Renewal Through Collaborative Inquiry: The Critical Friends Group Process

Judith Gray
Antioch University, Seattle
National School Reform Faculty
Small Schools Coaches Collaborative

How do teachers find renewal in their endeavor to help children learn? After even a few years of teaching, it is difficult for teachers to stay energized for that next group of students or that next lesson. So many demands are placed on teachers that most wish they could just do what they got into education for in the first place . . . develop the minds, spirits and bodies of the young. In the often-isolated environment of a teacher's life, becoming revitalized and renewing spiritual strength are so important that, if we neglect them, we risk losing our most valuable resource.

Ongoing professional development is one way for teachers to continue to renew themselves in their practice. Good teachers learn throughout their careers, actively participating in a culture where they learn more about the content they teach and about the instructional and assessment practices they use with that content. To change their practice, teachers must go through a regular process of self-analysis -- inquiry and reflection. Doing this analysis in a collaborative situation allows for remarkable professional gains. Questions from peers about assumptions and beliefs on student learning can, over time, impact the learning of those teachers' students.

For several years, the Coalition of Essential Schools (CES) with centers across the country, the National School Reform Faculty and The Annenberg Institute, have devoted time and energy to formalize an approach to educators' "self-analysis," through an approach called "Critical Friends Groups," (CFG's). A Critical Friends Group brings together six to ten teachers within a school for at least two years, to help each other look seriously at their own classroom practice and make changes to it. After a solid grounding in group process skills, members focus on designing learning goals for students and instructional strategies for themselves that can be stated specifically enough that others can observe them in operation. They devise strategies to move students toward these goals and collect evidence in a variety of ways. In a setting of mutual support and honest critical feedback from trusted peers, they then strive to affirm their goals and revise their strategies.

CFG members bring to the table their students' work, lesson plans and units, case studies of students, classroom dilemmas, peer observation evidence, and prospective texts. Using structures called protocols to guide their discussion, CFG members help each other "tune" their teaching by analyzing and critiquing artifacts, observations and issues pertaining to their practice.

Each CFG meets for at least two hours, once or twice a month with a trained coach or facilitator. Over the course of a school year, this can add up to 18-30 hours of teacher development. Many Coalition schools have multiple CFGs, and typically, the groups broaden their perspective and connections with others through partnerships and regional meetings with CFG's from other schools.

Three key components of CFGs appear to lead to renewal: collegial support, substantive conversation and collaborative inquiry. Let's take a look at each.

Collegial Support
Through the use of team and trust building activities teachers in a group develop support for one another. Most teachers work alone with their students in the classroom, but a CFG meeting provides an opportunity for them to come together to share and grow in their practice. Once a sense of real trust develops, the "critical" in Critical Friends Groups can thrive.

Critical questioning strategies are used in the protocols in order to deepen the work when a group looks at evidence of a teacher practice, such as student assignments, teacher work or peer observation evidence. Without the establishment of common goals and mutual trust the group may never become wholeheartedly comfortable at helping each other by critiquing student and teacher work. The group must avoid a purely social atmosphere and instead works intentionally to become a highly functioning professional collaboration. This is why the group needs a structure for substantive conversation-- protocols.

Substantive Conversation
Protocols are procedures for looking closely at student and/or original work --engaging group members in a facilitated and structured discussion focused on actual samples of student work or evidence from peer observations. Through this conversational analysis of a specific piece of work, participants attempt to learn what the work reveals about the author of the work – his or her interests, intent, issues and concerns. By focusing collaboratively on specific work, a group can engage in authentic dialogue about a compelling question or issue that relates to student work and performance while also reflecting on colleagues' own practice. Participants also consider how the insights and observations brought out in this substantive conversation may impact their own future instruction or practice.

Deborah Ball and David Cohen (1999) support a focus on professional talk. They say:

Thoughtful discussion is one element of good professional development, a goal of CFGs. Conversation centered on investigating a teacher's practice is what will change and hopefully enhance teacher practice in order to improve student learning.

Collaborative Inquiry
Joint inquiry is one way to investigate whether the practices that teachers employ are really helping their students learn. In a CFG, teachers can share their most passionate questions about their practice. With the help of the group they form an inquiry question to investigate. The group can help the teacher brainstorm strategies and suggest relevant evidence to use in his or her investigation. By gathering evidence around strategies that are implemented, teachers can begin to find out which strategies are enhancing student learning. Again Ball and Cohen tell us that, "Orienting professional learning toward the joint professional study and analysis of teaching and learning would knit professional development inextricably into the practice of teaching "(p. 19). Research from university professors like Ball and Cohen, is helpful for improving teaching, but teachers need to investigate their own practice while "in the act" of teaching in order to truly improve.

Three Examples of Teachers Changing Practice
A seventh grade mathematics teacher brought student work in the form of a problem solving quiz to his CFG. During the protocol-guided discussion, many questions came up about the grades students received on the quiz and the actual student work. Several teacher assumptions were uncovered during the process. The teacher gave credit to students for what he thought they understood, instead of what they actually demonstrated on the written work. The group providing feedback helped him to see that the student work did not show the learning he assumed. During the discussion, his peers pointed out where incomplete sentences and vague responses showed lapses in thinking by the students. The teacher knew from his work with the students that they understood the mathematical concepts; however he was alarmed by how much credit he was giving students for incomplete answers on their work. Uncovering his assumptions about what students knew was truly an "Aha" for him. Following this experience, the teacher worked with the rest of the math department to design a problem-solving rubric. The rubric has guided students to be more articulate about explaining how they solve math problems. Students check themselves with the rubric to ensure that they have identified the question, used complete sentences, answered the question, and shown the steps illustrating how they solved the problem.

In another CFG, an eighth grade Humanities teacher talked about her use of Socratic seminars to discuss text and her disappointment that her students never seemed to take the conversations to a deep level. She invited members of her CFG to observe and provide her with data about the level of conversation during the Socratic Seminar. The observers recorded the number and types of questions that were used by both the teacher and the students. From this data and a protocol-guided discussion, the teacher determined that she needed to use more scaffolding techniques with her students-- that is, she needed to give them more careful preparation in what to do. She also learned that her expectations were not sufficiently explicit. Subsequently, she taught through the lens of Bloom's taxonomy and worked with her students on questioning techniques. She found that, during the next seminar the conversation went deeper. In fact the follow up student writing assignments included far more analysis, synthesis and evaluation because of the changes she had made with her students.

A high school science teacher found herself increasingly exhausted at the end of every school day. She brought this dilemma to her CFG, declaring that in her science labs she did most of the work while her students were content to be enablers. In fact, it had reached the point where the students expected her to work much harder that they did. She even began to suffer from migraines. The teacher wanted a classroom environment that exemplified the 5th Common Principle of the Coalition of Essential Schools -- student as worker, teacher as coach.

Her CFG colleagues rallied around the problem and offered her several concrete strategies that might turn around the situation. For the next few weeks she tested the strategies and kept a journal of the results and her perceptions. She also gathered reflections about the changes from her students. By the next CFG meeting she was able to report that her energy had returned, her students were working harder and smarter and that her migraines had gone away.

"Of Teachers, By Teachers, For Teachers"
These are just three of many examples of changes to teacher practice and effectiveness that we have observed through teacher engagement in CFGs. Principals and administrators have also used these techniques to improve performance and renew commitment. CFGs are not just about learning and using new strategies. They are also about finding out what students know and understand as evidenced in their work. When teachers intentionally and collaboratively delve into analysis of evidence, they are better able to create the necessary strategies to improve student achievement. At the same time, they are able to enjoy and appreciate a sense of mental and emotional renewal.

A friend and fellow teacher of ours, Matt Cadman, states passionately that, "CFGs are ongoing professional development of teachers, by teachers and for teachers." Elmore and Burney (1999) agree:

It is time for teachers to be given the opportunity to investigate their practice in an environment where they feel safe to take risks to improve, while being nurtured by their peers. This is teacher renewal at its most fulfilling. With renewed spirit and energy, teachers will continue learning throughout their careers and ultimately their lifetimes.

For more information on CFGs please visit the Coalition of Essential Schools Northwest Center website at http://www.cesnorthwest.org

Ball, D L. and D. K. Cohen, (1999) "Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education" in Darling-Hammond, L. and G. Sykes. (1999)Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Elmore, R. F. and D. Burney. (1999) "Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement" in Darling-Hammond, L. and G. Sykes. (1999) Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Sagor, R. (1992) How to Conduct Collaborative Action Research. Alexandria,VA: ASCD.

Blythe, T., Allen, D., and B. Schieffelin Powell. (1997) Looking Together at Student Work: A Comparison Guide to Assessing Student Learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

Purpose: To explore the article, clarify our thoughts, expand our perspectives, and build on each other's thinking.
Key to facilitation: Monitor timing and avoid dialogue.
Sit in a circle. Four people in a group works best.
Four rounds will occur. Each round takes approximately 7 minutes. Each round will begin with one person followed by the other three.
(3 minutes) The first person begins by reading what "struck them the most" from the text. One thought or quote.
(1 minutes per person) Proceeding around the circle each person responds briefly.
(1 minute) The person that began then has the "final word" to respond to what has been said.
The next person in the circle then begins by sharing what struck them etc.
The role of facilitator is to keep it moving, keep it clear and directed to the article, make connections and keep time so everyone gets an opportunity to speak. Debrief the process after you have finished.

Tuning Protocol From Blythe, T., Allen, D. & B. Scheffelin Powell. (1997) A Guide to Looking Collaboratively at Student Work.

The tuning protocol is a formalized way to get feedback on work in progress to examine student work as a means to refine curriculum or practice. As with music this is a rehearsal where the tuning of the instrument is vital to the quality of the music. The process can be as short as 30-40 minutes.

Specifics:
1. Introduction (5 minutes) Facilitator briefly introduces the protocol goals, guidelines and schedule. A person (the Tunee) brings any work in progress to a group of peers (the Tuners) for "tuning." It can be, for example, student work in progress, finished student work that a teacher wishes to examine, a faculty committee bringing a first draft of a proposal, etc...

2. Teacher Presentation (10 minutes) Tuners read, or view the presented work. The Tunee presents the work to the Tuners, elaborating on what has been given to the Tuners. No interruptions or questions are allowed, just listening and note taking by the Tuners. The Tunee may ask for specific feedback (framed feedback) or may leave it open (unframed feedback).

3. Clarifying Questions (5 minutes) Tuners may ask clarifying questions, but no discussion is allowed.

4. Feedback (10-20 minutes) Tuners discuss the work together, giving three kinds of feedback each in separate intervals. The Tunee may only listen and take notes while the Tuners talk. Feedback is directly related to the work at hand and does not refer to the Tunee.
• Warm Feedback -- Positive points associated with the work.
• Cool Feedback -- Questions that arise, doubts, gaps in the work.
• Challenging Feedback -- Challenges related to the work. So what? Who cares?
Challenging feedback is often not used until people are accustomed to this as a way to learn rather than a personal matter or a judgment.

5. Reflection (10 minutes) The Tunee responds to the feedback given by the Tuners. Responses should be about changes that might be made, new insights, clarifications. Response is not an opportunity to defend the work.

6. Debrief (5-10 minutes) The facilitator leads a brief conversation about the group's observation of the process.

Dr. Judith Gray is on the Core Faculty of Antioch University in Seattle. She began her CFG work as a coach in 1995 after training at the Annenberg Institute of School Reform and has trained Coaches throughout Washington, conducted clinics nationally, and established CFGs in several high schools. She is a member of the National School Reform Faculty and the Small Schools Coaches Collaborative.

Dr. Jill Hudson is currently the principal of Madison Middle School in Seattle, Washington. She has worked for the Coalition of Essential School Northwest Center since 1998 and facilitated CFG work and whole school change efforts throughout Washington, Oregon and Alaska. She is a member of the National School Reform Faculty and an adjunct professor at Antioch University.

This information is provided by:
Office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Special Education
P O Box 47200
Olympia, WA 98504-7200
(360) 725-6088
Fax (360)586-1631
E-mail: dgill@ospi.wednet.edu