Collaborative Team Building

When a school begins to form collaborative professional learning teams, it would help to facilitate the process if they understood the stages of team development.  As teams move through the process they can feel a sense of accomplishment and also know they are progressing.  However my school based professional development committee has not yet met, and when they do it will not be a professional learning committee with job-embedded learning.  This committee is of an advisory nature and makes recommendations.  On that basis alone it could become a valuable vehicle through which true PLC’s can be developed.  

Bruce Tuckman identified four stages of team development and Killion and Roy (2009) state that by understanding these stages, teams may accelerate their development (p. 131).  The first stage is Forming.  This is simply the team forming, thinking about how they will participate, and their purpose (p. 131).  At this time, our school does support grade level teams.  They have already completed the formation stage and they understand why they have been brought together.  With the changes in grades taught and the addition of new teachers, most groups are in the next stage.

The second stage of development according to Tuckman is storming.  In this phase members understand their purpose and there may be some conflict about beliefs, processes, or personal power in the team.  It is important that members recognize these conflicts and resolve them, perhaps as part of their shared vision of the group and as a shared goal.  Killion and Roy (2009) state that when teams “commit to work through these challenges, they move to the next stage of development” (p. 132).  It is this area where I see some of the grade level teams functioning.  As they jockey for position and establish unifying goals, this painful work will help bring them closer together to solve difficult issues and improve instruction.

The third stage, which some grade level teams may be currently, is called norming.  Norming, according to Killion and Roy (2009), is a team with “shared vision, goals, and commitment,” and they may also revisit and refine team agreements from the previous stages (p. 132).  This stage is important as members end conflicts and solidify their purpose as a group.  The team no longer sees themselves as individuals, they now see themselves as a team and they see the value that teamwork can bring them.  

The fourth and final stage is performing.  Killion and Roy (2009) recognize that in this stage, team members are highly productive they are committed to their shared goals.  In addition, “because there is synergy among team members, they find their work is easier when done collaboratively” (p. 132).  In fact, they find solving problems easier, more rewarding, and very productive at this stage.  I am currently not aware of a team in my school working at this level if there is one.  This stage is where the power of a collaborative group is felt and the ideal sought when they are implemented.  It takes hard work and dedication to reach this level but it is worth the effort of all members.

While collaborative teams are forming, it is also important to recognize and discuss important member capabilities.   Garmston and Wellman (2009) define these capabilities as the “metacognitive awarenesses with which people determine when to use, how to use, or not to use certain skills” (p. 27).  There are four identified capabilities.  The first capability is “To know one’s intentions and choose congruent behaviors,” and is described as “the source of impulse control, patience, strategic listening, and strategic speaking” (p. 28).  The second capability is “to set aside unproductive patterns of listening, responding, and inquiring,” and involves the “filtering process that goes on when individuals try to hear another’s story through the lens of their own experiences” (p. 28).  In this stage, too much sharing or asking for details may prevent the group from getting to the actual work of problem solving; it wastes precious time.  The third stage is “to know when to self-assert and when to integrate,” and means having the ability to discern when a member may assert oneself to “refocus the group on a top or on a process” (p. 29).  If a member were to integrate, they would “align their energy with the content and processes of the meeting,” and participate in decision making (p. 29).  Finally, the fourth goal is “to know and support the group’s purposes, topics, and processes, and development” and requires that groups balance three simultaneous agendas (p. 29).  Groups must attend to their “task focus,” which is the group’s purpose, they must attend to “process skills development,” and expand their skills to ward off stagnation, and finally they must also attend to “group development,” and their experience and performance will move from novice to expert (p. 29).  The complexities of group work requires continual self-talk and reflection, as well as group reflection, and making adjustments in one or both to keep a high level of performance.

 To improve my own value to a collaborative team, there are two capabilities I would like to attend to more closely.  The second capability, if more fully developed, would allow me to listen to the group’s problem without having to discuss my parallel experience.  Also, with active listening, I could discern the issue at hand and move forward without having to hash out all possible nuances.  I would help to prevent precious time being wasted on restating the known and understood.  Also, I would like to develop the capability to improve my ability to self-assert or integrate, which will also assist in moving items and honoring time constraints.  By helping the group to maintain their focus by voicing the purpose, or to move closer to consensus by integrating myself in a group decision, energy will not be wasted to needless debate.  Unfortunately, time is the gatekeeper of these meetings and must always be observed.

As my building moves towards more collaborative professional learning, it is important that all members recognize the development of their particular team.  As grade level teams meet, I hope to be an auxiliary member of every team.  In the early formation of these teams, the orientation stage, it would be helpful to acknowledge how members should move from thinking of “me” to thinking as “we.”  As Lee (2009) explains, the orientation stage of formation also includes individuals finding how they fit in the group and their purpose on the team.  Resolving purpose and accepting team-think is important for a stable base.

                Also, as teams move towards more productive work, they must also establish trust.  Each member’s voice must be heard and, as Lee (2009) states, “deserves equitable attention, respect, and consideration,” and even the voice that may differ from the rest deserves no less respect (p. 48).  For that to happen team members need to set meeting guidelines that all will respect.  In addition, trust and respect is worked towards as members learn about each other, their history, perspectives, and work styles; this will help to avoid conflict due to assumptions.  Asking direct questions is always best.

As the school begins their collaborative grade team meetings, I want to be included.  I want to make the process as smooth as possible, which means I would provide an introduction about myself, my history, and discuss what my role should be.  I would be observing mostly at first, and offer insight, or self-assert, when appropriate.  While working to build the trust of the teams, I in turn would be learning about them, their histories, individual roles, and where their team is in the development cycle.  In the end I hope to be a powerful tool or resources to help teachers solve some of their most pressing problems.  I know it will not be easy and no two teams will be alike, but I believe I can contribute in positive ways, and I am eager to begin.

References

Garmston, R. J., & Wellman, B. M. (2009). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing

collaborative groups (2nd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

Killion, J., & Roy, P. (2009). Becoming a learning school. Dallas, TX: National Staff

Development Council.

Lee, G. V. (2009). From group to team. Journal of Staff Development, 30(5), 44–48.

Supporting A Learning School

When considering the professional learning needs of my school, I also consider the district wide mandates that all the schools must adhere to as well. I think our school, and district, could benefit from investing more interest in standards based professional learning and targeted outcomes. Two outcomes in particular could make a significant impact on student learning. Specifically, using comprehensive, sustained, intensive professional learning and utilizing the evaluation of collaborative professional learning would deliver the results the school and district have always aimed.

Killion and Roy (2009) describe the outcome of comprehensive, sustained, intensive professional learning in a school in four key areas. These areas include effectiveness in raising student achievement, collective responsibility for student learning, team configuration for addressing goals for teacher and student learning, and frequency of professional learning per week. In addition, the evaluation of collaborative professional learning would help guide the efficacy of the professional learning on an ongoing basis and reveal areas in need of improvement. By working to improve these two outcomes, our school will move closer to the ideal of enhancing student learning through professional learning.

According to the National Staff Development Council, there are six levels on their rubric to measure schools as they try to improve their professional learning programs. Currently, our school, and probably the district as a whole, is at a level 4 for effectiveness. Killion and Joy (2009) describe level 4 as a school that is engaged in “short-term, intentional, professional learning focused on raising student achievement by improving teaching quality and leadership.” This would describe the literacy collaborative efforts to date. Unfortunately, other subject areas are not included in this type of professional development. Math, Science, Social Studies, and the arts have little to no sustained professional development, leaving them at the lowest level of 6. With some adjustments, and the addition of other subject areas, the effectiveness of professional learning could improve substantially. To help people connect with each other, I could make available digital tools to facilitate meetings for people at multiple sites.

Similarly, the collective responsibility for student learning is currently a level 3. Killion and Roy (2009) describe this as members working and learning together “so that each individual team member can improve the success of his or her students.” Yet, compared to a level 1 that states members “work and learn together sharing collective responsibility so that each individual and team contributes to the success of ALL students within the school,” we can see the responsibility of the individual move to a team of people. True collaborative efforts are not a singular effort and together people can effect powerful change. This team effort includes even those like me, in a technology role, who may have resources and ideas beyond what others may know is available.

In addition to working collectively, the actual team configuration is important as well. The ideal is to have met in a “variety of team configurations over time, addressing specific goals for teacher and student learning, including vertical and whole-school problem or topic-focused school improvement teams and grade-level department, or course teams with members who share common curriculum and/or students” (Killion & Roy, 2009). From my observations and experience, our schools are at a level 4 because we “Meet over time in a single team, addressing specific goals for teacher and student learning, school improvement, and student results” (Killion & Roy, 2009). This could be expanded to include more groups and team configurations; at the elementary level there are many types of groups to be found. In my role as a technology coordinator, I could help facilitate cross subject teams because I often times help plan lessons that bring multiple subjects together.

Then there is the frequency of the meetings. Ideally, a level 1 states “the meetings should take place several times a week within the school day for teacher collaborative team meetings and periodic whole-school collaboration” (Killion & Roy, 2009). The school and district is not far from this ideal, currently team meetings are scheduled to take place several times a week, but there is no whole-school collaborative process as well. This frequency is however skewed because there are no formal guidelines for the several times a week meetings and, to make matters more difficult, they are held during precious teacher planning times in which all manner of responsibilities must be tended to. The fidelity to the meetings is easily broken and other alternatives must be found to preserve the integrity of these meetings.

Finally, the area of ongoing evaluation of the professional learning process is necessary so that fidelity to the process as a whole is not sacrificed. With a comprehensive evaluation process, leadership will be able to identify the areas that need improvement and work to rectify the problems. Currently, the school and district is at a level 4, and they “Engage in ongoing evaluation using multiple sources of data to assess team results and operation” (Killion & Roy, 2009). To bring us up to the highest level of evaluation, team members and individual members’ contributions to teams would be measured, as well as how teams adjusted using individual input. I could assist in the evaluation process by making an online form so that data from it could be easily interpreted. Follow up on the results would be necessary to keep the process operation at the highest levels possible.

Standards based professional learning is a rigorous method to use to determine the effectiveness of educator learning. As in student learning, there are many elements that impact the development, implementation, and outcomes of professional learning. I look forward to helping my school become a stronger professional learning community in all the many forms and adaptations it may require to get there.




References

Killion, J., & Roy, P. (2009). Becoming a learning school. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.

Killion, J., & Roy, P. (2009). Tool 14.5. Companion disk to Becoming a learning school. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.

Standards. (2012). Retrieved September 21, 2013, from http://learningforward.org/standards#.Ukd5On_L43I 

Why Standards-Based Professional Learning?

Using standards-based professional learning is important for educators for many reasons. According to Learning Forward (2009), “The standards make explicit that the purpose of professional learning is for educators to develop the knowledge, skills, practices, and dispositions they need to help students perform at higher levels.” Standards for professional learning have the primary focus upon educator learning and what is needed to support those efforts whose primary goal is to increase student outcomes.


Two standards in particular are important in moving my school forward in their professional learning goals. The learning community standard maintains that professional learning that improves educator effectiveness and student outcomes happens within learning communities that share goals and responsibility for ongoing improvement. Another standard that has bearing upon my school’s success is in leadership. Learning Forward (2012) states that increased “educator effectiveness and results for all students requires skillful leaders who develop capacity, advocate, and create support systems for professional learning.” For teacher learning to move forward, having leaders in such a supportive role can make the difference between the success and failure of their efforts.


Community is important for many initiatives because members share the same goals and vision for progress. Killion and Roy (2009) observed that, “Schools in which teachers work in collaborative teams make steady progress towards improvement goals, have a clear focus, share goals, and produce results” (p. 30). According to current practices, district collaboration is not a true PLC (professional learning community). What is misunderstood, according to Killion and Roy (2009), is that PLC’s in and of themselves are not the goal of professional learning. They are, however, “the supporting structure for schools to continuously transform themselves through their own internal capacity” (p. 29). Educators in our school need to know this critical difference so they may find success in collaboration.


Similarly, transforming the leadership to support a true collaborative structure is imperative. The leadership standard states that leaders are supportive of professional learning in all ways. Beyond seeing that district mandates are followed, there are responsibilities to the building level educators. Killion and Roy (2009) identify important principal responsibilities. Leaders need to nurture teacher leaders, provide organizational support, set the expectations, schedule time, provide further training, review plans and give feedback on actions and results, handle member obstinacy, and support divergent thinking (p. 78). Leadership and support for PLC’s does not require a hard set of rewards and punishments, but rather a system of expectations and standards driven practices that will support work to improve student outcomes. Oftentimes school administrators feel threatened by teachers that emerge as leaders and they do not support those individuals. The paradox in this situation is that as administrators support teacher leaders, they actually foster loyalty and support for themselves.


The transformation to a standards based learning school with effective and supported PLC’s will be a journey well worth the time and effort. The learning community standard will take us from a district with a narrow focus to a district with a wide scope of options and opportunities. It will bring our school from one where educators attend professional development to one where teachers participate and become part of the solution. Similarly, the leadership standard will take us from a district where administrators mandate participation in professional development to leaders that participate equally in school PLC’s. In addition, we will move from a school that fears leaders and views them as impediments to innovation to leaders that work with teachers to support and develop solutions with teachers.

Killion, J., & Roy, P. (2009). Becoming a learning school. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.

Standards. (2012). Retrieved September 21, 2013, from http://learningforward.org/standards#.Ukd5On_L43I