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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 1. Steering Committee Participants (including the first threeauthors)Pseudonym Professional position(authors‘ realnames)Alina Director, Science and MathematicsEducation Resource Center atregional ―educational servicedistrict‖ (ESD)ArneDanDarDavidGinnyJohnJuliePRiSSM roleDistrict liaison andevaluation coordinator;leadership teamYear 1: Mathematics ―teacher on PLC facilitator, Year 1 inspecial assignment‖ from large local large district, Year 2 inschool district / Year 2: Math rural districtsspecialist, ESDDistrict science ―teacher on special District coordinator andassignment‖ from large local school facilitator, in large districtdistrictYear 1: Middle school scienceteacher and department chair / Year2: not on committeeAssociate professor, mathematicsand mathematics educationMathematics specialist fromregional ―educational servicedistrict‖ (ESD)Mathematics program specialist,district level positionYear 1: Mathematics specialist,ESD / Year 2: not on committeeFacilitator in large district,Year 1Grant co-lead; leadershipteamFacilitator, in mediumsizeddistrictDistrict coordinator andfacilitator, medium-sizeddistrictFacilitator for small, ruraldistricts Year 1Lisa Mathematics specialist, ESD Facilitator for small, ruraldistrictsPamScience and mathematics specialist,ESDAssistant professor, scienceProject director; leadershipteamGrant co-lead; leadershipTamara education teamTomScience specialist from a regionalESDFacilitator, in mediumsizeddistrictThe SC held 7-hour monthly meetings, usually at the university,during the targeted timeframe. The 12-member group was firsttogether at a 3-day retreat in June 2004. Prior to that, Tom, Ginny,and Julie were not involved, and after August 2005, Dar and Juliewere not members. Other people associated with the work of theproject occasionally attended meetings, including two localprincipals, internal evaluators, and other district personnel. Duringthis 22-month period, members also participated in three 2- or 3-day retreats to plan summer academies for the lead teachers. In fall2004, it was decided that up to half of each meeting would bededicated to our own inquiry and professional growth, and theremaining time would be spent on the ―business‖ of the project.PARTICIPANT CONTEXT: FORMATION AND EARLYDEVELOPMENT OF THE STEERING COMMITTEEWe began as a group of experts with a wealth of experience inteaching and a variety of experiences with providing professionaldevelopment. Some members had worked together on previousprojects; others did not know each other. After receiving thefunding in March 2004, the group began with six members: Alina,Dave, Pam, Tamara, Dar, and John. By May, job descriptions weregenerated. The first four of this group were charged with projectand grant oversight and became known as the leadership team. Thelatter two took on a (temporary) role of science or mathematicslead content instructor, with responsibilities for the teacherprofessional development activities at on-site teacher academiesand for working with soon-to-be hired facilitators.6 | P a g e
Between March and June the group grew, with the addition of fourfacilitators, a local principal, and an internal grant evaluator. InMay 2004, 12 people (not the steering committee) met andgenerated a list of norms. These served the emerging SC for a timebut were addressed more deliberately in fall 2004. For these firstfew months, the norms were more structural than cultural (Fullan,2000); in other words, they were a part of how we organized, nothow we operated. SC meeting notes from the May meetingrevealed a key question at the conclusion of this meeting: ―Who‘sleading/facilitating the facilitators?‖ As the composition of the SCstabilized during the subsequent month, this question would playan important role in shaping its direction. For example, meetingnotes also stated that, ―John would like to bring in Ginny and Tomto deliver professional development.‖ This was an intentional,further push toward teacher collaborative inquiry because Ginnyand Tom were emerging as regional experts in this area. It alsosignaled a redefinition of John‘s role from instructor to overseer ofdistrict facilitation, and it provided a model for supporting thefacilitation process in a specific district.To further refine benchmarks and project structures, a 2-day retreattook place in June 2004. It was here where the 12 core members ofthe SC first gathered, along with a few additional participants fromthe May meeting. Tom, Julie, and Ginny joined the group for thefirst time, Tom and Ginny to assist John in his region asfacilitators, and Julie to help Lisa in the facilitation of a group ofrural districts. The focus of this retreat was ―What is high qualitylearning and teaching?‖ and ―What is high quality professionaldevelopment?‖ It was here that the expertise of the differentindividuals began to be fully revealed and where structure began tomorph into decision and action. For example, Tamara led a sessionon developing a common vision for high-quality learning andteaching, during which time the group members initially put forthbeliefs and values and began to understand each other‘sperspectives, even beginning to negotiate a shared vision. Avisiting principal helped to keep our ideas grounded in the realitiesof the schools and districts. Alina emerged during the end of thismeeting as a consensus builder and organizer, summarizing andpublicly documenting discussions and decisions as the meetingprogressed. Ginny and Tom brought their expertise in collaborativeinquiry to the discussion, including the introduction of an earlierversion of Figure 1 and other resources about PLCs. It was duringthese discussions that our ideas about learning communities beganto take more concrete form. Ginny explained,I guess that at the beginning I really thought that my role, alongwith Tom, was to help this group to think about PLCs. We weren‘tinvolved in the original writing process and conception, and wewere brought in a little bit late, but there were these general ideasabout what they wanted to do. And what we understood was thatno one really had any experience in working with learningcommunities and we had a little bit of experience, and so they werebringing us in to help them to jump start them. Obviously as theyear progressed, everybody‘s knowledge and experiences grew andwe became less and less the experts on learning communities andmore, I think, just members of the group that have a lot of valuableexperiences to contribute.There were no protocols used for sharing ideas during this retreat,and some voices were more dominant than others. The jobdescriptions generated in early May began to blur as new personnelemerged and everyone took on responsibilities for planning andteaching at the upcoming August academy. However, from thebeginning, we adopted a metacognitive stance, intentionallyreflecting on the content of our collective work (supportingteachers doing collaborative inquiry in professional learningcommunity structures) and the nature of our group processes. Thisstance helped us notice the particulars of differing contexts andsensitized us to the need for flexibility (Putnam & Borko, 2000).7 | P a g e
Page 1 and 2: A Culture of CollaborativeInquiry:
Page 3 and 4: development activities can be isola
Page 5: middle of it.‖By placing teachers
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?