The use of protocols in Professional Learning Community meetings is essential to the continued growth and evolution of a school. Gains in student achievement depend on the learning and learning processes of the adults in a building. If we expect our teachers to differentiate for students we, as instructional leaders, had better differentiate for their learning styles. I believe that the appropriate use of protocols in PLC meetings do many things but most importantly they:
- reduce the threat of exposing yourself to the group and allow you to become vulnerable with colleagues
- increase risk taking behaviour and sharing through structured and formal practises
- allow for shared leadership as the facilitator is not the “Sage on the Stage” but simply the choreographer (there is nothing simple about it of course)
- engage all learners
- can be adapted by participants to be used with students of all ages
I refer to brainstorming in light of a recent Blog post on Education Innovation that I read weekly. The spoof “demotivation” poster (that I was sent years ago-prior to PLCs in our setting) below depicts the concepts behind ineffective PLC time the best I think. I am reminded of meetings my significant other would describe in one of her career settings. She laughs every time she views this poster and states, “It’s so true!” If we know this as educators and we know what makes the difference in PLCs why do we still revert back to old, less effective habits?
None of us is as dumb as all of us.
Recently I engaged a staff of Early Years and Primary teachers from 4 neighbourhood schools in the Interview Design and Dialogue Protocol to elicit as many consistent and common ideas around a battery of questions about the current state of balanced literacy in schools (I adapted a protocol form from Jon Saphier of Research for Better Teaching). More importantly was the form in which this process was done. There was chart paper, stickies and markers but this was secondary to the fact gathering phase which was done far more precisely and structured than traditional “brainstorming.” Using the design process we essentially eliminated any risk by engaging in one on one dialogue to start. The only stuff that made it to the chart paper (dialogue: the second to last phase) had been consistently communicated across the length of the interview phase.
Teachers in 4 groups of 8 heard 4 responses plus their own to the one question they asked. They then met in “like question groups” to discuss and chart the most common and consistent responses to the questions. An example of one question was: “What evidence of a balanced literacy approach exists in a classroom in our District?” 8 individuals asked this question 4 times and recorded the responses. 8 response pages with responses from 32 individuals became one side of a piece of chart paper. Talk about precision. Essential to the protocol was that once the question was asked all you were “allowed” to do was record. This was an interview and not a conversation.
I immediately thought of the above poster when I read the title (Dumber Together) off the Education Innovation RSS feed on my Netvibes page. While the intent of its inclusion is humour it has been true for me in limited instances. My goal as an instructional leader is to make this “demotivation poster” irrelevant. A reader @Education Innovation comments that the information presented is unsourced. Maybe . . . but haven’t we all been there before? If the answer is yes than why, when we take over the reigns, do we seem to perpetuate this form of Professional Learning. Brainstorming sessions can be effective. There must be a sound protocol to make them work for everyone however. I continue to work through the many protocols presented by the National School Reform Faculty in an effort to engage with adults in meaningful and unthreatening ways. As I stated earlier, gains in student achievement depend on the learning and learning processes of the adults in a building. I am dedicated to the use of protocols to make sure that each of us is as smart as all of us.
InterviewDesign from Jon Saphier at Research to Better Teaching
This very subject has been much on my mind these days. Spending two and half days a week in PLCs, I can tell the power that effectively developed protocols can have on the process. Just as students need their thinking focused, so to does the collaboration in the PLC. Great protocols and processes focus the thinking to generate better results.
It’s a natural progression.
great questions–>great thinking–>great solutions–>great results.
BTW, commented back with 7 research citations from the book “Group Genius” on the lack of effectiveness in typical group brainstorming sessions. Though we may feel like they are working well, the data seems to suggest otherwise. Further strengthens your point, that protocols are very necessary in PLCs.
Had the teachers from the 4 schools worked together before or was this protocol used with a group working together for the first time?
1/4 of the teachers had used this protocol during an earlier meeting. This was the very first time that this specific group of teachers had come together though. The feedback on the “before, during, after” slips was all positive though. While many expressed that before there was some apprehension about knowing the “right things to say” they felt that during and after their own ideas and instructional behaviours were validated, strengthened and “tuned.” The work was positive and quite structured. As facilitator I did have to keep everyone timed and on track. It was excellent.