Upload
randall-long
View
219
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Practices of Effective Teams
Teams are effective when…
they result in improvements to teaching and learning.
(And)
• they produce continuous improvement in team capability, and
• result in a meaningful and satisfying experience for members.
(Hackman, 2002)
An Exploration of
Relevance & Depthin Teachers’ Team Conversations
© 2012 Susan F. Henry [email protected]
du
Focus on Team Talk
• Potential to improve student achievement Newmann, 1995; Saunders, Goldenberg, & Gallimore, 2009; Supovitz, 2002; Supovitz & Christman, 2005
• Impact on instruction remains under-realized Achinstein, 2002; diPardo, 1999; Ingram, Louis, & Schroeder, 2004 Supovitz, 2002;
• Limited understanding of how teachers’ team conversations support improvement Little, 2002, 2003, 2007; Little & Curry, 2008;
Little & Horn, 2007: Horn, 2010; Kennedy, Slavit, & Nelson, 2009;
Nelson, Slavit & Deuel, 2012
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
Goal
To become more mindful and deliberate
about our team conversations
“Hey, wait a minute! This is grass! We’ve been eating grass!”
A Framework of Instructional Conversations
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
Inquiry into Complexitie
s of Instruction
INSTRUCTIONAL RELEVANCE
DEP
TH
of
INQ
UIR
YLikely to
advance team learning about
effective instruction
WHAT we talk about
Instructional Relevance:
The extent to which team discussion centers on multiple relationships among teachers,
students, and content in particular terms and
instructional contexts (Cohen & Ball, 1999, 2001)
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
teachers
students content
Relevance
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
Relational talk, logistics, business
• Teachers extend support for teammate who is under stress
• Team finalizes field trip logistics
• Teachers respond to request to participate in an assembly
X X X X
Addressing 0 Elements of Instruction
Relevance
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
Focus on students, teachers, OR content
• Teachers describe recent student behavior and conflicts
• Teachers discuss what they use for a pre- and post-assessment
• Teachers discuss sequence of next units of study
Addressing 1 Element of Instruction
other 2 are largely absent or superficial
X X X X
Relevance
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
• One teacher’s instructional strategies based on students’ identified needs
• A student’s writing sample against criteria in a rubric
• Which instructional strategies would be best for key concepts in multiplying fractions
X X X X
Addressing 2 Elements of Instruction remaining element is largely absent or superficial
Relevance
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
A focus on the interaction of all 3
• Team plans a small group lesson to address five students’ specific needs with making inferences in reading
X X X X
teachers
students content
Addressing 3 Elements of Instruction
Instructional Relevance =
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
teachers
students content
Instructional RelationshipsDiscussion focuses on
multiple instructional dynamics
+
Discussion centers on particular students,
interactions, classrooms
Particular Terms & Contexts
Clarifying Questions?
3 elements = Instructional Task
teachers
students content
task
With the person next to you, consider a lesson you enjoy teaching. Describe the task
in terms of the teacher’s role, the students’ role, and the content to be mastered.
A Framework of Instructional Conversations
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
Inquiry into Complexitie
s of Instruction
INSTRUCTIONAL RELEVANCE
DEP
TH
of
INQ
UIR
YLikely to
advance team learning about
effective instruction
Concepts Defined
HOW ~ Depth of Inquiry: The extent to which team discussion develops a line of thought that is constructively challenged so that the team’s understandings and practices are examined, developed, applied, and revised over time.
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
Inquiry processes build toward actions in the classroom
Depth of Inquiry: A Progression of Thought
REACTto business and relations
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
X
X
X
X
X
X
• Team introduces topics aiming to address quickly and moving on
• Social interactions• Quick decisions and updates• Independent tasks
Depth of Inquiry: A Progression of Thought
REACTto business and relations
Share Experiences - DESCRIBE
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
X
X
X
X
X
X
• Team introduces topics for possible exploration, discussion, or problem solving
• Shares recent experiences, perspectives, observations
• Distributes information and classroom practices / strategies
Depth of Inquiry: A Progression of Thought
REACTto business and relations
Build Understandings - EXAMINE
Share Experiences - DESCRIBE
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
X
X
X
X
X
X
• Team works to identify, disassemble, or disentangle the complexities of a topic
• Tries to understand aspects of concepts, practices, or information shared with the group
Depth of Inquiry: A Progression of Thought
REACTto business and relations
Build Understandings - CONSTRUCT
Build Understandings - EXAMINE
Share Experiences - DESCRIBE
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
X
X
X
X
X
X
• Team considers how ideas or options generated by the group might be applied going forward
• Generates or synthesizes criteria, priorities, theories, potential actions or solutions
Depth of Inquiry: A Progression of Thought
REACTto business and relations
Test Understandings – PLAN
Build Understandings - CONSTRUCT
Build Understandings - EXAMINE
Share Experiences - DESCRIBE
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
X
X
X
X
X
X
• Team specifies goals or develops explicit course of action
• Discusses how they will accomplish their goals
Depth of Inquiry: A Progression of Thought
REACTto business and relations
Test Understandings – PLAN
Build Understandings - CONSTRUCT
Build Understandings - EXAMINE
Share Experiences - DESCRIBE
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
X
X
X
X
X
XTest Understandings – MONITOR
• Team members bring results back to the team for follow-up discussion, revision, refinement, or inquiry
• Gauges impact of their actions and of their group processes
(remember this slide?)
Depth of Inquiry =
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
A Progression of Thought
Inquiry processes build toward actions in the
classroom
+Members test the boundaries
of current knowledge and practice
Constructive Challenge
Depth of Inquiry: Constructive Challenge
REACTto business and relations
Test Understandings – PLAN
Build Understandings - CONSTRUCT
Build Understandings - EXAMINE
Share Experiences - DESCRIBE
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
X
X
X
X
X
XTest Understandings – MONITOR AND to what
degree does the group constructively challenge its line of thought?
Depth of Inquiry: Constructive Challenge
REACTto business and relations
Test Understandings – PLAN
Build Understandings - CONSTRUCT
Build Understandings - EXAMINE
Share Experiences - DESCRIBE
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
X
X
X
X
X
XTest Understandings – MONITOR AND to what
degree does the group constructively challenge its line of thought?• check assumptions• question
interpretations• push back on ideas• play “devils’
advocate”• surface tensions • examine hypotheses• revise group processes• reframe
understandings
A Framework of Instructional Conversations
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
Inquiry into Complexitie
s of Instruction
INSTRUCTIONAL RELEVANCE
DEP
TH
of
INQ
UIR
YLikely to
advance team learning about
effective instruction
Clarifying Questions?
Think back to Ms. Sol
“We had a lively discussion on the medical marijuana topic. Students had lots to say and voiced many different opinions. I think they really understood the focus words and were using them fluently.”
What type of team discussion is likely to flow from this presentation?
Why?
Review the transcript from Ms. Sol’s classroom
• What sort of team discussion might follow Ms. Sol’s report out now?
• What avenues for Relevance in discussion are opened up?
• What avenues for Depth?• Your thoughts on the relationship between
observation data and the work of effective teams?
Team Talk & Word Generation
• To what extent do our team conversations currently tend to be Instructionally Relevant? Do we tend to gain a Depth of Inquiry?
• What factors may contribute to the Relevance and Depth of our current conversations?
• How might participation in WG bolster the Relevance of our conversations?
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
• How might it bolster the Depth?
Checking WG Conversations
Are we building a team-level knowledge about WG?
Are our conversations examining connections among teachers, students, and content?
Are our conversations specific enough? Are our conversations based in data, student work, rich and detailed observations?
Are we digging in to analyze, problem solve, and act in the classroom so that we learn from our classroom efforts?
Are we challenging our assumptions, ideas and decisions?
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
References
Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 421-455.
Cohen, D. K. & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement. University of Pennsylvania: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Cohen, D. K. & Ball, D. L. (2001). Making change: Instruction and its improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 73-77.
diPardo, A. (1999). Teaching in common: Challenges to joint work in classrooms and schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Horn, I. S. (2010). Teaching replays, teaching rehearsals, and revisions of practice: Learning from colleagues in a mathematics teacher community. Teachers College Record, 112(1), 225-259.
Ingram, D., Louis, K. S., & Schroeder, R. G. (2004). Accountability policies and teacher decision making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1258-1287.
Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 917-946.
Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913-945.
Little, J. W. (2007). Teachers’ accounts of classroom experience as a resource for professional learning and instructional decision making. In P. Moss (Ed.) Evidence and decision making (pp. 217-240). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Little, J. W. & Curry, M. (2008). Structuring talk about teaching and learning: The use of evidence in protocol-based conversation. In L. M. Earl & H. Timperley (Eds.) Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement (pp. 29-42): Springer.
Little, J. W. & Horn, I. S. (2007). ‘Normalizing’ problems of practice: Converting routine conversation into a resource for learning in professional communities. In L. Stoll & K. Louis (Eds.) Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth, and dilemmas (pp. 79-92). New York: Open University Press.
Marzano, R. J. & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Newmann, F. M. & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring. A report to the public and educators by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Board of Regents.
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]
ReferencesSaunders, W., Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (2009). Increasing achievement by focusing grade-level teams on
improving classroom learning: A quasi-experimental study of Title 1 schools American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1006 - 1033.
Supovitz, J. A. (2002). Developing communities of instructional practice. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1591-1626.
Supovitz, J. A. & Christman, J. B. (2005). Small learning communities that actually learn: Lessons for school leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(9), 649-651.
© 2012 Susan F. Henry, [email protected]