“We all need people who will give us feedback. That’s how we improve.” Bill Gates
Despite the constant stream of new strategies and techniques that the education world is flooded with, it is very rare for these new strategies and techniques to significantly improve either the teaching or the learning.
This is because these strategies and techniques are imported from outside the classroom and not personalised to a specific group of students or a specific group of teachers. Thus teachers are
- never quite sure exactly what to do to connect these strategies to the every-day personal practical teaching and learning dilemmas in their classrooms.
- isolated within their own classrooms with no follow up or provision for the regular mutual collegial support that leads to what Peter Senge calls a learning organisation; “a place where people continually expand their capacity to create the results that they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together.”
- encouraged to micro manage, focused on a part, rather than look for overall strategies and interlocking, mutually supporting practices.
One proven way of avoiding all this and, at the same time working toward a learning community, is through collaborative teams using systemic inquiry. When this is done the focus goes beyond curriculum delivery to the search for continuous on the job learning, aimed at continuous improvement.
To make this possible the administration must put in place structures that provide for
- time,
- a working culture where it is safe to explore and assess instructional strategies and practices through collegiality,
- routine procedures/rituals to expedite this,
- a senior member of the administration taking a personal interest,
- Not only does this give added status to the activity, but more importantly any manager who does not know what is going on at the work bench (in this case the classroom) is at risk.
- Most principals benefit greatly from participation in the collaborative team process. It keeps their feet on the floor.
Such an approach benefits both teachers and the students.
AN ACTION PLAN
Starting the cycle
Formal groups of no more than six and no less than four are established to reflect on stories from the teachers’ own classrooms. The aim of these stories is to capture the very essence of teaching and learning at the grass roots. Then through group reflection, increase the personal practical knowledge of each teacher.
Regular sacrosanct time-tabled slots for these meetings are non-negotiable. Research on collaborative group work has found that the optimum meeting time is thirty minutes, extended to 45 minutes if the flow warrants it – but no longer. Optimum frequency of the meetings is fortnightly.
The topic to be discussed must be a big picture topic that will provide for long term involvement that may last years. Other requirements must be a degree of motivation, a degree of difficulty that challenges, and relevance to day to day classroom activities.
Depending on the idiosyncratic nature of the group and the school aims and objectives, initially a command decision from the designated administrator may be required to nominate the topic. If the school is about to embrace an innovation such Flipping or Mindset the general topic would be obvious. If it is a broader view such as literacy, a specific sub set such as Close Reading may be needed to provide focus and through that precision and accuracy.
A command decision has the disadvantage of the group not initially owning the project. However because it is their own personal opinions and experiences that are central to the action – the reflection – there is still opportunity to ensure the reflection is relevant, practical, in the moment and therefore owned.
First group session
This ownership is further enhanced when the group undertake their first task which is to bring to the first meeting a narrative story from their classroom which is relevant to the topic and present it to the group. To add punch the incident ideally should be one that pleased, distressed, or puzzled. As a general guide, the reading time for these must be no longer than two minutes (strictly enforced) and presented in narrative form.
A selection process follows to decide what aspects of the stories are to become the basis of the next several months’ discussion. There are many ways of doing this but a strategy that gets the group immediately active, as well as interactive and working interdependently, is ideal. Brainstorming does this. The topic needs to be broad such as, “What did I find of interest in the stories.”
Guidelines are an absolute for this to encourage/demand precision and accuracy and an interdependent collegial culture.
- Total time for the brainstorm is restricted to two minutes. This will cause the circle members to understand that urgent, quick-fire response is demanded.
- No value judgements – positive or negative, verbal or non-verbal, or anything else that may blunt any group member’s contribution.
- There are no bad ideas. Wild or different ideas open up otherwise unknown possibilities.
- A scribe records all the topics and carries on to keep broad minutes for the rest of the discussion.
After the brainstorm discussion follows to locate common strands or categories across all the stories. This needs to have a time limit too. Six minutes is long enough in order that urgency is maintained but longer may be fine if the flow warrants it. The aim here is to go from the particulars of the individual stories to the bigger picture where issues are more universal.
Guidelines are needed here too, in order that no one person can monopolize the conversation/discussion.
- Each person must speak at least once, initially by strict rotation, even if it is just to agree with another’s comment. Over time this provides the fertile ground for some participants to find their voice. Everyone’s voice counts.
- No one may talk for more than one minute. This has the effect of having the teachers think about what they want to say in order to be more effective.
For more detailed requirements and a progressive path see Facilitating Learning through Collaborative Groups, Teachers Matter issue 22.
The final stretch of this first session is to select, through consensus, which of the newly created categories will become the focus over the next several months. A back up can also be used – plan B – in case the first choice causes the group to dry up.
The scribe completes summary minutes.
Immediately afterwards, whoever is the facilitator adds to these minutes an overview of the procedure for the following sessions. One proven option is asking these three organising questions in order. Therefore the proceeding sessions would examine:
- Why did this happen?
- What does this mean?
- What are the implications for future teaching and learning?
By knowing what is to happen in each session each person has time to reflect, albeit informally and at first spasmodically, on the previous session. Members’ thinking then has time to morph into so much more than was originally imagined. Deeper learning is thus advanced.
Procedures are best when they become rituals. Thus, each of these three questions and the three sessions in which they will be deliberated on, follow the same basic procedure each fortnight as in session one: brainstorm, categorise, and select one category for next time.
On completion of this cycle, the chosen implication for teaching and learning must be tried immediately in the classroom. This practical test will become the basis for the next cycle in a fortnight’s time, when the participants will tell their story, as they did in session one.
Continuing the ritual
The above reflective cycle modelled on Art Costa’s concept of feedback spirals is designed for continuous ongoing learning. Therefore there is no end to the spiral. Having completed one cycle, the start of the next has been seamlessly reached.
A lack of transparency can hinder, especially if the students, the customers, are sidelined.
There is a rich source of data to be tapped here. By publically displaying abbreviated circle minutes where both teachers and affected students can view them, diverse, random feedback from informal chatter is added to the potential pool of data. Interdependent thinking is developing. When this happens it is clear that a learning organisation, as described by Senge, is establishing itself.
More than just a token or random student input is justified. Not only is their view possibly a fresh divergent one, but also a form of quality control either confirming or questioning the view of the circles. Such input can be generated by having the students keep a personal or class blog where they are required to write a weekly constructive comment about their view of the teaching and learning. These are for reading and noting, never for marking.
A long term commitment is needed: years rather than months. The approach described here is not for the trendy!