LT facilitates richer instructional discourse
Analysis of Instructional Talk in Teacher Workgroup Meetings
By Katherine McKnight, PhD and Angela Carlson-Bancroft, MA
Evaluation Report to Los Angeles Unified School District, September 30, 2008.[1]
Rich instructional discourse in collaborative teacher teams is assumed to be a critical component of teacher learning and development (McDougall 2002). In October, 2007, Pearson studied instructional discourse in LT and non-LT teacher workgroups over the course of one year in several middle and high schools. The purpose of the study was to determine the extent to which teacher discourse in workgroups changed over the course of the year with respect to (a) the quality of discussions about instruction; and (b) the nature of those discussions (e.g., content focus, level of detail, and so on). The working hypothesis was that when implemented well, LT protocols would promote not just more collaboration around instruction, but higher quality instructional discourse that was sustainable over time.
Researchers videotaped three rounds of the Instructional Leadership Team meeting and subsequent Algebra teacher workgroup meetings in four LT schools. Two volunteer, after-school Algebra teacher workgroups, verified by LAUSD to represent “typical” teacher workgroups, served as non-LT comparisons, Researchers rated the quality of instructional discourse in each group across several dimensions with scores ranging from Level 1 (“Minimal”), to Level 2 (“Developing”), to Level 3 (“Good”), to Level 4 (“Optimal”).
Findings. By comparing three workgroups that were not implementing Learning Teams (two non-LT after-school workgroups and one LT-serviced workgroup that failed to implement LT) to three groups that were implementing LT, researchers found the following:
ü Instruction vs. Operations. Workgroups that implemented LT effectively were more focused on instruction than operations. By the end of the year, two of the three implementing workgroups were focused entirely on instructional matters during their meetings, a feat that is difficult to achieve (Elmore, 2000).
ü Quality of Discourse. Two of three functioning LT Teacher Workgroups showed either improvements in or maintenance of features of instructional discourse. Features of their discourse included: curiosity and openness to expressing doubt regarding instructional beliefs; critical thinking and probing questions about instructional issues; concrete and shared vocabulary with which to discuss instruction; and coherent discussions with relevant details about instructional issues. All three functioning LT workgroups showed greater tendency to attribute student learning to their own instruction versus external factors or student traits (e.g. socioeconomic conditions, inexperience with the English language, academic inability, or lack of parental involvement). They demonstrated more depth and rigor in their instructional discussions, and expressed greater willingness to learn about teaching than did the non-implementing LT workgroup and the two comparison workgroups. There was less difference between the groups with respect to precision, detail and coherence in their instructional discourse.
ü Teacher Leadership. The level of instructional discourse within the Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) meetings was not strongly related to the level of instructional discourse in the Teacher Workgroup meeting. However, the leadership skills of the teacher facilitator were related to the quality of his/her group’s instructional discourse. Workgroups with stronger facilitators by the end of the year (facilitators who encouraged participation, sustained discussions, summarized and fed back key points to the team) showed high levels of instructional discourse by the end of the year.
For a copy of the summary report, please contact info@pearsonlt.com.
