My Favorite Mistake: A Dysfunctional PLC
Who: Katie Wall
Role: Director of Evaluation & Coaching, former data specialist, Curriculum Coach, and middle school math teacher
As a team of 4, our idea was simple: to try out Project-Based Learning in an actual classroom. Our team was comprised of the following:
1.) Myself: former middle school math teacher, current Director of Evaluation & Coaching
2.) Jenna McKeel: former middle school science teacher, current Director of School Improvement
3.) Randy Parker: former high school science teacher, current Science Coordinator
4.) Dana Jernigan: former high school English teacher, current Executive Director of Secondary Education
Only one of us had any experience with PBL during our time in the classroom. Only one of us had actually taught this grade level subject (not the same person). Only two of us had content knowledge in science. But we knew that we needed to experience PBL in the classroom for ourselves. So, onward we progressed... to planning.
We had an idea to do a PBL slice (a small version of project-based learning) during one day of 7th grade science. The focus would be on the parts of an animal cell and their functions. One team member suggested the PBL slice idea. Another suggested and found a classroom with which to "experiment". Another team member had an actual idea of how to implement, entitled "Escape From a Cell".
The idea was to launch the project by pretending the teacher had somehow "shrunk" himself into a human cell. Students would then be tasked with (a) determining how he could get out of the cell using the functions of the cell's organelles (the investigation), and (b) communicate that plan to him via a map, written directions, or spoken directions on video (the final product).
But from the beginning, our well-intentioned PLC functioned like a conglomeration of mis-fit toys. In fact, upon reflecting on our time together, we actually said the following about our behavior during our initial planning meeting:
One member was absent, another was off-task, and the other two actually became (almost) aggressively argumentative towards each other.
First: The member who submitted the idea of "Escape From a Cell" and had the strongest content knowledge was also the absent member.
Second: The member who had experience with PBL was also the disengaged member.
Third: Over the course of the meeting, two members engaged into a very heated argument. It all stemmed from one member's visible passion towards the idea, and their interpretation of another member's questions towards the idea. In one member's mind, the idea worked great with the curriculum, and students would have enough background knowledge to be able to complete the investigation - without any barriers. In the other member's mind, there was a disconnect between the objective of the project and the actual grade level content standard. With opposing opinions, questions and inquisitions of the project idea were misinterpreted as negative critiques. And misunderstandings quickly turned into heated debate and defensiveness.
Take-Away 1
This is a common barrier for PLCs, as with anyone in education. The day-to-day madness can sometimes get in the way of PLC time. Many times, the urgent trumps the valuable, because the urgent has a timeline. Thus, PLC members become disengaged or schedule other meetings. There's a lot of reasons this happens - value of time, urgency, differences in priorities, etc.
The reality is that we should have created group norms that were specific to what behaviors engaged participants displayed, how to prioritize time, and what to do in the event of a necessary absence. This was a flaw in our planning and preparation, and caused a hindrance to our progress. In fact, we had to create a second meeting to all get back on the same page.
Take-Away 2
Communication can be our best friend or our worst enemy. In this case, we made it our enemy. Rather than talking out our ideas respectfully and giving the other member the benefit of the doubt (another issue that could have been prevented with norms), we assumed the worst. So our communication became heated, unproductive, and unintentionally hurtful. A better approach would have been to clarify our expectations from the beginning of the proposed lesson - that it was simply a proposal. Then, as a team, we probably should have discussed both the positive aspects AND the possible barriers of the project. After identifying barriers as a team, we could have looked at action steps to overcome the possible barriers. This might have included ensuring there was alignment with the standards, creating student learning targets aligned with the standard, determining how to monitor student progress informally, but systematically, during the lesson, etc. These steps would have made our time both valuable and productive.
In Summary
Like a cell, a PLC has a lot of components, and is complex in how those components work together to function efficiently. When one component is not functioning properly, it can affect all of the other components as well, and can hinder both productivity and functionality. In our case, several components were not functioning. But also in our case, all of these "malfunctions" could have been prevented with norms, preparation, and protocols for communication.
Hopefully, other PLCs do not fall prey to these same malfunctions, and have put into place preventive measures to create more harmonious functionality. If not, consider our mistakes as you move forward. How might you and your PLC increase your productivity?
In reality, we were not a PLC, but rather a group of a people with a plan. Check out how our implementation went in next month's "My Favorite Mistake".
Comments
Post a Comment