedman, R. S. & Forster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1001-1013.
Geary, D.C. (2007). educating the evolved mind: conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology. In J.S. Carlson & J.R. Leven (eds.) (2007). Psychological Perspectives on Contemporary educational Issues, Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Giselle Martin-Kniep, G. & Picone-Zocchia, J. (2009). Changing the Way You Teach, Improving the Way Students Learn. Alexandria, VA.: ASCD.
Goldberg, B. (1996). Why Schools Fail: The Denial of Individuality and The Decline of Learning. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute.
Gordon, e. (2000). Bringing together biological, psychological and clinical models of the human brain. In: Gordon e. Integrative Neuroscience. Harwood Academic Publications.
Gordan, G. (2006). Building engaged Schools: Getting the Most out of America’s Classrooms. New York: Gallup Press.
Guthrie, J., Schafer, W. D. & Huang, C. (2001). Benefits of opportunity to read and balanced instruction on the NAeP. The Journal of educational Research, 94 (3),145-162.
Hedden, T. & Gabrieli, J. D. e. (2006). The ebb and flow of attention in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 863-865.
Holt, J. C. (1969). The underachieving School. New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation.
Ibáñez-Martín, J. A. & Jover, G. (eds.) (2010). education in europe: Policies and Politics. New York: Springer.
Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling Society: World Perspectives. New York: Harper & Row.
Goodson, I. F. (1993) School Subjects and Curriculum Change (Studies in Curriculum History). New York: Routledge education.
Jensen, e. (2005). Teaching with the Brain in Mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Jung-Beeman, M, Collier, A. & Kounios, J. (2009). How insight happens: learning from the brain. NeuroLeadership Journal, 2, 20-25.
77
10© N
euro
Lead
ersh
ip In
stitu
te 2
010
For
Per
mis
sion
s, e
mai
l sup
port
@ne
urol
eade
rshi
p.or
g
NeuroLeadershipjOurnal ISSue THRee 2010
Klem, A. & Connell, J. (2004). Relationships matter: linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273.
Kneese, C. (2009). Balancing the School Calendar: Perspectives from the Public and Stakeholders. New York: Rowman & Littlefield education.
Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P.J., Fischbacher, u. & Fehr,e. (2005). Nature, 435(2).
Lieberman, M.D. & eisenberg, N.I (2008). The pains and pleasures of social life: a social cognitive neuroscience approach, NeuroLeadership Journal, 1, 48-43.
McDonald, P. The potential contribution of neuroscience to authentic leadership. (2009) NeuroLeadership Journal, 2, 53-63.
Martineza, D., Orlowskaa, D., Narendranc, R. Slifsteina, R., Liua, F., Kumara, D., Brofta, A. ,Van Heertumb, R. & Klebera, H.D. (2010). Dopamine type 2/3 receptor availability in thestriatum and social status in human volunteers. Biological Psychiatry, 67(3), 275-278.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: translating research into action. Alexandra, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mitchell, J.P., Macrae, C.N., and Banaji, M.R. (2006). Oxytocin increases trust in humans: Dissociable medial prefrontal contributions to judgments of similar and dissimilar others. Neuron, 50, 655-663.
Newman, F. M. (1989). Student engagement and high school reform. educational Leadership. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Ochsner, K. N. & Lieberman, M. D. (2001). The emergence of social cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 56(7), 17-734.
Newmann, F. (1992). Student engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Panksepp, (1998). Affective Neuroscience. Oxford university Press, New York.
Paris, S. G., Byrnes, J. P. & Paris, A. H. (2001). Constructing theories, identities, and actions of self-regulated learners. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (253–287). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence erlbaum.
Ravitch, D. ( 2010). The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.
Ringleb, A.H. & Rock, D. (2008). The emerging field of neuroleadership. NeuroLeadership Journal, 1, 3-19.
Rock, D. Your Brain at Work. New York: NY, Harper, 2009.
Rock, D. (2008). SCARF: A brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others, NeuroLeadership Journal, 1, 44-52, 2008.
Rock, D. & Tang, Y. (2009). Neuroscience of engagement. NeuroLeadership Journal, 2, 15-22.
Sagor, R. (2002). Lessons from skateboarders. educational Leadership, (September 2002), 34-38.
Seymour, B., Singer, T. & Dolan, R. (2007). The neurobiology of punishment. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 300-311.
Skinner, e. & Belmont M. (1991). A longitudinal study of motivation in school: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement. university of Rochester, New York.
Schmitz, T.W. De Rosa, e. & Anderson, A, K. (2009). Opposing influence of affective state valence on visual cortical encoding, Journal of Neuroscience, 29(22), 7199-7207.
Silberman, C. (1970). Crisis in the Classroom. New York: Random House.
Sousa, D.A. (2005). How the Brain Learns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Sousa, D.A. (2010). Mind, Brain, and education: Neuroscience Implications for the Classroom. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Stiver, J. & Cramer, S.F. (2009). A Teacher’s Guide to Change: understanding, Navigating, and Leading the Process. Thousand Oaks, Corwin Publishing.
Tabibnia, G., Satpute, A. B. & Lieberman, M. D. (2008). The sunny side of fairness: Preference for fairness activates reward circuitry (and disregarding unfairness activates self-control circuitry). Psychological Science, 19, 339-347.
Tang, Y.Y. & Posner, M.I. (2009). Attention training and attention state training. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 222-227.
Tokuhama-espinosa, T. (2010). Mind, Brain, and education Science: A Comprehensive Guide to the New Brain-based Teaching. New York: W. W. Norton & Company
u.S. National Commission on excellence in education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform: A report to the Nation and the Secretary of education, united States Department of education: Washington, D.C.: u.S. Government Printing Office.
Weinstein, R.S. (2004). Reaching Higher: The Power of expectations in Schooling. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard university Press.
Zink, C. R., Tong, Y. Chen, Y. O., Bassett, D. S., Stein, J. L. & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2008). Know your place: neural processing of social hierarchy in humans. Neuron, 58, 273-283.
78
ASLI Team Collaboration Planning Sheet (How)Topic Our Current Level When we hope to introduce
Norms of Collaboration Working Agreements Relational Trust
Ways of Talking CoachingThird PointCollaboratingConsulting
Successful Meeting Standards Group Member Capabilities
Team Meeting Format Team Roles
Dialogue Discussion
Relationship, Process and Task Team AssessmentTeam Meeting Profile
Protocols 3-2-1, Structured Dialogue, GiveOne/Get One, Inside OutsideCircle, Jig Saw, Pairs Squared,Quick Write, DiamondReflection, Pass the Question,POMS, Chalk Talk, HypothesisTesting, and Traffic Lighting
Collective Teacher Efficacy
Leading Effective Math InstructionRelationship Between Task, Configuration and Process
Intensity and Engagement
79
Effective Communication Strategies (How)Collective Teacher Efficacy Leading (What) Effective Math Instruction
Month Date Introduced by Colleague
Topic(s) and Important reminders
August
September
October
November
January
February
March
April
80
