TeacherÕs Talk: Assessing the Depth of Interactions in a Teacher-Initiated PLC

 

Theoretical Framework

 

Little is known about teachersÕ use of time when working collaboratively during events such as common-planning periods or in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) (Little, 2003; Cook and Faulkner, 2010). The research in this area that does exist suggests that typical conversations in teacher PLCs Òare low depth, characterized by story swapping, sharing materials, and providing discrete bits of information or adviceÓ (Coburn and Russell, 2008b, p. 1).

 

Several researchers have investigated the routines associated with teachersÕ interactions during PLCs (Coburn and Russell, 2008a, Horn and Little, 2010). Coburn and Russell (2008a) characterize routines of interaction as "routines intended to guide conversation between adults on matters of instruction" (p. 217). They found that as teachers participated in PLCs, their engagement in various routines of interaction produced different levels of depth of interaction. They define low, medium, and high depth as shown in Table 1.

 

Table 1

Levels of Depth of teachersÕ interactions in PLCs (Coburn & Russell, 2008a, p. 230).

Level of Depth	Definition
Low	Talk related to one or more of the following: how to use materials; how to coordinate the text, standards, assessments, and pacing guides; how to organize the classroom; sharing materials or activities; general discussions of how a lesson went or whether students were getting it
Medium	Talk related to one or more of the following: discussions of how lessons went, including a discussion of why; detailed planning for lessons, including a discussion of why; specific and detailed discussion of whether students were learning (but not how students learn); discussion of instructional strategies in the context of observations; doing mathematics problems together with discussion
High	Talk related to one or more of the following: pedagogical principles underlying instructional approaches; how students learn, or the nature of studentsÕ mathematical thinking; mathematical principles or concepts

 

Methods

 

At the end of the 2009-2010 school year two experienced middle school teachers learned they would be teaching 8^th grade the following year. Although both were familiar with the reform-based curriculum used in the district, (Connected Mathematics Project 2), neither was familiar with the 8^th grade material, as neither teacher had taught 8^th grade for many years. These teachers contacted a district mathematics coach and asked if she would be willing to help them prepare to teach the material for the upcoming year. These three, the two teachers and the coach, then invite the author to participate in their meetings as a Òknowledgeable otherÓ. This study investigates whether this teacher-initiated PLC produced effective and quality conversations about their instructional practices? Specifically it will examine five questions:

-      What was the depth of the groupÕs interactions?

-      What routines of interaction did the PLC members engage in?

-      What are the depths of interaction associated with the various routines of interaction and did these depths change over times?

-      What factors appear to support or inhibit depth of interaction?

-      What factors appear to support or inhibit the development of routines of interaction?

 

The PLC met weekly over a nine-month period. Audio recordings of each meeting, along with the authorÕs field notes, were used to create summaries that included details about the nature of the activities in which the trio engaged, how much time was spent on each activity, and how the various members of the group participated.

 

Data/ Evidence

 

Coburn and RussellÕs (2008b) definitions of low, medium, and high depth given in Table 1 were slightly adapted to better fit the content of the PLC discussions. A fourth category, ÒNo DepthÓ, was added to the framework. This was defined as talk that did not pertain to content, pedagogy or teachersÕ instruction (e.g., discussion of what to do in subsequent meetings, Òchit chatÓ about non-work related issues). This framework was then used to categorize the depth of the PLC membersÕ interactions and to identify possible reoccurring routines of interaction. Coding was preformed by examining the meeting summaries, and referring to the audio recordings when clarifications were needed, and identifying shifts in interactions. The duration of each interaction was noted and each interaction was then coded as either no, low, medium, or high depth.

 

Results/ Conclusions

 

Five routines of interaction were identified: work with mathematical tasks, unstructured reflection on practice, structured reflection on practice, discussion of instructional moves, and modeling instruction. A preliminary analysis shows that each of these routines typically produced interactions that were at a medium depth. Factors such as the use of a meeting protocol and choices regarding the breadth of focus of the group appear to support the development of some of theses routines.

 

Educational Importance

 

This study adds to existing research about the type and quality of teacher interactions by looking closely at the depth of interactions. Whereas previous studies either looked at depth of interactions predominately from how teachers described interactions (Coburn & Russell, 2008a) or focused on one type of routine of interaction (Horn & Little, 2010), this study investigates the interactions themselves and looks at all of the routines of interactions in the PLC throughout the course of a year.

 

Coburn and Russell (2008b) claim that, Òin order for coaching and PLC initiatives to support instructional improvement, they should enable teachers to engage in conversations about how students learn content and what teachers can do to ensure all students learnÓ (p. 2). Low-depth interactions in the form of superficial or general discussions do not provide teachers opportunities to engage in conversations that are likely to help them improve their instruction. However, medium and high depth interactions which focus on the why and how of content, teaching, and student learning centered around specific tasks or instructional moves grounded in teachersÕ classrooms are more in line with Coburn and RussellÕs recommendation of how to better support teacher learning and improvement. Identifying routines associated with more in-depth conversations among teachers can lead to more productive interactions and improved teaching.

 

References

Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008a). District policy and teachersÕ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203-235.

 

Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008b). Getting the most out of professional learning communities and coaching: Promoting interactions that support instructional improvement. Learning Policy Brief, 1(3), 1–5.

 

Cook, C. M., & Faulkner, S. A. (2010). The use of common planning time: A case study of two Kentucky Schools to Watch. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 34(2), 1-12.

 

Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachersÕ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 181-217.

 

Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. The Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913–945.

 

Timeline & Priority Areas

The findings of the study will be presented electronically via PowerPoint and the presenter will field questions from the audience members. This study addresses the area of professional learning as it touches on what teachers do in PLCs and what types of routines may lead to interactions with more depth that touch on teachers' instruction, mathematical content, and/or student learning.