If you attend a science department meeting at my school, you’ll see faculty members collaborating, sharing their work, giving and receiving feedback, delivering presentations, and scheduling time to visit each other’s class. I suspect even within my school, other departments can’t say the same. We truly have a culture of sharing, which was the result of years of intentional scaffolding. The hope is that other department chairs and school leaders may replicate some of these processes in order to maximize the effectiveness of teacher groups.
When I took over as department chair about six years ago, I knew there was great potential to develop a new culture. Prior to my tenure as chair, our meetings consisted of unidirectional announcements from administration filtered through the department chair and unfocused and repetitive conversations about science education. Meetings were unproductive. I wanted meetings to be a time when the adults felt like they were learning. My colleagues were smart and dedicated teachers who could teach and learn from one another.
My goal was to have meetings in which teachers were vulnerable enough to share their work and get insights from other department members about how to make improvements. In a field where practitioners are generally protective about their work, I understood the upcoming challenge. I needed to create a safe space for teachers to take risks and even invite criticism. So how did I make this happen?
Step 1: Voluntary celebration of work
In the first year, I focused on celebration of great work. I invited teachers to share strategies and tools they used in their classes as “best practices.” During the first 5-10 minutes of department meetings, a different teacher shared a success from their class. I delivered the first presentation in order to model my willingness to share and actively participate in my request of others. In the first year, four teachers shared. One teacher shared a video streaming site that had wonderful content. Another teacher demonstrated how she used online quizzes. Later in the year, a teacher led an entire meeting in which she had teachers participate in a Harkness seminar. The important part of this initial process was teachers volunteered to share and knew their work would be celebrated and not criticized. Everyone understood that teachers were only sharing work to show something that worked well and perhaps others might want to use. Other than offering praise, department members asked clarifying questions from time to time.
Step 2: Involuntary celebration of work
During this first year of sharing, the department had the opportunity to spend a full day at a retreat to answer queries. One theme that emerged from the retreat was the desire to have students engage in more inquiry based learning. I led a few workshops and discussions on inquiry. As a culmination to our efforts, I informed teachers that we each had to post one inquiry lesson to the private department website. The goal was to create a library of inquiry lessons over the years to help us develop a better understanding of inquiry instruction. In the last meeting of the year, each person briefly presented their lesson and answered clarifying questions. The shift went from voluntary to involuntary sharing, while retaining the celebration atmosphere.
Step 3: Shifting from celebration to feedback
For the next three years, we retained both the voluntary and involuntary sharing. As new teachers joined the department, they began to buy into and even cheer for the sharing of work. During these years, I always volunteered to go first. I also started to invite different types of feedback during my own presentations. I asked for suggestions, obstacles for adoption in other classrooms, and critical feedback. I began to debrief my meetings as well. What went well? What did we accomplish? What could I have improved? Soon I noticed other department members would ask for the same during their presentations, even during their best practice mini presentations. These best practice presentations which started three years prior as 5 minute discussions started to grow to 20 minutes or more.
Step 4: Structures for feedback: Tuning Protocol
It became clear that we needed more structure to give and receive feedback. We outgrew the celebration phase. Teachers wanted to know how to improve their work. Enter the Tuning Protocol!
I first learned about the Tuning Protocol in graduate school before I became a teacher. I participated in a multiple Tuning protocol discussions with team of teachers on a weekly basis during my year as a student teacher; I could attest to the strength of this tool. When I took over as chair, I wanted us to use the protocol but feared resistance. It can be extremely scary sharing work and getting feedback. Rather than imposing the tool, I created the conditions that led to the need for the Tuning protocol. Using a gradual process of celebrating work then adding elements of feedback, the Tuning protocol was a natural progression of this work.
The Tuning protocol is an organized discussion. A teacher brings an artifact they would like to improve. The presenter provides an essential question to help focus the discussion. Some questions we have used:
- “How can I make this more rigorous?”
- “How can I provide clearer instructions?”
- “How can I transform this assignment into an inquiry lesson?”
The teacher decides on what feedback he/she wants because feedback is only helpful if the receiver is open to hearing it. After an initial presentation of the artifact, teachers ask clarifying questions and pause to reflect on the work. During this pause, participants examine the work and think of feedback, both positive and negative. Led by a facilitator, participants offer positive praise. The participants talk to each other, rather than to the presenter; the presenter has to be silent. The conversation shifts to critical comments and/or questions. Again, the presenter is silent. Once the feedback has ended, the presenter reflects on the feedback aloud without interruption from the participants. The Tuning protocol is over after a debrief session, in which all members are invited to reflect on the discussion.
Future Steps…
Department members frequently voice their pleasure with the Tuning protocol. Feedback is heard and incorporated consistently. We’ve had a couple department members volunteer to re-share their edited version and reflect on how the feedback improved their work during a future meeting. Each year, every department member shares an artifact to present during the Tuning protocol, even as our focus changes. This year, we are all presenting lab report guidelines which fit within the Argument Driven Inquiry model. Another difference is that I’m presenting at the end of this year because teachers wanted to present their work early enough to incorporate feedback into their lab report guidelines before using them this year. Department members have requested tweaks to the protocol like asking clarifying questions after examining the work. We’ve even discussed presenting student work next year. We have come a long way from hesitant celebration to active ownership and seeking of feedback. The present is bright but the future is even brighter!
Multiple award winning Biology teacher and Science Department Chair, Hassan Wilson has taught all grade groups. Hassan’s courses incorporate standards based grading, flipped learning, mastery learning, and inquiry. You can follow him on Twitter @wilsonsbiolab.