Save the Last Word for Me

A protocol for reflecting on a professional reading:

Save the Last Word For Me

 

Purpose:

To clarify and deepen our thinking about articles we read.

Roles:

Timekeeper/facilitator, who keeps the process moving.  The process is designed to build on each other’s thinking, not to enter into a dialogue.  Timing is important; each round should last approximately 7 minutes. 

Total Time: approximately 20 minutes.

The Protocol:

1.  Create a group of 3 participants.  Patty will facilitate and timekeep.

2.  Participants number off 1-3 and each silently identifies what s/he considers to be the most significant or provocative idea addressed in the reading.

3.  When the group is ready, NUMBER 1 identifies the point that s/he found to be most significant or provocative and reads it out loud to the group.  NUMBER 1 says nothing about why s/he chose that particular point.

4.  The other 2 participants each have 1 minute to respond to that idea.

5.   NUMBER 1 then has 3 minutes to state why s/he chose that point and to respond to his/her colleagues based on what s/he heard.

6.  The same pattern is followed until all three members of the group have had a chance to have “the last word.”

7.   (Optional) Debrief the content. In writing each participant completes the stem “I used to think………but now I……….”  Participants share how their thinking has changed.

8.  Debrief the experience.  Was this a useful way to explore the ideas in the text and to explore your own thinking?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

Stoplight Debrief

This strategy can be used to debrief collaborative norms, meeting behaviors or processes. I also use "stoplight" as a tool to reflect on action plan progress.

Debrief: Checking the Temperature

A go-to debrief is copied below. Its purpose is to take the temperature of the group and surface feelings about the work. Display four or five images (cartoons work well, too) and ask members of the group to select the one image that best reflects their feelings--about today's meeting, the work accomplished, the work ahead. If the group is large, share choices and reasons for those choices in two's and three's. Smaller groups can share round robin or popcorn style.

What, So What, Now What: A Data Analysis Protocol

Examining ERB Data: What, So What, Now What

Description: This protocol is intended to help us to make meaning from ERB data, determine implications for teaching and learning, and make recommendations for next steps or response.

Time: 45 Minutes.

Facilitator: Patty

Protocol:

            What

1.      Shannon will share the reports/data sets and tell us how to read the reports. (10 minutes)

2.      Team members will review the data silently and individually, noting questions, patterns, surprises—whatever stands out (10 minutes)

So What

3.      Team members will discuss their observations, which are recorded electronically or on chart paper. These questions frame the discussion: (15 minutes)

·         What observations can we make about the data ? What does the data tell us? (No judgment, no evaluation, just description. For example, over 90% of students scored above independent school norms in….)

·         What patterns do we see?

·         What stands out?

·         What changes are evident over time?

·         Were there any surprises? Unexpected results? Anomalies?

·         What does the data NOT tell us?

·         What questions does this data raise?

·         What does the data tell us about student learning or performance?

·         Are these results consistent with other data?

Now What

4.      The team members will discuss the implications for teaching and learning of the ERB Data. Recommendations and suggestions are recorded on chart paper or electronically.  These questions should frame the dialogue: (10 minutes)

·         How will we respond to this data? As a 7th grade team, what action will we take?

·         What are our next steps

·         What resources will we need?

 

 

Collaborative Assessment Conference

This protocol for examining student work was used by department chairs in a critical friends setting and was quite successful. 

The Collaborative Assessment Conference Protocol

 

Developed by Steve Seidel and colleagues at Harvard Project Zero

Adapted by Patty Butz

 

1. Getting Started (5 minutes)

•  Ann is presenting the student work but will say nothing about the context of the work
• The DCs will review the essay in silence, perhaps making brief notes about aspects of it that they particularly notice.

2. Describing the Work: What do you see? (5 minutes)

• DCs answer without making judgments about the quality of the work or their personal preferences.
• Ann does not participate.

3. Asking Questions about the Work (5 minutes)

• The facilitator asks the group, “What questions does this work raise for you?”
• DCs state any questions they have about the work, the student, the assignment, the circumstances under which the work was carried out, and so on.
• The presenting teacher, Ann, may choose to make notes about these questions, but she does not respond to them now--nor is she obligated to respond to them in Step 5 during the time when the presenting teacher speaks.

4. Speculating About What the Student Is Working On (5 minutes)

• The facilitator asks the group, “What do you think the student is working on?”
• Participants, based on their reading or observation of the work, make suggestions about the strategies, problems or issues that the student might have been focused on in carrying out the assignment.

5. Hearing from the Presenting Teacher (5 minutes)

• The facilitator invites the presenting teacher, Ann, to speak.
• The presenting teacher provides his or her perspective on the student’s work, describing what she sees in it, responding (if she chooses) to one or more of the questions raised, sharing the assignment and adding any other information that she feels is important to share with the group.
• The presenting teacher also comments on anything surprising or unexpected that she heard during the describing, questioning and speculating phases.

6. Discussing Implications for Teaching and Learning (5 minutes)

The facilitator invites everyone (the participants and the presenting teacher) to share any thoughts they have about their own teaching, children’s learning, or ways to support this particular child in future instruction.

7.  Debrief

Consultancy

I used this protocol with department chairs in the context of examining an assessment task that had not produced the results the teacher was expecting.

Abbreviated CONSULTANCY PROTOCOL

 

Description:

A Consultancy is a structured process for helping an individual or a team think more expansively about a particular, concrete dilemma or case study.

Time:   Approximately 20 minutes

Roles:  Presenter  (whose dilemma is being discussed by the group) 

Facilitator  (who sometimes participates, depending on the size of the group)

Critical Friends Group (who discuss the dilemma)

Steps:

1.    The presenter gives an overview of the dilemma. The presenter has brought a case study, student work, educator work, or other “artifacts.” There is a pause here to silently examine the work/documents.  The focus of the group’s conversation is the dilemma associated with the work. (5 minutes)

2.    The Consultancy group asks clarifying questions of the presenter—that is, questions that have brief, factual answers.     (3 minutes)   

3.    The group talks with each other about the dilemma presented.  (8-10 minutes)

           Possible questions to frame the discussion:

·        What did we hear?  

·        What didn’t we hear that they think might be relevant?

·        What assumptions seem to be operating?

·        What questions does the dilemma raise for us?  

·        What do we think about the dilemma?

·        What might we do or try if faced with a similar dilemma?   What have we done in similar situations? 

Members of the group sometimes suggest solutions to the dilemma.  Most often, however, they work to define the issues more thoroughly and objectively.  It is the group’s job to offer an analysis of the dilemma or question presented.   It is not necessary to solve the dilemma or to offer a definitive answer. The presenter doesn’t speak during this discussion, but instead listens and takes notes.   

4.   The presenter reflects on what s/he heard and on what s/he is now thinking, sharing with the group anything that particularly resonated for him or her during any part of the Consultancy.    (3 minutes)

 

Warm Up: Give One to Get One

This warm up is useful for activating prior knowledge and setting an expectation for active involvement. I used this strategy at the first full faculty meeting in August.

 

Give One to Get One

1.On a 4x6 card, write what you believe to be the primary purpose of curriculum mapping.

2.Stand up, move out, make eye contact with a person you don’t know well.

3.Share your belief and listen carefully to his/hers; ask clarifying or probing questions

4.Exchange cards; share your partner’s belief with a new partner. (repeat)

5.Form a group of 3 or 4 with those who have the same color index card and share what you learned from your partners. Look for patterns.

The Three A's Text Protocol

The Three A’s Text Protocol

 

1.    (5 minutes) Review Chapter 1, marking passages in response to the following three questions

·        What is an idea/s you strongly Agree with?

·        What is an idea/s you want to Argue with or question?

·        What one idea do you Aspire to?

2.   (10 minutes) Taking one A at a time, each group member identifies one thing they want to argue with, agree with and aspire to. Allow time to ask for clarification and to probe.

3.   (5 minutes)After the three A’s have been explored fully, talk with your group about how these ideas might affect the work of the Curriculum Leadership Team

     4.  Debrief the protocol

 

 

Stand Up Meeting

Stand-up Meeting

Reflection on Professional Learning

In this case I needed to bring a large group of teachers together (about 90 people) to reflect on learning from a conference. My goal was to structure meaningful conversations—and limit the meeting time to 20 minutes!

1.     This email was sent to all teachers 2 days in advance of the meeting so that everyone would arrive with a talking point in mind:

On Thursday we will gather in Snyder Gym to reflect on learning from the PAISTA Conference. Here’s what you need to know:

·         This “stand-up” meeting will start promptly at 3:30 and will be brief—20+ minutes.

·         Bring something to write with and I’ll give you something to write on. Or bring your mobile device.

·         Be ready to share your learning on one of the following topics:

o    A new idea or concept

o   A new teaching strategy

o   A reminder of something you already knew, but haven’t thought about or practiced in a while

o   21^st century skills

o   A “disruptive” concept or idea: not sure you agree, but made you think

o   A validation of something you do

o   An interesting person you met

o   A great idea for tech integration

2.    Spaced around the gym were large post-it notes displaying the 8 topics listed above. Also spaced around the gym were the numbers 1-15. Upon entering, teachers were given index cards in case they wished to make note of an interesting idea.

3.    Teachers were instructed to go to the posted topic about which they wanted to share; they were asked to form a circle and share their learning on this topic with an elbow partner (3 minutes). They were then instructed to turn the other way and share with another elbow partner (3minutes)

4.    Next they numbered off 1-15 and moved to the area of the gym displaying their number and formed a circle. Now, in a sort of jigsaw, they shared again with elbow partners on either side.

5.    DEBRIEF:

a.    Raise your hand if you had the opportunity today to talk with someone outside of your division.

b.    Raise your hand if you talked today with someone who was really excited about something they learned.

c.    “It’s been exactly 20 minutes—have a great afternoon.”

Charrette

The Charrette

 

Description:

The Charrette is a term and process borrowed from the architectural community.  Its purpose is to get feedback on and improve a work in progress.  A group, team or individual requests a charrette when one or more of the following conditions exist:

·         The group is experiencing difficulty with the work

·         A roadblock has been reached

·         Additional minds (thinkers new to the work) could help move it forward

Process:

1.         The presenting individual, team or group presents its “work in progress” while the critical friends listen (5 minutes)

2.          Critical Friends ask clarifying questions (5 minutes)

3.        The presenters state what they need or want from the charrette, thereby focusing the discussion.  The focus is usually in the form of a specific request, but it can be generic (“How can we make this better?”  “What is our next step”)

4.        The critical friends discuss while the presenters listen and take notes.  The emphasis is on improving the work, which now belongs to the entire group.  The atmosphere is one of “we’re in this together,” and our single purpose is “to make a good thing better.”  (10 minutes)

5.        After the critical friends have finished discussing the work, the presenters briefly summarize what was gained, thank their critical friends—and go back to the drawing board! (5 minutes)

6.        DEBRIEF: How well did this protocol work for the presenters and the rest of the group? How  does it compare to other protocols (5-10 minutes)

The keys to a successful charrette are these two fundamental beliefs:

·     Individuals or groups working together can usually produce better work than individuals or groups working in isolation

·    There is no piece of work that with more time, thought and effort couldn’t be improved (“with learning there is no finish line”)
 

Focusing Four

Use this tool for helping groups narrow options in a brainstorming process.

 

Focusing Four

Brainstorm: Generate ideas. Follow the rules for brainstorming, being especially careful not to debate or discuss any idea

Clarify: Members can ask questions to help them understand any idea which is unclear. Again, be careful not to debate or discuss….just ensure that everyone understands what the author of each item meant (During clarification, it may emerge that two ideas are the same; those ideas may be synthesized at this time.)

Advocate: Any member can speak in favor of any idea. Do not, however, speak AGAINST an idea.  If an idea is clearly not viable, then perhaps no body will advocate for it, but don’t waste time discussing why it won’t work.

Survey: It’s time to find out the members’ preferences, their level of support for each of the ideas.  If the list needs to be narrowed down, ask everyone to indicate their top 5 (or 6 or 8) preferences. You can use raised hands or dots to indicate preferences.  After the results are up and visible, go down each idea and ask the group’s permission to eliminate those with little or no support. Once the list is reduced, you may need to determine the level of support for each idea using the five finger method.

 

 

Say Something

This is a text-based protocol that can be used with a 2-3 paged text that has not been read ahead of time.

Say Something

Purpose:

·         Support individual learning by promoting short reflection at specific points throughout the reading of an article of professional interest.

·         Promote attentive listening and respect for the ideas of others

Roles:

Facilitator, who chooses the reading and designates the stopping points.  The process is intended to clarify thinking through individual reflection, not to enter into a dialogue. 

Total Time: 15-20 minutes.

The Protocol:

1.     Form pairs.

2.    Read silently to “stopping point” designated by the facilitator

3.    When each partner has finished reading up to the “stopping point”, stop and “Say Something” to one another (a question, a brief summary statement, a key point, an interesting idea or a personal connection).  Listen attentively but do not respond to what your partner says.

4.    Continue until you have completed the process of “Saying Something” to one another at each stopping point throughout the entire reading selection.

5.    As partners, find one main point in the reading that you want to highlight to the group. 

6.    When everyone is done reading, each team shares its special learning with the group.  Group discussion around these points can occur.

7.    Debrief the experience.  Was this a useful way to explore the ideas in the article and to explore your own thinking?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

Histomap

A process that enables group members see how we arrived at the current state. Adapted by Patty Butz from The Adaptive School by Bob Garmston and Bruce Wellman.

Histomap

 

Purpose:

·         To develop a shared perspective about what led to the current state of the curriculum-instruction-assessment system.

·         To orient new faculty and school leaders

·         To create a data display that helps us understand past patterns and gather lessons about what changes have worked and what failed – what “drivers” have created past successes

This “history map” will be a timeline of critical events in the life of the Curriculum Instruction and Assessment system. It is the story told by the current school leaders and their collective rememberings. Create the timeline on a large role of butcher paper and attach to a wall.

Steps:

1.     Review the purpose of the exercise.

2.    All team members write on the timeline, or “eras,” events, people, groups, initiatives, ideas, changes, internal or external forces that impacted the curriculum, instruction and or assessment in either a positive or negative way. Positives at the top of the chart; negatives at the bottom.

3.    What can we learn from the Histomap?

 

Debrief Dialogue

The debrief might include some of these questions:

·         Where was the “highest high” and the “lowest low”?

·         What “drivers” created successful change?

·         Where are the roots of our current challenges and opportunities?

·         What needs to be left behind? What needs to be brought forward?

·         What implications does the past have for how we move into the future?

 

Other Possible Applications:

When there is a split between “old guard” and “new guard.”

When a group is continually “stuck”

When a group must begin to radically redefine their preferred future