The articles outlined in module 2 have been quite thought provoking. The literature has provided us an excellent glimpse into professional learning structure, a general teachers’ perspective and an example of reflection within design teams. In fact, there are many commonalities within these resources based on dialogue, factors and benefits in collaborative inquiry, support and reflection. By examining this module’s readings, we are better able to identify the correlating themes within collaborative inquiry.
As we have discussed throughout the course, there are common stages within the cycle of inquiry. However, as identified in Collaborative inquiry as a professional learning structure for educators: a scoping review, “Regardless of the number of stages, the literature supporting each cycle acknowledges three core and interconnected structural features of CI: dialogical sharing, taking action, and reflecting” (Deluca et al, 2015). Deluca et al. makes a point to identify the importance of each of these three core features. As well, there is much written about the significance of facilitators, school leaders, teacher leaders and the importance of supportive leadership. Additionally, there is much mentioned about supportive environmental structures and teachers “buying-in,” which is also referenced in the study. As stated, “a supportive environment can be created by ensuring that there is sufficient time and space to conduct CIs and when provisions for CIs promote a professional learning culture that values shared learning” (Deluca et al, 2015). As well, the benefits of CI are identified in relation to teachers, students and schools. DeLuca et al. explains, “by engaging in CI, teachers gain professional knowledge and expertise that helps develop new professional practice and ideas that promote educational improvement and change at both student and school levels” (Deluca et al, 2015). Yet, despite the benefits to the learning community, challenges tend to occur within the constructs of CI. The buy-in from teachers and staff tends to be a sticking point despite the opportunity of choice being available. With this comes issues with longevity or sustainability of inquiry within schools. In fact, this is also mentioned in Systemic professional learning through collaborative inquiry: Examining teachers' perspectives. One of the major arguments constructed by DeLuca et al. is that “if an aim of CI inquiry is to build teacher capacity for continued professional inquiry and support the development of professional learning cultures, then research is required on the structures and mechanisms for sustaining CI learning” (Deluca et al, 2015). As it is clear there are many benefits to CI, and challenges that can be overcome, perhaps with an essential component of agile leadership. Nonetheless, the research based on sustaining inquiry still appears to be somewhat in the beginning stages on how to improve professional learning. If this is the case, how can schools and districts provide opportunities for professional learning that are more consistent with professional development opportunities?
One of the most enjoyable articles for me was written by DeLuca, Bolden and Chan entitled Systemic professional learning through collaborative inquiry: Examining teachers' perspectives. I have found it to be a valuable read as it comes from the lens of teachers in the form of large-scale research. As this process does not occur without the “buy-in” of staff, it is enlightening to read resources detailing this viewpoint. In this particular article, the authors make a point to mention, “CI engages teachers as learners within their own teaching contexts with the aim of transforming teachers' conceptions of professional learning and promoting enhanced pedagogical effectiveness” (DeLuca et al., 2017). However, a contextual framework is identified with seven distinct characteristics that have not been entirely outlined in previous literature. DeLuca et al. outline the importance of:
It is mentioned through the methods of surveys and focus groups that research is collected based on perspectives from teachers in various contexts based on CI. DeLuca mentioned, “the purpose of the 66-item survey was to provide a broad measure of teachers' experiences with CI and their perspectives towards the impact and functionality of CI as professional learning” (DeLuca et al., 2017). As the findings of the research were gathered and analyzed, it was the factors that enhanced CI and the factors that inhibited CI that I found most interesting and a connection to the previous article Collaborative inquiry as a professional learning structure for educators: a scoping review. DeLuca et al. state, “factors to enhance CI - (a) teacher choice of inquiry focus, (b) acknowledging CI learning takes time, (c) acknowledging teachers as experts, (d) establishing trusting relationships with colleagues, and (e) seeing student success from CI“ (DeLuca et al, 2017). Whereas the inhibiting factors, which are similar to some of the challenges we have seen in other are readings, do have a slight difference in there is an element based on students. They are: “students' lack of willingness to try new things, lack of ability to make sense of the evidence I gather (i.e., analysis of evidence) and lack of willingness of those I am working with to listen to my ideas” (DeLuca, 2017). As the data shows some of the inhibiting factors, the outcomes of CI are identified within the article as well has ways to enhance CI. It is specified that, “CI outcomes that emerged as significant for teachers included: (a) more teachers talking, (b) informal CI, (c) increased teacher confidence to take risks/shift practices, and (d) increased attention to teacher reflection and ongoing teacher learning” (DeLuca et al. 2017). Unfortunately, as CI is relatively new the data may not directly point to its success in schools just yet. However, DeLuca et al. do identify that it appears promising in the early stages of the research. As we continue to learn more about CI, participate in inquiry in schools, provide professional development linked to teachers’ contexts and incorporate dialogue and reflection, who will then become accountable for the change? What will occur with the ever-changing administrative terms?
As the final article focuses on design teams, this is a new component related to CI that has not yet been addressed in PME 801. In the article, The reflective practice of design teams, there is mention of design teams and particular examples based on theory. According to Valkenburg and Dorst, “In Scho¨n’s opinion, too little attention is paid to the structure of design tasks and the crucial problem of linking process and task in a concrete design situation” (Valkenburg and Dorst, 1998). The study analyzes data in the form of a survey based on design teams activities and identifies behaviour. They state, “The aim; [however], of our study is to provide team members and team leaders with tools and guidelines to improve their practice (Valkenburg and Dorst, 1998). Valkenburg and Dorst identify protocols, as previously mention by DeLuca et al., by examining a study based on the Philips Design Competition. “The Philips Design Competition (PDC) is an annual competition for students from all the Dutch Universities of Technology, that aims to be a simulation of a design problem in professional engineering practice.” (Valkenburg and Dorst, 1998). As teams are observed in this competition, the reflective practice of the teams is emphasized and coding of the teams’ activities. As stated by Valkenburg and Dorst, “Reflection is a conscious and rational action that can lead to reframing the problem (when the frame is not satisfactory), the making of new moves, or attending to new issues” (Valkenburg and Dorst, 1998). Within this competition, comparisons are made between design teams: The Delft Pitchbulls and Team ‘Tecc’. The Pitchbulls, “divide their attention over all aspects and interrupt each other whenever they get deeper into one subject, arguing that another subject is also important to attend to” (Valkenburg and Dorst, 1998). Whereas the Tecc team, has a different focus. “They try to integrate new aspects of the design task in earlier frames (and subsolutions) and, in this way, build an integrated view on the design task and the design solution” (Valkenburg and Dorst, 1998). As the Tecc team focuses more on reflection, it appears their success can be attributed to this stage of the protocol. Valkenburg and Dorst assert, “reflection is crucial in designing, because by reflecting on its behaviour a team of designers can rationally make a decision to start a new activity” (Valkenburg and Dorst, 1998). It is clear through Scho¨n’s theory and the examples of the Tecc team and the Delft Pitchbulls that reflection is a major component of design teams and collaboration. As reflection often occurs towards the end of CI (throughout as well), it was interesting to see the use of reflection prior to the competition ending. Kaser and Halbert identify the important reflective questions – “Have we made enough of a difference? How do we know?” – in the final stage of inquiry (Kaser and Halbert, 2017). As well, Donohoo identifies more reflection in the celebrating and sharing stage of inquiry. She identifies that in the final written report, “Finally, include a paragraph describing the next steps for the team and recommendations [to ensure we look back at what has worked]” (Donohoo, n.d.). As Valkenburg and Dorst emphasize reflection prior to the terminus of the competition, how can we continue to reflect throughout inquiry?
I have found each of these articles quite informative. Learning more about the teachers’ perspective and an overview of the learning structure of collaborative inquiry is valuable in our future endeavours, especially our upcoming group project. As well, the examples provided based on The Philips Design Competition allowed us to better understand the significance of dialogue, coding of activities and reflection. As there are overarching themes in these articles, it has been enjoyable to relate to our own past experiences.
References
DeLuca, C., Shulha, J., Luhanga, U., Shulha, L. M., Christou, T. M., & Klinger, D. A. (2015).
Collaborative inquiry as a professional learning structure for educators: A scoping review. Professional Development in Education, 41(4), 640-670.
DeLuca, C., Bolden, B., & Chan, J. (2017). Systemic professional learning through collaborative
inquiry: Examining teachers' perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 67-78.
Donohoo, J. (2000). Collaborative Inquiry - Facilitator’s Guide. Learning Forward Ontario.
Published.
Kaser Halbert, L. J. (2017). The Spirals Playbook: Leading with an inquiring mindset in school
systems and schools. C21 Canada – Canadians for 21st Century Learning and Innovation.
Valkenburg, R., & Dorst, K. (1998). The Reflective Practice of Design Teams. Design Studies
19(2), 263-274.
As we have discussed throughout the course, there are common stages within the cycle of inquiry. However, as identified in Collaborative inquiry as a professional learning structure for educators: a scoping review, “Regardless of the number of stages, the literature supporting each cycle acknowledges three core and interconnected structural features of CI: dialogical sharing, taking action, and reflecting” (Deluca et al, 2015). Deluca et al. makes a point to identify the importance of each of these three core features. As well, there is much written about the significance of facilitators, school leaders, teacher leaders and the importance of supportive leadership. Additionally, there is much mentioned about supportive environmental structures and teachers “buying-in,” which is also referenced in the study. As stated, “a supportive environment can be created by ensuring that there is sufficient time and space to conduct CIs and when provisions for CIs promote a professional learning culture that values shared learning” (Deluca et al, 2015). As well, the benefits of CI are identified in relation to teachers, students and schools. DeLuca et al. explains, “by engaging in CI, teachers gain professional knowledge and expertise that helps develop new professional practice and ideas that promote educational improvement and change at both student and school levels” (Deluca et al, 2015). Yet, despite the benefits to the learning community, challenges tend to occur within the constructs of CI. The buy-in from teachers and staff tends to be a sticking point despite the opportunity of choice being available. With this comes issues with longevity or sustainability of inquiry within schools. In fact, this is also mentioned in Systemic professional learning through collaborative inquiry: Examining teachers' perspectives. One of the major arguments constructed by DeLuca et al. is that “if an aim of CI inquiry is to build teacher capacity for continued professional inquiry and support the development of professional learning cultures, then research is required on the structures and mechanisms for sustaining CI learning” (Deluca et al, 2015). As it is clear there are many benefits to CI, and challenges that can be overcome, perhaps with an essential component of agile leadership. Nonetheless, the research based on sustaining inquiry still appears to be somewhat in the beginning stages on how to improve professional learning. If this is the case, how can schools and districts provide opportunities for professional learning that are more consistent with professional development opportunities?
One of the most enjoyable articles for me was written by DeLuca, Bolden and Chan entitled Systemic professional learning through collaborative inquiry: Examining teachers' perspectives. I have found it to be a valuable read as it comes from the lens of teachers in the form of large-scale research. As this process does not occur without the “buy-in” of staff, it is enlightening to read resources detailing this viewpoint. In this particular article, the authors make a point to mention, “CI engages teachers as learners within their own teaching contexts with the aim of transforming teachers' conceptions of professional learning and promoting enhanced pedagogical effectiveness” (DeLuca et al., 2017). However, a contextual framework is identified with seven distinct characteristics that have not been entirely outlined in previous literature. DeLuca et al. outline the importance of:
- “Relevance: Student learning guides inquiry.
- Collaborative: Teacher inquiry is a shared process.
- Reflective: Actions are informed by reflection.
- Iterative: Progressive understanding grows from cycles of
- Reasoned: Analysis drives deep learning.
- Adaptive: Inquiry shapes practice and practice shapes inquiry.
- Reciprocal: Theory and practice connect dynamically” (DeLuca et al, 2017).
It is mentioned through the methods of surveys and focus groups that research is collected based on perspectives from teachers in various contexts based on CI. DeLuca mentioned, “the purpose of the 66-item survey was to provide a broad measure of teachers' experiences with CI and their perspectives towards the impact and functionality of CI as professional learning” (DeLuca et al., 2017). As the findings of the research were gathered and analyzed, it was the factors that enhanced CI and the factors that inhibited CI that I found most interesting and a connection to the previous article Collaborative inquiry as a professional learning structure for educators: a scoping review. DeLuca et al. state, “factors to enhance CI - (a) teacher choice of inquiry focus, (b) acknowledging CI learning takes time, (c) acknowledging teachers as experts, (d) establishing trusting relationships with colleagues, and (e) seeing student success from CI“ (DeLuca et al, 2017). Whereas the inhibiting factors, which are similar to some of the challenges we have seen in other are readings, do have a slight difference in there is an element based on students. They are: “students' lack of willingness to try new things, lack of ability to make sense of the evidence I gather (i.e., analysis of evidence) and lack of willingness of those I am working with to listen to my ideas” (DeLuca, 2017). As the data shows some of the inhibiting factors, the outcomes of CI are identified within the article as well has ways to enhance CI. It is specified that, “CI outcomes that emerged as significant for teachers included: (a) more teachers talking, (b) informal CI, (c) increased teacher confidence to take risks/shift practices, and (d) increased attention to teacher reflection and ongoing teacher learning” (DeLuca et al. 2017). Unfortunately, as CI is relatively new the data may not directly point to its success in schools just yet. However, DeLuca et al. do identify that it appears promising in the early stages of the research. As we continue to learn more about CI, participate in inquiry in schools, provide professional development linked to teachers’ contexts and incorporate dialogue and reflection, who will then become accountable for the change? What will occur with the ever-changing administrative terms?
As the final article focuses on design teams, this is a new component related to CI that has not yet been addressed in PME 801. In the article, The reflective practice of design teams, there is mention of design teams and particular examples based on theory. According to Valkenburg and Dorst, “In Scho¨n’s opinion, too little attention is paid to the structure of design tasks and the crucial problem of linking process and task in a concrete design situation” (Valkenburg and Dorst, 1998). The study analyzes data in the form of a survey based on design teams activities and identifies behaviour. They state, “The aim; [however], of our study is to provide team members and team leaders with tools and guidelines to improve their practice (Valkenburg and Dorst, 1998). Valkenburg and Dorst identify protocols, as previously mention by DeLuca et al., by examining a study based on the Philips Design Competition. “The Philips Design Competition (PDC) is an annual competition for students from all the Dutch Universities of Technology, that aims to be a simulation of a design problem in professional engineering practice.” (Valkenburg and Dorst, 1998). As teams are observed in this competition, the reflective practice of the teams is emphasized and coding of the teams’ activities. As stated by Valkenburg and Dorst, “Reflection is a conscious and rational action that can lead to reframing the problem (when the frame is not satisfactory), the making of new moves, or attending to new issues” (Valkenburg and Dorst, 1998). Within this competition, comparisons are made between design teams: The Delft Pitchbulls and Team ‘Tecc’. The Pitchbulls, “divide their attention over all aspects and interrupt each other whenever they get deeper into one subject, arguing that another subject is also important to attend to” (Valkenburg and Dorst, 1998). Whereas the Tecc team, has a different focus. “They try to integrate new aspects of the design task in earlier frames (and subsolutions) and, in this way, build an integrated view on the design task and the design solution” (Valkenburg and Dorst, 1998). As the Tecc team focuses more on reflection, it appears their success can be attributed to this stage of the protocol. Valkenburg and Dorst assert, “reflection is crucial in designing, because by reflecting on its behaviour a team of designers can rationally make a decision to start a new activity” (Valkenburg and Dorst, 1998). It is clear through Scho¨n’s theory and the examples of the Tecc team and the Delft Pitchbulls that reflection is a major component of design teams and collaboration. As reflection often occurs towards the end of CI (throughout as well), it was interesting to see the use of reflection prior to the competition ending. Kaser and Halbert identify the important reflective questions – “Have we made enough of a difference? How do we know?” – in the final stage of inquiry (Kaser and Halbert, 2017). As well, Donohoo identifies more reflection in the celebrating and sharing stage of inquiry. She identifies that in the final written report, “Finally, include a paragraph describing the next steps for the team and recommendations [to ensure we look back at what has worked]” (Donohoo, n.d.). As Valkenburg and Dorst emphasize reflection prior to the terminus of the competition, how can we continue to reflect throughout inquiry?
I have found each of these articles quite informative. Learning more about the teachers’ perspective and an overview of the learning structure of collaborative inquiry is valuable in our future endeavours, especially our upcoming group project. As well, the examples provided based on The Philips Design Competition allowed us to better understand the significance of dialogue, coding of activities and reflection. As there are overarching themes in these articles, it has been enjoyable to relate to our own past experiences.
References
DeLuca, C., Shulha, J., Luhanga, U., Shulha, L. M., Christou, T. M., & Klinger, D. A. (2015).
Collaborative inquiry as a professional learning structure for educators: A scoping review. Professional Development in Education, 41(4), 640-670.
DeLuca, C., Bolden, B., & Chan, J. (2017). Systemic professional learning through collaborative
inquiry: Examining teachers' perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 67-78.
Donohoo, J. (2000). Collaborative Inquiry - Facilitator’s Guide. Learning Forward Ontario.
Published.
Kaser Halbert, L. J. (2017). The Spirals Playbook: Leading with an inquiring mindset in school
systems and schools. C21 Canada – Canadians for 21st Century Learning and Innovation.
Valkenburg, R., & Dorst, K. (1998). The Reflective Practice of Design Teams. Design Studies
19(2), 263-274.