Inquiry. We are adamant about inquiry and the use of essential questions to frame a learning experience. While there is always fundamental and essential knowledge to be acquired, we engage learners in their own sense-making (because ultimately that’s what learners do anyway, even when not explicitly asked to do so). We are not afraid of rigorous concepts or scholarly text and find that teachers and principals invest themselves vigorously around complex ideas. We often use what we call “out-of-sector” examples (such as from business or other social sector arenas) that require cognitive transfer and deepen conceptual understanding of the content. You’ll hear us use sentence stems such as, What are the implications..? and Why do you think…? and How do you know….? And we are rabid about data, asking learners to regularly surface any assumptions they may be making that may lock them into a particular set of practices or beliefs.

Reflection. We are equally committed to the practice of reflection and we incorporate reflective opportunities throughout our sessions: in the beginning as we revisit earlier concepts and surface prior learning, at appropriate intervals where a particularly complex idea may need some additional internal or external processing to be fully understood, and always as an essential element of closure, where everything must come together as a final “sense-making” opportunity. This deliberate insertion of metacognitive strategies embeds the knowledge acquired through inquiry in ways that make the learning personal, applicable, and sustainable. You’ll hear us ask you to consider the So What? and Now What? of your learning, to synthesize your learning in ways that help you to communicate the big ideas and “take-aways” so that the learning can be applied. And we use reflection to be transparent about our processes and to reflect on the pedagogical moves we made so that you can replicate them for others.

And finally, Collaboration. Including collaborative processes into professional development has the twin benefits of expanding perspective in ways that will broaden and deepen your learning as well as support the sustainability of whatever practices you’re trying to put into place. This is where the learning objectives move from “me” to “we” as authentic collaboration over time establishes a system that enables an organization (be it your school or your district as a whole) to literally learn from itself. With collaboration, the current wisdom within an organization can grow exponentially and without limits and – and this is a resource issue – without a consistent infusion of external support.

We see this often – dependency on a one-to-one professional development model with no exit strategy to, as an example, move an instructional coaching strategy to more efficient and effective collaborative practice that will build capacity consistently, over time, and from within. Do we mean one-on-one instructional coaching is not effective? Not at all. We just think it’s a first step in a more robust strategy that will lead to self-sufficiency and a sustainable professional development system. While a school might begin with instructional coaching to build the capacity of a few key teacher leaders, the next step might be the development of studio classrooms so that the resources expended to support a handful of teachers can benefit larger numbers of staff. This might be followed by a more extensive collaborative network of teachers investigating common challenges, watching each other teach common lessons to learn from what works, and reflecting on how they might use what they’ve learned to improve the results for their students. (Notice how inquiry, collaboration, and reflection are popping up again?)

So to summarize our magic, we teach the discipline of inquiry that asks the learner to surface prior knowledge, work from data, and engage in rigorous content. We weave multiple opportunities into our sessions for reflection in ways that create relevance and insight to new content. Our closure activities are as important as any other elements of our lessons. And we utilize collaboration as a way to expand perspective, build sustainability, and move the learning from “me” to “we” so that professional development enables true organizational learning.

A word about effectiveness. We love for people to leave our sessions, be they one-on-one coaching, small group, or large group learning experiences, happy and feeling like their time is well spent. But to us that is not sufficient. The time and resources invested in professional development deserve to be measured by impact on practice and, ultimately, on student learning. So why do we think our professional development is effective? Because we ask about impact. We see principals changing the way they spend their time in classrooms, how they watch students and teachers interacting, and how they use what they learn to support teachers in very different ways. We hear teachers talking about changing how they teach, how they work with their colleagues to improve their teaching, and how they’ve learned to take the risk of opening their practice to observation by others in the name of improvement. And we follow the paths of the students in schools we support. We have confidence that the work of the courageous teachers and principals we support is changing the lives of students.

Harriette Thurber Rasmussen  (harrietteabeoscorg)   is a coach and partner with Abeo School Change.

Now I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve seen my share of what I’ll term “pseudo-collaboration” in classrooms and among adults. One of the more typical observations my instructional rounds teams make is that the students are seated in groups and working independently. Then there’s the common story about the cooperative group activity that sees one or two students doing the lions share of the work, with the other group members disengaged or involved in a different, more interesting (to them) task. Just as routine are the requests we receive to help adults engaged in professional learning communities learn how to collaborate. And I myself have argued that collaboration is a significant investment of human capital and that there are many instances where collaboration is employed without clear rationale or for the wrong reasons (Leadership as Conversation, ASCD Express, 12.22.10).

But that doesn’t suggest an absence of the need for productive teams and skillful collaboration. Certainly every predictor of economic success in a global economy claims the ability to work in teams. Social scientists acknowledge that the complexity of societal challenges require multiple perspectives to accurately define and solve its problems. And, frankly, most endeavors undertaken today require such high levels of expertise that it’s rare to find any one individual with the knowledge base that is sufficiently broad and deep to find success without the contributions of others. The answer, I think, is not to do away with collaboration, but instead to make sure that its potential is realized in a way that brings expertise and perspective where it’s needed, thus eliminating the concern that team time degenerates into the dreaded group-think.

I’ve come to believe that there are two essential elements to a productive team, be it a team of two or 20: chemistry and diversity. (Well, there are others, but without these two you might as well not even worry about any others.) Chemistry is needed because the individuals working together need to connect in that almost magical way that happens when people are able to build on each other’s thinking, fuse around a common goal, and really get each other’s perspectives. Without chemistry, the likelihood that team members will be able to produce something of value is low. Diversity is critical because without that, you might as well just tackle the task yourself. Diversity ensures that the different perspectives required for the task are represented in the group. It asks that the various types of expertise critical to a successful product are, indeed, present. In other words, chemistry and diversity represent (1) the ability and willingness to collaborate and learn from one another and (2) that the required expertise is in the room.

The design gurus of IDEO,* known around the world for successful and productive innovation (these guys designed the mouse; they’re really good) actually look for both of these qualities when they hunt for talent. They term this the T-shaped person: the small horizontal portion of the T represents the ability to collaborate and all that goes with it: empathy, active listening, understanding another’s perspective…. The longer vertical line of the T represents some distinct area of expertise that each individual brings with them. Both are essential: without the expertise, there is nothing to build on. And without the collaborative capacity, there is no way to pull the pieces together.

So my vote is that rather than give way to the worry of group-think, we opt for Teaming with a capital T and use the T in Team to ensure that the expertise (and diversity) to accomplish the task is present and that every team member is able to share that expertise through collaboration (and chemistry).

Sounds pretty simple, yes?

*IDEO is a world-leading design firm, with offices in Palo Alto, San Francisco, London, Boston and Shanghai, among other places. Consistently ranked as one of the most innovative companies in the world, IDEO is famous for its method of innovation based on intense cross-disciplinary project work. To pull this off, the company has long practiced the art of collaboration and the development of a certain kind of talent: T-shaped people.

Harriette Thurber Rasmussen  (harrietteabeoscorg)   is a coach and partner with Abeo School Change.

That’s my first point. That strategy is a guess and that there is some theory behind a decision to use one particular strategy over another, or at least there should be. Having a theory of action that accompanies an improvement strategy requires that someone or, better yet, someone(s) have articulated a rationale behind the strategy. Why do we think professional learning communities will improve student learning? How will adopting a new literacy program grow stronger readers and writers? What is the thinking behind an emphasis on teacher evaluation as it relates to student learning? It makes good sense to think through a decision to choose one action over another and even better sense to make this thinking public. This thinking, your rationale, is, in short, your theory of action.

A theory of action is at its core, a simple IF, THEN statement. IF we have professional learning communities, THEN student learning will improve. IF we adopt a new literacy program, THEN our students will be stronger readers and writers. IF we emphasize teacher evaluation, THEN student learning will improve.

But do you note something amiss with these statements? They’re pretty general and there is not really any linkage between the IF statement and the THEN conclusion. For example, it’s a pretty big leap to imagine that just having PLCs will improve student learning and yet this theory is in play all across the country.

This is my second point about theories of action. Its power lies within the specificity of thought, in the explicit reasoning that calls attention to essential steps and checkpoints. If left unstated, it is far too easy to just put a new strategy into place and during implementation miss critical elements that will render a good idea, such as professional learning communities, a success or failure when it comes to impacting student learning.

So let’s try this again and stretch it out into what Liz City (Instructional Rounds: A Network Approach to Improving Teaching and Learning, 2009) calls a storyline using professional learning communities as an example. Here’s how a more explicit theory of action might look:

IF we have professional learning communities, THEN we will have a scheduled time for teachers to discuss their work and the work students produce.

And IF teachers share their work and the results with each other, THEN they will be able to learn from each other’s successes and draw upon the expertise of their colleagues around common challenges.

And IF teachers draw upon the expertise and successes of their colleagues around common challenges, THEN teachers will be able to incorporate new and successful strategies into their practice with support from their colleagues.

And IF teachers incorporate successful strategies into their practice, THEN students will benefit from more effective teaching.

AND THEN student learning will increase.

What this example shows is that any improvement strategy is a sequence of strategic actions and that each must have an associated rationale (or theory). Why is this important? Because if you are not clear on what each element is intended to produce, you’ll not be able to test whether your theory was correct and it’s entirely possible you’ll get down the road and decide your strategy is not having the desired effect on student learning and dump it. And while it may be that the strategy was ineffective, it’s just as possible that one element wasn’t implemented quite the way you expected, or that you needed to tweak something in the middle.

Let’s go back to the PLC example again. In my practice I have watched district after district mandate professional learning communities after an inspiring workshop from the DuFours or a book study. And the most common response to my question, “how are they working for you?” is “some are and some aren’t.” And just as often, no one is ever able to point to a link to student learning as a result. So a good idea runs the risk of investing tremendous resources with no outcomes that affect students, or getting dropped in favor of the newest fad from the latest conference.

But a theory of action around PLC’s that specified what was expected to happen establishes a clear path toward the goal of impacting student learning. It becomes a set of checkpoints to make sure the expected outcomes at each step along the way are realized and suggests important interventions if they are not. What if, for example, early in the implementation process it was discovered that although the schools had found blocks of time for PLC’s to meet, the meetings consisted of nut and bolts or task assignments? Or that the teachers look at student work but not at their own?

This is my third point and perhaps the most important. Strategies, because they are best bets, need to have regular and specific checkpoints so that you’re able to test the theory behind the actions underway. A sequential theory of action, as in the example above, offers certain proof points that can suggest whether or not you’re on the right track, whether an intervention could be helpful, or if there are some important steps to your theory that were missing. Harvard University Professor Richard Elmore, who was largely responsible for bringing the concept of theories of actions to the world of K-12 education, says that theories of action, if written at all, should be written in pencil. If it’s doing its job, your theory of action will be revised and adapted to reflect your learning as you follow the predicted and actual events of strategy implementation.

So what’s a theory of action? Your best thinking made explicit…. Your rationale for choosing one strategy over another…. Your predicted course of action with identified checkpoints and evidence that it’s working, or not. Why do you need one? Because even the best ideas can fall flat when we enter that perilous place called implementation. And our students rely on our diligence to make sure that our best bets are working for them.

Can we help you think through your theory of action? Let us know!

Harriette Thurber Rasmussen  (harrietteabeoscorg)   is a coach and partner with Abeo School Change.