A Culture of Collaborative Inquiry: Learning to Develop and Support ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 1, adapted from Cohen and Ball (1999), Cohen,Raudenbush, and Ball , and Carroll, Moretti, and Mumme (2005),portrays the model used to describe the interactions amongclassroom practices, teacher inquiry, context, facilitation, andprofessional development. As depicted in the ―second circle‖ ofthis graphic, the focus of the teachers‘ discussions was some aspectof high-quality teaching and learning, as manifested across theirclassrooms. Over time, through dialogic and data-driven processes,an inquiry focus emerged. Because some members of each PLCduring Year 1 came from a different context (middle or highschool, mathematics or science), negotiation arose naturally overelements of teaching and student learning, including those thatmight be of common interest and significance to all. Similaractivity occurred at the school-based level after Year 1, with thelead teacher moving toward the facilitation role in the PLC.One key aspect of project structure, planned from the project‘sinception, was the facilitation of the teacher PLCs by a member ofthe SC (identified as ―leader‖ in the second circle of Figure 1).Facilitation was constructive, not directive; project staff wereintentional in supporting the teachers‘ ability to make decisionsabout their inquiry work. Specifically, in addition to providinglogistical support for organizational and meeting details,facilitators supported teachers in surfacing and negotiating beliefsand engaging in an inquiry cycle consisting of the development ofan inquiry focus and design, data collection and analysis, andsynthesis (Nelson & Slavit, 2007). Three sets of facilitators weredesignated to support all PLCs in one large suburban district, onemedium-sized suburban district, and among the teachers in foursmaller rural districts.All facilitators were members of the SC. The SC was ultimatelycomposed of district-level mathematics and science specialists,current or former middle school teachers, and universitymathematics and science educators. Descriptions of the individualmembers of the SC, as well as its formation and evolution, areprovided in subsequent sections. Occasionally, two different highschool principals participated on the committee, but thisinvolvement was not sustained. Like the teacher participants, eachmember of the SC had other full-time responsibilities in addition toPRiSSM. The overall planning of the SC meetings was conductedby a four-person leadership team (described later), but thefacilitation of the SC‘s PLC inquiry rotated among its members.As seen in the outer circle of Figure 1, the SC members mettogether to explore the focus of our own inquiry: facilitating thework of the lead teacher PLCs. In essence, although the teachersparticipated in collaborative inquiry on their own practice, we alsotook a collaborative approach to understanding our professionaldevelopment practices related to the support of the teachers.As stated above, PRiSSM was not designed to assist teachers inimplementing a specific curriculum or instructional technique, norwas it specifically focused on the development of contentknowledge. Rather, PRiSSM was designed to support teachers inframing questions about their practice, and then provide the time,intellectual, and material resources to support a collaborative,action research approach to these questions. In some sense,PRiSSM can be thought of as constructivist professionaldevelopment in which the teachers helped guide and control thecontent and direction of their learning in small groups, supportedby a facilitator (Stein et al., 1999). But like a teacher who respondsto an array of student ideas in a lesson, the SC met significantchallenges in developing and maintaining project structure andcoherence while providing support to the wide array of inquiry fociand approaches that emerged. Lisa, a member of the SC, voiced theuncertainties felt by many at the beginning of the project‘s secondyear: ―In the very beginning I was very concerned about how wewould do our work, there wasn‘t really a plan of how it would go,so it was learning by doing. . . . Gosh, we‘re still so much in the4 | P a g e
middle of it.‖By placing teachers in control of the direction of inquiry, thePRiSSM SC made a decision to work in murky, unstructuredterritory, with the ability to preplan only large, structural aspects ofthe project; preplanning the actual content (i.e., the teachers‘inquiry foci) was impossible. Hence, we adopted a PLC stance ofquestioning, negotiating, and co-constructing understanding aboutthe professional development support and impact. This researchexamines the implications of this decision on the professionaldevelopment support we provided and on our understanding ofteachers‘ experiences and challenges as they undertook PLC work.METHODOLOGYA narrative case study design was used to examine the evolution ofthe steering committee from its inception in March 2004 throughDecember 2005, halfway through the project‘s duration. The use ofnarrative is widely accepted for exploring teachers‘ lives, practices,and norms (Conle, 2003; Reissman, 1993; Ritchie & Wilson,2000). Although partly (auto)biographical and focused on storytelling,the use of narrative in teacher education transcends thesemore limited genres by focusing on storied landscapes or richdescriptions of teachers‘ reflective practice. Narrative is couchedin the supports and limitations of pertinent contexts and in thedialogical landscapes that abound in the daily lives of teachers(Clandinin & Connelly, 1996, 2000). Not only does theconstruction of teacher narrative allow for thick description ofindividual teachers and teaching contexts, but it can also be a toolfor shaping experience and promoting reflection on one‘s practice(Schon, 1991).Although teacher narrative abounds, very few narratives existregarding the manner in which professional developers designlong-term experiences. For these reasons, the authors sought todocument the history of our group and critically examine thedecisions, contexts, processes, and outcomes that constituted ourwork. As is the case in teacher narrative, we found this decision tobe one that would shape the processes and outcomes that emerged.The particular timeframe was targeted to explore thedevelopmental phase of the group, and critical events that shapedthe group structure and direction. The latter include the expansionof the committee from 6 members to 12 members, including theloss and replacement of two committee members as the projectmoved into its second year. In addition, the committee confrontednew challenges in fall 2005 as the project expanded from 10 PLCswith 45 lead teachers to 33 PLCs and 146 teachers.The research helps us understand how the SC constructed andsustained collaborative norms, processes, and sharedunderstandings relative to the goals and actions embedded in theprofessional development work, and what contexts hindered thisdevelopment. We also address how the SC used these collaborativenorms, processes, and shared understandings to support teacherleaders in the development of their own inquiry-based professionallearning communities.STEERING COMMITTEE PARTICIPANTSThe first two authors (Tamara and David) of this article werecollaborative partners (Merriam, 1998) in the research process. Wewere complete participants of the SC, and our identities asresearchers of the SC processes and structure were well known.The fourth author (Tom) was a science education specialist andmember of the SC who served as cofacilitator for six lead teacherPLCs. General descriptions of SC members are found in Table 1,and further descriptions are provided in the narrative.5 | P a g e
Page 1 and 2: A Culture of CollaborativeInquiry:
Page 3: development activities can be isola
Page 7 and 8: Between March and June the group gr
Page 9 and 10: frameworks developed over time by t
Page 11 and 12: studies of our own teachers emerged
Page 13 and 14: people only get to do for a year or
Page 15 and 16: embedded in the work (Brookhart & L
Page 17 and 18: gaps in the details also existed. M
Page 19 and 20: more important, her position of pow
Page 21 and 22: Our inquiry transformed our practic
Page 23 and 24: Even, R., Robinson, N., & Carmeli,

A Culture of Collaborative Inquiry: Learning to Develop and Support ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?