I’ve been working on this blog entry over the last three days, and what started out as a testimonial on the power of the Reflective Conversation Map by necessity became an overview of the structure and set-up of our in-classroom demonstration and coaching model. More testimonials will be shared over the course of the year, with this structure as the catalyst for observed teacher change….
We've been coaching and modeling in local classrooms lately, and I have been reminded of the power of the process of the Reflective Conversation Map from the Center for Cognitive Coaching (SM). We talk about the various roles we play (or "hats" we wear) when working with teachers. In one role, we may be "consultants"--modeling strategies to demonstrate their effectiveness in individual classrooms. Another role is that of the "coach"--to listen, observe, collect data (based on teacher request), and help the teacher reflect on the data we have collected. Even though both roles are valuable, and must be in balance, I truly believe that of the "coach" is the most effective at implementing change (I am joined in this belief/knowledge by educational researchers such as Joyce and Showers).
Stage 1: The stages of the process (both consultant and coaching) start at the same place for us: the Planning Conversation. This conversation may take place anywhere from two weeks prior to the lesson up to the day of the lesson (in the case of the conversation taking place the same day as the lesson, the teacher usually has already planned the lesson and goes through the planning conversation to bring the coach up to speed and to confirm her/his structure is meeting the stated objective/standard). It is in the Planning Conversation that the content standard is identified, the assessment is designed (how will we know if students have mastered the standard?), and the lesson is planned (how will we structure the lesson to support student mastery of the standard?). When planning in advance, we even go into a bit of the “collaborator” role in co-designing this lesson. However, once the lesson is designed, a choice of direction is made for stage 2.
Stage 2: The teacher chooses the method of delivery from one of three options:
1. We demonstrate the lesson and the teacher observes and takes notes (consultant role).
2. We co-teach the lesson with the teacher, each taking components and supporting the student mastery of the standard (collaborator role).
3. The teacher does the entire lesson and we collect data based upon their request (coach role).
Stage 3: No matter the model chosen, we end with a Reflective Conversation to debrief the lesson and its effectiveness. However, depending on the model chosen above, the conversation will look very different. Option 1 reflective conversations sound more like “I liked this _____” and “my students did/did not respond well to _____.” Also, we sometimes get the response of “I can’t do this on a regular basis in my classroom because _______.” Quite often teachers will commit to implementing one or more of the strategies demonstrated in their own classrooms. Option 3 reflective conversations, however, tend to get much deeper into the teacher’s own teaching style, level of effectiveness, and planned modifications for future lessons. These conversations sound like “I didn’t realize _____ and am thankful for the data you gathered. In the future I will _____.” Depending on the amount of co-teaching done, option 2 reflective conversations may sound like option 1 or option 3 conversations.
In a three-day, consecutive period, with the reflecting conversations taking place each day (cycle rotating between stage 2 and 3), a teacher in option 1 is not seen to change, since they are not “on stage” and implementing with the data being gathered. Implementation for option 1 teachers takes place after the cycle and requires follow-up for data gathering. A teacher in option 3, however, may be seen to make significant growth over a three-day period based on the data collected and is expected to continue refining the implementation thereafter, since the level of reflection and data has continuously supported the teacher’s own understanding of her/his style and effectiveness.
In no case is a teacher left without follow-up after completing stages 1-3. Ideally, the on-site support (often a Literacy Coach) will continue to collaborate with and coach the teachers who have gone through the 3-day intensive process. Follow-up data throughout the year helps to validate and measure the effectiveness of the program and the level of implementation of the strategies by the participating teachers.
Additional research citation:
Focused peer coaching has proven to be an effective element in a constant improvement cycle focused on student achievement (Glickman, 2002). Glickman, Carl D. Leadership for Learning: How to Help Teachers Succeed. ASCD: 2002.
|