Collaborative Action Research

for Professional Learning Communities

Next Steps Narrative
EDLD 621X: Research Design








Sarah Clutter, Jeff Jackelen, Liz McKeone Peterson, & Zach Prax
Summer 2014


After reviewing the rubrics and audit forms for each of the four micro-units that
make up our school, it is apparent that the micro-units vary in their abilities to effectively
facilitate the PLAN-DO-STUDY-ACT cycle. We, the administrative team, can take some
specific actions to ensure that the Habits of Inquiry are part of each micro-units professional
work.

CHAPTER NINE
The micro-units, in general, are implementing in the areas of articulating team norms,
building consensus, and managing conflict. All of the micro-units have developed norms
(Artifact A-1), but not all of the norms are well written or fully implemented. Further, none of
the micro-units routinely revisit and review their norms. These micro-units are talking the talk
but not walking the walk when it comes to establishing protocols for how they will treat one
another. To remedy this, it is imperative that the micro-units understand who they are and who
others are. Using an activity such as the color inventory (Artifact A-2) would allow team
members to view themselves and others in a new light. Additionally, team members must be
honest about what they value and expect in the professional learning community, and all team
members need to actively participate in a formal norms-setting process (Artifact A-3). From
these activities, we believe that the micro-units will find more value and power in establishing
and following team norms.
Building consensus is another area of growth for professional learning communities
within our macro-unit. After reading Learning By Doing, we know that these micro-units must
first articulate what consensus is and how they will achieve it, in order for learning to occur.
DuFour, DuFour, Eaker and Many (2010) wrote, Decision making is easier, more efficient, and
less likely to end in disputes about process when a staff has a clear operational definition of
consensus (p. 229). The micro-units in our school have not had direct conversations about when
and how to move forward with a proposal, so staff members will benefit from building shared
knowledge about consensus. We, as leaders, must establish a building-wide definition of
consensus, and we suggest that we use DuFours definition. In short, it is our job to ensure that
the micro-units have consensus about what consensus means.
Even more troubling than the lack of formal discussion on consensus was the reluctance
of members of these micro-units to confront one another. The vast majority of staff members
seem to believe that being congenial is the same thing as being collegial; as such, conflict is
avoided, rather than embraced. However, a PLCs success is determined by the response to the
disagreements that inevitably occur (DuFour et al., 2010, p. 230). Therefore, we know that these
micro-units must become comfortable with dissonance, as it is in dissonance that change and
growth can occur. In order to help the staff embrace conflict, we propose that we first directly
acknowledge the difference between congeniality and collegiality (Artifact A-4). Then, we need
to provide tools and skills for PLCs to share dissenting views in a safe, trusting environment. We
hope that the emphasis on building knowledge and trust in the norm writing process will help
pave the way for this to happen. Additionally, some training on peer mediation or resources on
guided discussions might be helpful (Artifacts A-5 and A-6).
HABIT OF INQUIRY #1
In general, our macro-unit has done outstanding work in establishing a classroom culture
that is built on adherence to state and local standards. As a rule, the micro-units within our
building are in the process of either implementing or developing in regards to the indicators
found in Habit #1: Clarifying a Shared Vision of Success.
Each micro-unit in our building operates under a shared vision of what students ought to
be able to do and know at the end of each grade level in each content area; teachers consistently
discuss and modify expectations for student growth as they move up through grade levels.
Artifact B-1 is indicative of our Lower Schools English/Language Arts standards as it relates to
students in kindergarten through grade six. In each grade level, teachers have worked to
establish benchmarks and learning targets, as well as target vocabulary for several strands and
sub-strands of district and state teaching standards. There is no confusion in this micro-unit as to
which strands are taught in which grades, and because of that, vertical alignment of our teaching
goals are seamless. This culture of vertical alignment is pervasive throughout our entire
building.
Simultaneously, teachers within each grade level micro-unit have worked hard to
establish equally thorough treatment of content matter by establishing curriculum maps for how
standards are reflected in each unit of study. Because our teachers use curriculum maps, our
building ensures that each student receives the same instructional content, no matter what
classroom they learn in or educator they learn from. Artifact B-2 showcases a curriculum map
for our 10
th
grade United States History curriculum, establishing the skills and knowledge each
student will develop throughout each unit of study, while also showing how it adheres to the
state and district standards for that course. In addition, our micro-units use several common
formative and summative assessments, such as Artifact B-3 (a common assessment and rubric
used by all US History teachers to assess writing skills and content knowledge regarding the
Revolutionary War era) to further ensure the guarantee that students are meeting the same
standards, regardless of classroom or teacher.
Finally, teachers in our micro-units have established power standards; district and state
standards provide what seems to be an infinite array of knowledge and skills students must learn.
To combat the time crunch, our teachers have established what are considered to be the most
important standards are to serve as posts in which to base the content off of. Artifact B-4 is a
generated list of the power standards developed by teachers in our AP European History
curriculum. Understanding that less is more has helped our teachers to not get bogged down in
by the myriad of national, state, and district standards and instead helps our students excel in
more controlled skill sets.
While we have done good work as a building to clarify a shared vision of success, there
are still steps we can take to get even better at ensuring that we have a collaborative framework
in place to educate our students to the highest levels possible.
One immediate area to target growth is in our schools use of common assessments to
truly maximize student learning. Although teachers do use the same assessment occasionally
throughout a course, the results are not analyzed and the teaching strategies that promote success
are not identified. DuFour et al. (2010) note that one way we can encourage the discussion of
common assessment results analysis is by acknowledging that teachers may have stress regarding
the exploration of data (p. 86). While teachers are professionals, they are humans; and, humans
have very real and understandable human emotions that could be fearful of exposed weakness. It
is important to acknowledge and mitigate those emotions that can often get in the way of true
collaboration. Indeed, our school will take steps to completely remove results analysis from
evaluation processes and ensure teachers that positions are not on the line when trying to identify
best teaching practices.
Further, our school will work to completely change the nature of assessments. Rather
than being an indicator of mastery, we must turn assessments into an instrument to reach higher
success. Rather than seeing test scores be the primary focus of our building, they ought to
instead indicate how well we are educating all of our students they must become, in the words
of DuFour, a means to an end. Increasing scores without improving learning leads to bad
policy decisions, and it is imperative that we use assessment data as tools to improve rather than
having them define in totality how good we are as an institution of learning.
The needed mindset shift of assessment data gets to the most important goal we can make
in regards to clarification of a shared vision of success: we must work more to adjust curriculum
based on the data we are gaining. Rather than seeing our curriculum as a static creation, we must
become more open to adapting our curriculum maps throughout the year to account for success
rates in data, rather than using the data to make changes to curriculum during the summer. When
we make our curriculum more responsive and individualized for students, we will truly be able to
excel.
HABIT OF INQUIRY #3
Currently in Habit of Inquiry Number 3, our school has micro units on many different
levels. We have some that are very low and on the Pre-Initiating or Initiating levels. There is one
team on the Implementing phase, as well as one at the Sustaining stage.
As noted in Habit of Inquiry #1, our micro-units are on their way to developing a
common curriculum of essential learning. With the team at the Implementing phase, the group is
using surveys from students to guide their decision-making, which is evidence of students as
users of data. To further demonstrate that, Artifact C-1 asks students to evaluate themselves in
order to determine if they are on track to graduate. They are also using some input to evaluate in
terms of data. Finally, the group does spend time going over their students ACT test data. In
taking a look at the team progressing at the Sustaining stage, they are very effective in terms of
using all students data to adjust their teaching strategies or methods. An example of this would
be in Artifact C-2, Analyzing a Common Assessment. This document clearly states how a PLC
group would examine an assessment to ensure the quality for teachers. It even includes a part
where student responses are analyzed to check that the assessment is hitting its purpose and
students are learning. For this PLC group to have this document proves that they are slightly
ahead in this journey of team collaboration.
Teams on the higher end of the progress spectrum tended to have many forms of common
assessment. However, they need to analyze them on a consistent basis. For example, in looking
at the ACT information, there are many different forms of the data. The team needs to examine
the results and assess how the information can help students plan out their last year of high
school. Another step towards improvement these teams can take is to create more opportunities
to observe each other while using the common assessments. Even developing a lesson study
format where the team of teachers is taking the time to observe each other teaching that common
assessment. By discussing the results of these observations, the team can gain valuable insight on
instructional approaches that were effective. Not only is this a great reflective practice for teams
to use, but it also builds trust amongst the group as judgments are put to the side and the team
can focus on getter better overall. Finally, celebration has to be a part of the equation as well for
this team to improve. Our school would spend the time internally looking for teams that are
using effective common assessments and ways they can be recognized. Not only allowing the
team to feel those great moments of progress but to also show other teams excellent examples of
how collaboration is key to significant student learning.
HABIT OF INQUIRY #4
In Habit of Inquiry Number 4 our school has micro units at initiating, implementing and
developing stages. The groups at the very beginning of this process have very little evidence of
work being shown in this area. In fact, it is limited to just examining school and state assessment
data, as shown in Artifact D-1. Another team may have common formative assessments, rubrics
or anchor papers, but didnt use the results to reach consensus regarding what teacher is using
successful strategies.
Teams that are further along in Habit 4 do have more work shown. This would include
Artifact D-2, where school counselors have charted and organized data from a parent survey,
allowing them to examine the results. It would also include Artifact D-3, in which a document
has been created for PLC groups to create or use data to guide or modify instruction. Finally, the
group that is furthest along in Habit 4 requires teachers to file electronic reports for any failing
students every two weeks. An example of this document is in Artifact D-4.
It is the responsibility of our school to move all these teams forward and try to progress
within Habit 4. In starting with the teams at the initiating phases, PLC groups need to analyze
more data than just the school and state assessments. Test scores should be an indicator of our
effectiveness in helping all students learn rather than the primary focus of the institution
(DuFour et al., 2010, p. 88). If teams are creating high quality common assessments and
evaluating student responses or data on a regular basis from those assessments, teams have a
better chance at addressing the essential skills and learning that students really need.
With the other teams at our school, many great tools are in place already that PLC groups
are using. However our school can assist teams to improve in different ways. First of all, teams
will develop norms for sharing data. This allows groups to set a very structured, focused method
of going over student information. An example could be to start the discussion by having
everyone look at the data briefly and then each teacher would record observations and questions.
After categorizing the observations and questions, the group can discuss and come to
conclusions. Meticulously looking at data can be an overwhelming process for anyone. Providing
structure for the PLC groups alleviates some of that pressure. Another concept our school will
implement is to allow more time for data to be discussed, for example, offering more
professional development time that is solely committed towards teams just analyzing and
discussing data. This also further emphasizes the importance our school places on data and how
we use it. Another area our school will focus on would be providing teachers or teams with
online tools that can better organize or chart data and its results, much like was used in Artifact
D-4, with Google Forms.
HABIT OF INQUIRY #5
The current reality at our school of each micro-units implementation of Habit 5: Using
Informed Team Action Planning ranges from initiating to developing. Some micro-units have
not yet developed SMART Goals or action plans at all, while others recognize SMART goals as
an essential element of their collaborative team process and have established processes to
monitor their progress. DuFour et al. (2010) emphasize that, there is nothing more important in
determining the effectiveness of a team than each members understanding of and commitment
to the achievement of results-oriented goals to which the group holds itself mutually
accountable (p. 172). It is also important that SMART Goals be linked to school and district
goals, as this is an essential tool for developing strong collaborative teams and increasing student
learning.
In order to build consistency in our schools collaborative teams, each micro-unit should
work together to establish SMART goals that reflect the importance of high levels of learning for
all students. The teams should be provided with a reference sheet similar to SMART Goals
Made Easy! (Artifact E-1). Teams that are in the initiating stage of SMART Goals should refer
to the first three pages on steps to writing a SMART Goal, templates for SMART Goals, and
frequently asked questions. Teams that are in the developing stage should revisit their SMART
Goals and refer to the checklist on page three to ensure that their goals are in line with the
recommendations and make any necessary adjustments. It is important that all teams, once
SMART Goals have been established, have a series of short-term goals to monitor their progress.
Teams should also find ways to celebrate progress along the way, as this helps sustain the
improvement process.
A crucial element of Habit 5 is creating systematic interventions for students who are in
need of extra time and support of learning. All members of each micro-unit at our school need to
be involved in this process to ensure that students are learning at high levels which is directly
related to the SMART Goals created by each unit. The micro-units at our school again range
from initiating to developing in this regard. In the elementary grades, interventions take form as
pull outs from class or referrals to a child study team. In grades 9-12, one micro-unit has time
scheduled during the school day during 8th period on Wednesdays for students to get extra
assistance or to work on extensions of their learning (Artifact E-2), but it is not used effectively.
One micro-unit does not have time scheduled during the regular school day for interventions or
extensions; as such, students are invited, rather than required, to utilize the system of support.
According to DuFour et al. (2010), the priority in designing our schedule should be ensuring we
have access to students for the intervention during the school day in ways that do not deprive
them of new direct instruction in their classroom (p.109). Therefore, it is important that moving
forward, our school not only have the time set aside for interventions during the school day, but
that students are required to utilize them.
Our school has developed a Pyramid Response to Interventions, which indicates tiered
levels of support for students in the building (Artifact E-4). Students who require interventions
beyond what can be expected in the classroom are referred to a Teacher Assistance Team
(Artifact E-5). The team consists of the grade-level administrator, counselor, social worker,
school nurse, chemical health specialist and the school psychologist. The team reviews the
information given by teachers and the student and the intent is for proactive, monitored, directive
interventions to be put in place for the student using the Intervention Portfolio (Artifact E-6).
The extent to which these interventions are monitored varies. Our Teacher Assistance Team will
collaborate with staff members from other PLC teams to revisit the Pyramid Response to
Interventions and the current TAT referral process. The team will also address the system in
place for accessing and utilizing the Intervention Portfolio and take steps to ensure that the
interventions are being proactive, monitored, directive and fluid. The team should use the
Questions to Guide the Work of Your Professional Learning Community (DuFour, et al., 2010,
p.113) to guide their discussion (Artifact E-7).
As an administrative team, we believe that these next steps will be vital to the
collaborative action research that will actively engage our staff members in the PLAN-DO-
STUDY-ACT cycle. Moving forward with these strategic plans is critical for our macro-unit to
become a high-functioning Professional Learning Community where there is learning for ALL.
References
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning By Doing: A Handbook for
Professional Learning Communities at Work. Bloomington, IL: Solution Tree.