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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The decision of the SC to formally engage as a PLC was made inlate summer 2004, and the negotiation of an inquiry question thatdrove the direction of the SC‘s work during the targeted timeframeslowly emerged, eventually becoming, “How can we foster andsustain a culture of collaborative inquiry?‖ The inquiry questionwas aimed at addressing our own needs as an emergent group andsupport the primary professional development goals of the project.At times, this question directed our focus toward understandingwhat it was like to work as a critically oriented, questioning groupexamining our own practice and making meaning of the dialogue,tools, and resources that we employed. At other times, thisquestion turned our focus to understanding and supporting theteachers‘ PLCs.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISTraditional qualitative data sources were collected and analyzed inthe construction of the narrative, including interviews, archiveddocuments, and video and audio recordings of SC meetings.Interviews of each SC member (including authors Tamara, David,and Tom, and excepting Dar, who was not available) provided anessential data source that grounded our analysis. Because theauthors were so immersed in the group from the beginning, we feltthat our interpretation of the committee‘s evolution and actionsneeded triangulation. The interview questions emerged from atheoretical framework focused on the negotiation of differences inknowledge, beliefs, and expertise. This theory presents threestances that people coming together in a partnership might assume:a stance of inquiry and knowledge negotiation; a stance ofconsultation (i.e., as experts conveying information and knowledgeto those less expert); or a stance of rejection, in which another‘sknowledge is seen as irrelevant or unfeasible and is discarded(Nelson, 2005). Knowledge negotiation is viewed as the stancemost likely to enable transformative, not just additive, growth. Theinterview questions afforded insight into SC members‘ perceptionsabout communication, perceptions of pressures and risks in SCparticipation, group functioning, how people‘s roles within thegroup and positions outside the group impacted or influencedgroup processes, various aspects regarding the evolution of theproject and impact on teachers, and what each learned fromparticipation in this group.The interviews were conducted in Fall 2005 (excepting Julie‘s,conducted in early 2006) by Mart (a research assistant and the 3 rdauthor of this article) to better ensure each participant‘s comfort inresponding to the questions. Mart also conducted the initialanalysis of the interview transcripts, using a separate data table foreach question and identifying themes across each participant.These themes were further synthesized by the authors; majorthemes included the notion of a common vision for teaching andlearning in mathematics and science as well as for professionaldevelopment; the use of data to make decisions about professionaldevelopment activities and facilitation moves; sharing leadershiproles in a PLC; how to work as a learning community; the role ofcontent knowledge in the professional development activities aswell as in the teachers‘ PLC work; and links between PRiSSM andother school and district initiatives.These themes were then also used as an analytic framework withother data. Documents provided a significant record of the SC‘sactivities, decisions, and processes, and also revealed the history ofthe committee‘s decision to engage in our own collaborativeinquiry. Documents included meeting minutes taken by adesignated SC member and meeting notes taken by the first twoauthors. A variety of handouts distributed during meetings werealso used, including case studies developed by facilitators, recordsof lead teacher PLC meetings, facilitator‘s quarterly reports aboutteacher PLCs, protocols used for various purposes (such asstructuring dialogue around a piece of data), lists of collaborativenorms, and project goals. Various diagrams of conceptual8 | P a g e
frameworks developed over time by the SC were also analyzed. Ananalysis of e-mails posted on the project e-mail list, as well asselected personal e-mails between committee members,contributed to filling in the record of work done between meetings.Beginning in September 2004, all SC meetings were audio and/orvideo recorded. The sections of audiotapes that recorded the groupengaged in inquiry (as opposed to the ―business‖ of projectmanagement) were transcribed. These transcripts and the tapesthemselves allowed the authors to step back from completeparticipation (Merriam, 1998) and make analytical observations ofthese events.Through this systematic process, general themes were collapsedinto three overarching categories: Critical decisions and tensions inthe functioning of the group, collaborative structures thatsupported an inquiry stance, and areas of ongoing negotiation. Thesignificance of this research emerges from these three categories.Although Tamara and David are the predominant voices of thisnarrative, member checking was done with the full SC, andespecially with Mart (an ongoing participant observer in her role asresearch assistant) and Tom, to ensure their agreement with thesefindings.FINDINGSThe steering committee had a major task to undertake: developingand implementing a 3-year professional development project formathematics and science teachers in 22 schools. As such, our PLCinquiry was organic and necessarily action oriented. Thesubsequent narrative includes numerous problems, conflicts,frustrations, and missteps. But overall, the SC appears to havefunctioned as a collaborative learning community. Our groupstructure was more than a collection of individuals, each with hisor her area of expertise, who came together, yet workedindividually, to accomplish a task. Instead, we developed aninquiry stance that supported questioning of and reflection on theimpact of our decisions and actions on the PRiSSM teachers in acollaborative manner. What we learned from this reflection fedback into an inquiry cycle, informing our next decision-makingprocess.In the next sections, we discuss critical decisions and tensions thatshaped the SC‘s understandings of and work toward achieving thePRiSSM project goals. Then, the collaborative structures thatsupported the development and sustenance of an inquiry stanceamong SC members are examined. Additionally, three criticalareas of ongoing negotiation and growth are identified within theSC: the development of a shared vision of high-qualitymathematics and science teaching and learning, the constantrenegotiation of avenues of communication and voice, and thenegotiation of shared leadership. Finally, the implications lookbeyond the particulars of the SC to examine how the findings ofthis research can be used to support professional developers andteacher leaders in the development of their own inquiry-basedprofessional learning.CRITICAL DECISIONS AND TENSIONS IN THEFUNCTIONING OF THE GROUPThe SC‘s adoption of an inquiry stance toward the work of theprofessional development project was not a predetermineddecision. That this emerged after the first summer academy was acritical decision that shaped the further professional developmentof the committee and our subsequent actions in relation to thePRiSSM project. The following is an examination of the manner inwhich we initiated and conducted our inquiry, the activities weused to advance our ability to collectively learn from the process,and how this translated into our work with teachers. A tensionbetween ―doing inquiry‖ and getting done what became known as9 | P a g e
Page 1 and 2: A Culture of CollaborativeInquiry:
Page 3 and 4: development activities can be isola
Page 5 and 6: middle of it.‖By placing teachers
Page 7: Between March and June the group gr
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?