The Collective Wisdom of Practice

Leading Our Professional Learning From Success

Chen Schechter

• Publisher: Corwin
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9781544385204
• eBook ISBN: 9781544394176
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Leverage Professional Wisdom with Asset-Based Professional Learning 

Many professional learning designs are built on the assumption that we learn best by studying our failures. However, learning from failure often evokes responses of denial, avoidance and the same defensive dynamics that contributed to the failure in the first place. Schechter's resource, presents the Collective Learning-from-Success approach. This fresh, new, assets-based framework will shift educators' minds from focusing in isolation on failure to continuously deliberating together, sharing past experiences and best practices, and solving problems related to teaching and learning. Whether you serve as a teacher, school or district leader, or a policy maker, your professional growth will benefit by reflecting on actionable knowledge through collective inquiry. 

This book offers educators an opportunity to come together in forming a productive alternative to the learning from failure paradigm. The Collective Wisdom of Practice provides a model for how to learn from successes by providing
• An assets-based approach to designing and implementing professional learning
• Strategies to focus on learning from educators' past successes
• Multinational case studies, sample learning materials, templates, and tools
• A framework that can be applied to multiple levels, such as grade and subject areas, building level, system level, and
 policy level

Grounded in more than 20 years of extensive research in the US and internationally, this approach will have a powerful influence on professional learning. Learn to nurture your wisdom of practice to meet the challenge of preparing students to be co-creators of society. 

Chapter 1 Shifting Schools Toward Collaborative Learning Communities

I had thought—and believed—that our school worked as a learning community, but what I experienced was actually a lack of openness or willingness to hear different perspectives. It was like camouflage; we were sitting there together but could not express our thoughts and learn from the things we do at school.

—an elementary school teacher

A learning community can exist within an atmosphere that is both pleasant and challenging at the same time and that enables collaborative learning based on a common desire to succeed together and to create together. However, without the appropriate in-school culture, teachers could view this collaborative learning as a criticism of their work and perhaps as undermining their authority.

—an elementary school teacher

The goal of the group is not only to provide information but also to initiate new projects, to solve pedagogical problems, and to serve as a support and learning group. The goal is learning. But we really don’t have time for learning because we mainly focus on receiving information, such as new projects decided by administrators at the school and district levels. We are only updated with information that needs to be delivered to students, such as scheduled dates for final exams and new regulations for communicating with parents. There is no time for real learning. There is no time to delve into curricular and pedagogical issues.

—a high school teacher

These voices of teachers clearly articulate the continuous efforts to create learning communities in schools as well as the struggles in their implementation. In the current chapter, I hope to set the stage for this book’s discussion of the impressive possibilities afforded by professional learning communities—especially those focusing on schools’ successes—and of practical ways to help bring them to fruition in spite of possible barriers and challenges. To paraphrase Thomas Mann (The Magic Mountain, 1924), teachers learn not only through their own individual professional experiences but also, and more importantly—consciously or unconsciously—by learning with and from their contemporaries.

Yet, frequently, on the ground in schools, attempts to learn consciously from colleagues in the context of professional learning communities to date have largely been focused on talk rather than action and on failures rather than successes. Even those collective learning forums that ostensibly “celebrate the successes” attained in their schools do not usually zoom in on the schools’ own success stories as the focus of teachers’ systematic collaborative learning processes. Before delving into the potential advantages of success-based professional learning communities—the major focus of this book—and presenting practical guidelines for launching such a learning culture from scratch into uncharted or resistant schools, the current chapter offers the backdrop for examining learning-from-success practices. Looking historically and contemporarily at schools’ collective learning attempts, this chapter outlines schools’ important shift from the mechanistic framework to the collaborative framework of learning, discusses the main characteristics of professional learning communities, and suggests possible benefits and pitfalls in the pursuit of such communal learning.

Mechanistic Versus Collaborative Views of Schools

Let us begin our exploration of collective professional learning with a retrospective look at expectations from school organizations historically. Traditionally, schools were perceived as rational hierarchical institutions based on bureaucratic characteristics. Such expectations, nurtured during the Industrial Age, were epitomized in Charlie Chaplin’s film, Modern Times (1936), where modern life was analogized to a factory assembly line. This mechanistic view—upholding that an effective school is divided into small, separate, well-functioning units that can be monitored and routinized for efficient performance—has been strongly criticized by researchers and practitioners alike (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). In such an assembly-line bureaucratic management mentality, teachers tend to work in isolation, expected to conceal their “emerging” pedagogical ideas in order to conform to the centralized policies imposed from the top downward. This deeply rooted mechanistic view characterizing the history of educational systems has resulted in schools’ fragmentation into distinct classrooms and grade levels—linear organizational models that restrict mutual dialogue, deliberation, and growth.

For the most part, criticism of such organizational and leadership practices has centered on their inherent lack of both the time and the space that would allow practitioners to conduct dialogue and deliberation with one another (Louis, 2006; Schechter, 2018; Trust & Horrocks, 2017), where the supposed autonomy afforded to teachers in fact leads to their sense of disconnection and pedagogical isolation. Critics of mechanistic school practices—which continue to prevail up through today—express concern that if teachers are to be accountable for the growth and development of their students, then schools must create and sustain collaborative learning practices—learning opportunities and social exchanges that can best foster teachers’ own processes of growth and development (Fullan, 2016; Stoll, McMahon, & Thomas, 2006). Louis (2006) argued that the capacity of schools to innovate and reform relies on their ability to process, understand, and apply knowledge about teaching and learning at a collective level. Scholars contend that in order for schools to revise their existing knowledge and keep pace with environmental changes, they must establish systematic structures, processes, and practices that facilitate the continuous collaborative learning of all their members (Dogan, Pringle, & Mesa, 2016; Mulford & Silins, 2011). In turn, such collaborative learning is expected to enhance professional development, which may help break down teacher isolation barriers, alter teaching practices, and contribute to student learning (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Vangrieken, Meredith, Packer, & Kyndt, 2017).

Considering the extent to which traditional hierarchical models of school organization contrast with the advocated value of collaborative social exchange, researchers have argued for schools’ reorganization into professional “webs” of interactions (e.g., Louis, 2006; Mitchell & Sackney, 2006; Veelen, Sleegers, & Endedijk, 2017). This recommendation calls for “re-culturing” schools into professional learning communities (DuFour, 2004; DuFour & DuFour, 2013).

What Are Professional Learning Communities?

In schools, professional learning communities are collaborative networks of learning processes among community members (Louis, 2006; Roy & Hord, 2006; Vollenbroek, Wetterling, & de Vries, 2017). In contrast with the prevalent fragmentation of schools into isolated so-called autonomous classrooms, in these networks, teachers can continuously deliberate with one another on how to solve problems that relate to teaching and learning (Andrews & Crowther, 2006; Mitchell & Sackney, 2006). In addition, professional learning community members share ideas, personal commitment, and a sense of professional collegiality. Social interaction within such collegial professional networks in schools can transform the image of the isolated teacher into one of “interactive professionalism” (Fullan, 2016) around issues of teaching and learning. More specifically, Bryk, Camburn, and Louis (1999); DuFour, Eaker, and Many (2006); and Roy and Hord (2006) identified the following four core characteristics of a school professional learning community:

1. Collective learning, consisting of reflective dialogue focusing on instruction and student learning, where teachers reflect on instructional practices and examine tacit assumptions about teaching and learning
2. De-privatization of practice, where teachers provide feedback through networks of professional interactions and share knowledge beyond their own classrooms (e.g., become mentors)
3. Peer collaboration, where teachers collaborate on school projects that focus on professional reform and improvement initiatives
4. Shared leadership and facilitative-supportive actions on the part of the principal and the administration

While all four of these core characteristics are interrelated and should be aligned to produce the capacity for a professional learning community, no single method can be applied to all schools wishing to create such a community. Professional learning communities are not contrived but rather emerge from the specific needs, goals, and aspirations of each community’s members.

Teacher teams are the structural foundation of professional learning communities. They constitute action communities that serve as the cornerstones of the school’s broad professional learning community (Opfer & Pedder, 2011; Schmoker, 2004). Action communities are groups of people who share a certain concern or a set of problems or a passion for a particular subject and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this field through continuous interaction. These communities act as “social learning systems” where professionals connect to each other to solve problems, share ideas, set standards, build tools, and develop relationships with colleagues and stakeholders.

Thus, a professional learning community is fundamentally rooted in cooperation between teachers. In this process, teachers work together to analyze and improve learning and teaching in their classrooms (DuFour, 2004; Hord & Sommers, 2008). The teachers expose their own teaching methods while being receptive to colleagues’ opinions, experiences, approaches, and teaching techniques. By engaging in conversation, they share what has traditionally been thought of as personal—their own goals, strategies, teaching materials, questions, concerns, and outcomes (Dufour et al., 2006). They may observe their peers’ classes, offering feedback and discussing common professional issues (Bolam, McMahon, Stoll, Thomas, & Wallace, 2005). This joint culture encourages teachers (who are mostly accustomed to working autonomously) to shift toward teamwork (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006).

Moreover, reflective investigation is part of the professional learning community’s process. Within the collective framework, teachers regularly conduct reflective dialogues that critically examine their modes of practice against the goals they have set for themselves in accordance with their vision. Interaction between teachers with different sorts of knowledge and experiences provides opportunities for learning and critical reflection (Greene, 2007), which, in turn, creates shared knowledge of professional practices. Thus, the professional learning community can also be defined as “a school organization in which a group of teachers share and question their practices. . . . This questioning happens in an ongoing, reflective, collaborative, and inclusive way” (De Neve, Devos, & Tuytens, 2015, p. 32).

Potential Benefits and Pitfalls of Professional Learning Communities

Research suggests that facilitating a professional learning community contributes to teachers’ pedagogical skills, subsequently influencing student learning (Gray, 2011). Similarly, Vesico, Ross, and Adam’s (2008) review pointed out that well-developed professional learning communities have a positive impact on teaching practices and student learning. These authors also documented the positive impact of learning communities on teacher commitment, instructional practices, and engagement in school improvement. This is supported by studies indicating positive correlations between teachers’ collegial learning and students’ engagement and learning (e.g., Lee, Zhang, & Yin, 2011). Rosenholtz (1989) found that “developing” schools—those characterized by teachers learning from each other through a collective enterprise—are more effective than “stuck” schools, which lack such webs of interactions and therefore face more difficulties in implementing changes.

Unsurprisingly, in light of the accumulating body of evidence supporting their benefits, professional learning communities have become a major reform strategy in the new millennium to support teachers in meeting increased policy demands for high-stakes standardized testing and data-monitoring accountability (Gray & Summers, 2015). Efforts have been made to transform the mechanistic perspective into a more collaborative learning perspective in which teachers learn together and coordinate their efforts toward improved student learning (e.g., Drago-Severson, Roy, & Frank, 2014; Schechter, 2010; Steyn, 2013; Trust & Horrocks, 2017; Wake, Swan, & Foster, 2016). Nevertheless, schools continue to struggle in implementing and especially in sustaining such collegial structures in the complex context of educational systems. Despite these efforts to bring collaborative learning to the forefront of school change discourse, teachers are still learning primarily from individual and isolated experiences rather than with and from their peers.

Another possible challenge to the implementation of professional learning communities is the danger that some learning communities can themselves perpetuate practitioners’ skepticism toward any kind of communal learning. For example, the social arrangements wherein teachers share and create knowledge are often fraught with competition for professional legitimacy and political power, often inhibiting authentic interactions. Because legitimacy is conferred by community members rather than given automatically to individuals or a group, teachers may become reluctant to inquire into their own practices because of the possibly loose connections between their actions and the results (“Those outcomes could have occurred because of mere coincidence or luck and not directly because of my professional actions”). Thus, learning in the communal arena about the details of one’s educational work can induce fear and vulnerability about possible harm to one’s perceived professional legitimacy (Schechter, 2012).

Furthermore, time is perhaps the most salient issue influencing productive collegial interactions (Collinson & Cook, 2007), but in light of teachers’ heavy workloads, sufficient time allocations are often lacking in schools. As a result, the supposed professional learning interactions frequently become mere updating mechanisms. Administrators tend to colonize the blocks of time allocated for collaborative learning and use them to advance their administrative agenda instead of focusing on instructional practices (Giles & Hargreaves, 2006; Park & So, 2014). In addition, there is a tendency to transform the professional learning model into a type of routine and everyday phenomenon, where any kind of encounter with an educational goal is mistakenly defined as a professional learning community (DuFour et al., 2006). Alternatively, from a change perspective, learning communities tend to isolate themselves, thereby blocking significant changes at the organizational level (Stoll & Louis, 2007). For example, teachers may meet together with their grade-level coordinator or their subject coordinator, but any collective learning achieved via such interactions may remain inaccessible to colleagues outside that group who might also find this content to be relevant to their work.

Professional learning communities are extremely difficult to embed into some existing school cultures, especially those upholding a primary focus on test scores and improving low academic achievements. Essentially, the professional learning process in such school cultures will likely be relegated to identifying and fixing only problems related to high-stakes standards. By and large, such learning communities will most often analyze school data in terms of “where we missed the mark”—where students lost points on state exams, how many students did not meet expectations, which subject areas showed the lowest scores, and so on. In this sense, reviewing failures and potential threats is most likely to perpetuate defensive group dynamics in which members fail to express and test their assumptions and refrain from authentic communication that may involve tension in the presence of their colleagues or supervisors.

In sum, the professional learning community framework is seldom translated effectively into a sustainable school reality that can serve as a viable tool for continuous school improvement and turnaround efforts over time. This leaves teachers and principals in need of more practical theories and guidance in order to effectively introduce and sustain more active and valuable communal learning in schools (Fullan, 2016; Schechter, 2012). Thus, although research has recognized the potential contribution of the professional learning community, uncertainty remains about its real-time development and sustainability within schools, especially in today’s era of accountability and high-stakes standards (e.g., Hord, 2016). Can the professional learning community become more than a buzzword that superficially marks cutting-edge school leadership? Can we think about ways to design professional learning experiences for teachers that will have a direct impact on their practice and on outcomes for students? The aim of the current book is to transform the challenging implementation of learning communities into a more practical and achievable process for teachers, for building-level leaders, and for principals, based on their own strengths and professional expertise.

Specifically, as outlined step by step throughout the upcoming chapters, this book proposes that a practical and achievable bottom-up collective inquiry process should not only focus on the many problems facing teachers and school leaders but should also integrate the many successes that school professionals have achieved—their wisdoms of everyday practice—which generally go unnoticed and unanalyzed. Before presenting comprehensive details, vignettes, testimonies, and documents to help guide and inspire schools as they embark on their journey toward implementing effective professional learning communities, the next chapter takes a deeper look at the three main foundations of this approach—learning collectively, learning from problems, and learning from successes. These three foundations are the essential building blocks needed to shift schools toward operative, sustainable collaborative learning communities.

Chapter 2 How to Learn Collectively Gleaning Wisdom From Professionals’ Problems and Successes

Collective learning benefits everyone involved. Just as I can give something to the process, I can gain from it. We should have the capacity to create a good atmosphere of respect and collaboration, reduce competition, and direct everyone toward learning together.

—a high school teacher

Today, we consciously include regular hours for the staff to get together and learn from our experiences. I set a permanent timeframe in which teachers get together, sharing their thoughts and knowledge, reflecting on how they adapt the curriculum to diverse students, and taking collaborative responsibility.

—a high school principal

As crucial background for any school’s attempt...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Endorsements
• Half Title
• Acknowledgements
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Illustration List
• Illustration List
• Table List
• Table List
• Table List
• Foreword
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• About the Author
• Chapter 1 Shifting Schools Toward Collaborative Learning Communities
• Chapter 2 How to Learn Collectively Gleaning Wisdom From Professionals’ Problems and Successes
• Chapter 3 Juggling Our Mindsets Educators’ Perceptions of Collective Learning From Success
• Chapter 4 The Learning-From-Success Journey Enacting Wisdom
• Chapter 5 The National Program for Learning From Success in Schools
• Chapter 6 Switching Gears Learning From Success and Learning From Problems as a Catalyst to Growth and Change
• Conclusion Let’s Start Our Journey Enacting Educators’ Successful Wisdom of Practice
• Resource Guide
• Index
• Advertisement