practices of effective teams. teams are effective when… they result in improvements to teaching...

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 sfh744@mail.harvard.e

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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

teachers

students content

Relevance

© 2012 Susan F. Henry, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

• 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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

Inquiry processes build toward actions in the classroom

Depth of Inquiry: A Progression of Thought

REACTto business and relations

© 2012 Susan F. Henry, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

• 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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu

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, sfh744@mail.harvard.edu