Five diverse school or district sites were selected, one from each of five southwestern states. The sites are described below, followed by a brief synopsis of the work at each site, which illustrates the kinds of issues and dialogues that emerged over the course of the two phases of the study.
- Aspen - In this rural district, all 14 of the K-8 teachers, and the elementary principal, the librarian, and the counselor participated.
- Linden - In this urban school that has two campuses, one principal and 17 K-8 teachers participated.
- Mesquite - In this suburban school district, 12 K-6 teachers from two adjoining schools participated.
- Oak - In this rural district, 2 principals and 15 K-12 teachers from 6 schools participated.
- Tupelo - In this suburban district, a district curriculum specialist and 15 K-8 teachers from 10 different schools participated.
The Aspen Site
First phase of study.
Having open-ended professional conversations was a new experience for the teachers in this group. They were feeling overwhelmed by new state mandates coupled with implementation of the many new programs purchased by the district, and they seemed to expect the project to provide them with quick-fix answers to their problems in meeting the new demands. By the end of the semester, however, they reached some consensus on the need to establish models of quality student work and to more consistently communicate expectations to students and parents.
Second phase of study.
The study group meetings were given status as "official" professional development. Therefore, other staff often attended, which disturbed the safe environment for honest dialogue that had been established the previous year by the original group. The study group focused their inquiry on assessment and quality. They explored relationships among assessment, expectations, and student performance; examined student work; and discussed their ideas of quality. While critique of the study group process was mixed, teachers did request that the group continue for another year.
The Linden Site
First phase of study.
Teachers initially struggled with identifying the "task" for this group, but soon focused their conversation on whether or not they were meeting the needs of their students. They talked about how a recently adopted arts-based curriculum could help them engage all students. It was a revelation to them that they did not share a common understanding of the arts project. As they examined the program more deeply, they learned about one another and developed as a learning community. They repeatedly questioned how they could know what their students had learned.
Second phase of study.
The group focused on the development of classroom assessments to help with instructional decision making. They explored new ideas in assessment, tried them out in their classrooms, and talked about the results in the group meetings. The discussions were highly reflective as these teachers adopted an inquiry stance toward their practice. Over the semester, they grew as a learning community, openly sharing student work and visiting each other's classrooms. Some teachers in the group attempted to spread their excitement and engage other staff in this learning process, but they met resistance from some teachers. The next year, however, they decided to lead a book study and had 35 staff participating.
The Mesquite Site
First phase of study.
The teachers welcomed the opportunity to spend time together and were not concerned about a focus for their conversations. An article on collegiality was especially meaningful and stimulated conversation about teacher isolation and the lack of a professional community in their schools. The topics of their conversations were fairly diverse as they learned how to be professional colleagues who shared their ideas and experiences. The teachers refined their ability to ask questions about the purposes of the strategies they were using or seeing in other classes.
Second phase of study.
The group focused on purposefulness or intentionality in teaching by looking at their decision-making process. They explored the notion of teaching as storytelling and used a simple framework to identify the purpose, importance, and completeness of a lesson. The group also created a list of questions to critique lessons and guide their planning, identifying three aspects that contribute to purposeful teaching: the personal and professional life of the teacher, the social relationships in the classroom, and the instructional strategies utilized. They felt that their questions would help them focus on the bigger question of "what am I doing and why?"
The Oak Site
First phase of study.
The teachers believed that the district was experiencing less student success because the population had changed. They placed the responsibility for student success on parents and students because they considered teaching as a matter of presenting material and learning as the students' responsibility. The teachers seemed reluctant to carefully examine their own assumptions and practices or to accept their own accountability for student learning although the faŤade was beginning to be chipped away by the end of the semester.
Second phase of study.
The teachers' thinking about teaching and learning was challenged when they did an activity on student assessment that simulated student experiences in assessment and made it very clear how specific teacher behaviors can affect students. The resulting conversations triggered a change in the general viewpoint of the group, as they focused on a broader teacher's role in student learning that extended beyond mere presentation of material.
The Tupelo Site
First phase of study.
The group expected to develop a science curriculum from a commercial package of modules purchased by the district. The teachers struggled to make sense of how the science modules could be used as a curriculum and how to fit the modules with the new state standards and their existing textbooks. With some encouragement, they set aside their task and discussed their students' needs, beginning with an exploration of learning theories. They made some decisions about the science curriculum, but felt that it would have minimal value for the district.
Second phase of study.
The group began the semester with a renewed focus on understanding learning and how it happens. They tried to identify a set of learning principles, but got mired in educational jargon. At subsequent meetings, however, they reflected more deeply on the question, engaged in intense conversations about learning, and participated in additional activities that helped them clarify their assumptions and understandings. They constructed a set of learning principles that they could use to critique their instructional design and tested it in their practice. Teachers concluded that their instruction could be more focused on learning needs of students.
