Untitled Document<\/title> \n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text\/html; charset=iso-8859-1\"> \n<\/meta><\/head><\/p>\n<body><\/p>\nA<\/strong><\/font>s far as team-based instruction<\/strong> \n goes, I have one main recommendation: I think that the team must find a way \n to share their curricular plans in as much detail,<\/em> in as much advance,<\/em> \n and as regularly<\/em> as possible. Teachers rarely get into the specifics \n of their teaching\/learning goals and methods when they work individually. If \n at all, such sharing would happen at the department level; it likely happens \n with new teachers. But I think in most cases it tapers off, particularly as \n teachers become busy managing and organizing their workload. I’d be interested \n to hear from those who have worked on teams. Does lesson planning go differently \n when a team is charged with the task? Does the team plan themes and goals together? \n Specific<\/em> goals and methods? <\/p>\nFor example, consider how a team meeting would go if the English teacher led \n off by saying something like, "In teaching Othello, <\/em>I will lead \n the children through an exploration of the notion of ‘women as property’…" \n What if the teacher then proceeded to quote lines and share specific lesson \n plans and activities on how this issue will be investigated by the students \n in her English class? Such groundwork might lead to insights and possibilities \n not necessarily possible if individuals planned in the traditional, isolated \n way. Might not, in such a collaborative environment, the social studies teacher \n get an idea for a unit on gender in different cultures or across the ages? Or \n for a unit on notions of monogamy? Or any of the themes…. What if the team \n decided on having each member take turns to bring to the fore the ways that \n an agreed-upon theme plays out in his or her subject matter? The crucial part \n is that the group members all<\/em> share what their angle in is<\/em>–so \n that every teacher might make references day-in day-out to the various "radiations" \n or "spokes" all protruding from (or to) the "hub" of the \n theme. It’s unlikely, however, that there is shared ownership of the curriculum \n and methods across the most teams, as they actually exist in the real, hectic \n world of school teaching. It ‘s unlikely in our posited example–the interdisciplinary \n team teaching Othello<\/em>–that everyone on the team has read Othello<\/em>….<\/p>\nBut consider the possibilities if the Othello<\/em> brainstorming were shared, \n and the planning were consensus based. Consider, for instance, if the group \n decided the shared focus was to be on the theme of "manipulation." \n Possibilities blossom … in the individual minds of the experts, all supported \n by the group dialogue, all differentiated by members’ specialized disciplinary \n lenses. The math teacher steps up and asserts: So much of math, which involves \n simply shifting numbers and variables from one side of the equation to the other, \n is simply the legal, premeditated, deliberate<\/em> practice of manipulation<\/strong>–taking \n what Iago does and stripping it of its moral charge (its negative<\/em> moral \n charge, says the mathematician with a devilish grin)–and getting away with \n what you can get away with–because the symbol system at hand allows for (some \n would say encourages<\/em>) such processes–all to the end of securing some \n advantage. The language of jealousy (or any human emotion or experience) in \n this sense is not all that different from the language of algebra. So many wonderful \n lesson plans about manipulation could help children exercise symbolic, linguistic \n prowess. But first, you, as teacher, would have to strip the term of its pejorative \n sense, and come to appreciate it almost as an art form. Iago’s performance looks \n quite different in those terms. Have the class cull examples of manipulation. \n Have them engage in one-upsmanship. The prize goes to the best tale of manipulation! \n Create a portfolio of nominees of "The Iago Achievement Award." OR! \n Shifting things around, what if you had the kids in math class take a "Show \n Your Work<\/strong>" episode, and retell<\/em> it in terms of the morality \n of human manipulation? Go Shakespearean on that quadratic equation. Talk about \n the scheming of subtracting an entity from your side (protagonist), the left \n side, so that your "opposite," the right side (antagonist), had to \n do exactly the same thing, lest the equality of the equal sign, that which may \n not be compromised, the beloved parallel shafts in eternal balance and beloved \n by all (even that right side), should lose its balance and collapse into itself \n and in that collapse, threaten that greater collapse, for where might balance \n ever be found again, if equality itself was to be made unequal…?<\/p>\nNow this all seems heady stuff, but I have to say–from my recent experience \n working nightly with my freshman daughter on her algebra that it was a major<\/em> \n stumbling block getting her to understand the notion of manipulation for manipulation’s \n sake<\/em> that is at the root of so much of algebraic prowess (not to mention Iago’s \n highly stylized machinations). She would say, whenever I tried to get her to \n "play" with an equation, to manipulate it (according to rule) this \n way or that way, she would say with a roll of her eyes, "What’s the point?" \n Since she couldn’t see the outcome, she couldn’t take the leap simply to engage \n in algebraic maneuvers right there at her disposal. Over and over I pleaded: \n So many of the good results of the Solved Problem<\/strong> stem from \n the sheer willingness–and ability–to manipulate like expressions simply for \n the sake of manipulating them. To know that "5-2" and the number "3" \n are exactly the same thing, and that the one can be substituted for the other….<\/p>\n Anyway…anyway…<\/p>\nI think the power of a team approach is unleashed when all the teachers involved \n are able to make regular references<\/em> to what is going on in the other \n classes. I am convinced that the value of a team approach does not lie in the \n "lessons" per se; it lies in having the teachers all on the same page. \n But to make this happen, you really need to insist that your team gets to the \n specifics<\/em> of its curriculum. Every<\/em> teacher must somehow be \n willing to take the leap to be conversant in every<\/em> discipline. To some \n extent. That’s where the potential of the "in-class connecting reference" \n lies…. If approached in the right way, this "bringing up to speed" \n of one another could be highly collaborative–or it could be divisive and threatening. \n I don’t think, however, teams should just assume that the issue is solved or \n not an issue–simply because you’re all colleagues and professionals. The most \n damaging attitude is the one whereby individuals, out of collegial respect or \n personal fears about their competence in other disciplines, leave interdiscipliary \n planning to each expert. That’s not collaboration! Just as I think kids in the \n classroom have to be taught explicitly how to collaborate, I think teachers \n need to be taught (or to teach themselves) how to be teammates. What if there \n were some formal team-building activity that oriented everyone to the vision \n of interconnected planning and instruction? <\/p>\nI anticipate that one rejoinder is going to be, "Who has the time for \n this kind of shared planning?" But anything worth doing is worth doing \n well. In this sense, the costs of such an approach are analogous to the costs \n of integrating technology in your teaching. To do it right involves excessive \n costs; it can take over. But after you let it take over, you’re in a different \n place, and you begin to glimpse possibilities you haven’t seen before. And with \n the other rewards comes a new, heightened efficiency–and the freeing up of \n time in unexpected ways. But this whole process would take lots of administrative \n support so that such planning meetings might be continued and supported over \n extended periods of time. For I would emphasize that in the shared planning \n model the advance planning (before the semester) is not nearly as important \n as the day-to-day, in-process team interaction as the lessons are being taught. \n The day-to-day activity ideas flow from the in-process brainstorming and discussions \n of the team.<\/p>\n So in a nutshell, here is my formula:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Get the team to share specifics of their curricular plans. Be formal about \n this. Assign each team member one day to bring the group up to speed on his\/her \n upcoming lessons, goals, activities.<\/li>\n<li> Come to some agreement as a team on the theme of each chunk of time.<\/li>\n<li> Find some way to keep the focus on team meetings during<\/em> the semester, \n rather than just before<\/em> the semester. Find some way to achieve agreement \n on the structure of the meetings; so often teachers need to de-pressurize, \n so there are powerful lures just to vent and short-circuit real thinking in \n team meetings. It can be a lot of work to have the kind of curricular-sharing \n meetings I’m talking about, so I think the group needs to be strategic about \n protecting the productivity of the day-to-day, in-process meetings.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nFinally, I would simply say that the kind of collegial discussion I have sketched \n here does<\/em> happen and has happened<\/em> since the creation of the \n first school at the very dawn of collegiality. I’ve seen it in various schools \n where the faculty members do<\/em> talk to each other. So I’m not proposing \n anything new. But I don’t think the "institutions" of school and professional \n life support these practices. People engage in them because<\/em> they are \n professional and dedicated and intelligent, and they see what is needed to make \n something work. The question I’m getting at is how can we reform professional \n structures to be more "friendly" to the kinds of interactions and \n collaborations that are needed to make innovations like team approaches work \n in the way they need to work to tap into their potential?<\/p>\n<\/body> \n<\/html><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"test<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-reform-in-education","category-thoughts-on-teaching-and-learning"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bonadonna.org\/sites\/wordpress\/bonadonna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bonadonna.org\/sites\/wordpress\/bonadonna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bonadonna.org\/sites\/wordpress\/bonadonna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bonadonna.org\/sites\/wordpress\/bonadonna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bonadonna.org\/sites\/wordpress\/bonadonna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bonadonna.org\/sites\/wordpress\/bonadonna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bonadonna.org\/sites\/wordpress\/bonadonna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bonadonna.org\/sites\/wordpress\/bonadonna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bonadonna.org\/sites\/wordpress\/bonadonna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

{"id":41,"date":"2005-06-29T00:56:40","date_gmt":"2005-06-29T05:56:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/english.sxu.edu\/bonadonna\/blog1\/?p=41"},"modified":"2005-08-27T11:09:36","modified_gmt":"2005-08-27T16:09:36","slug":"towards-shared-planning-in-team-based-instruction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bonadonna.org\/sites\/wordpress\/bonadonna\/archives\/41","title":{"rendered":"Towards Shared Planning in Team-Based Instruction"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n
\nUntitled Document<\/title> \n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text\/html; charset=iso-8859-1\"> \n<\/meta><\/head><\/p>\n<body><\/p>\nA<\/strong><\/font>s far as team-based instruction<\/strong> \n goes, I have one main recommendation: I think that the team must find a way \n to share their curricular plans in as much detail,<\/em> in as much advance,<\/em> \n and as regularly<\/em> as possible. Teachers rarely get into the specifics \n of their teaching\/learning goals and methods when they work individually. If \n at all, such sharing would happen at the department level; it likely happens \n with new teachers. But I think in most cases it tapers off, particularly as \n teachers become busy managing and organizing their workload. I’d be interested \n to hear from those who have worked on teams. Does lesson planning go differently \n when a team is charged with the task? Does the team plan themes and goals together? \n Specific<\/em> goals and methods? <\/p>\nFor example, consider how a team meeting would go if the English teacher led \n off by saying something like, "In teaching Othello, <\/em>I will lead \n the children through an exploration of the notion of ‘women as property’…" \n What if the teacher then proceeded to quote lines and share specific lesson \n plans and activities on how this issue will be investigated by the students \n in her English class? Such groundwork might lead to insights and possibilities \n not necessarily possible if individuals planned in the traditional, isolated \n way. Might not, in such a collaborative environment, the social studies teacher \n get an idea for a unit on gender in different cultures or across the ages? Or \n for a unit on notions of monogamy? Or any of the themes…. What if the team \n decided on having each member take turns to bring to the fore the ways that \n an agreed-upon theme plays out in his or her subject matter? The crucial part \n is that the group members all<\/em> share what their angle in is<\/em>–so \n that every teacher might make references day-in day-out to the various "radiations" \n or "spokes" all protruding from (or to) the "hub" of the \n theme. It’s unlikely, however, that there is shared ownership of the curriculum \n and methods across the most teams, as they actually exist in the real, hectic \n world of school teaching. It ‘s unlikely in our posited example–the interdisciplinary \n team teaching Othello<\/em>–that everyone on the team has read Othello<\/em>….<\/p>\nBut consider the possibilities if the Othello<\/em> brainstorming were shared, \n and the planning were consensus based. Consider, for instance, if the group \n decided the shared focus was to be on the theme of "manipulation." \n Possibilities blossom … in the individual minds of the experts, all supported \n by the group dialogue, all differentiated by members’ specialized disciplinary \n lenses. The math teacher steps up and asserts: So much of math, which involves \n simply shifting numbers and variables from one side of the equation to the other, \n is simply the legal, premeditated, deliberate<\/em> practice of manipulation<\/strong>–taking \n what Iago does and stripping it of its moral charge (its negative<\/em> moral \n charge, says the mathematician with a devilish grin)–and getting away with \n what you can get away with–because the symbol system at hand allows for (some \n would say encourages<\/em>) such processes–all to the end of securing some \n advantage. The language of jealousy (or any human emotion or experience) in \n this sense is not all that different from the language of algebra. So many wonderful \n lesson plans about manipulation could help children exercise symbolic, linguistic \n prowess. But first, you, as teacher, would have to strip the term of its pejorative \n sense, and come to appreciate it almost as an art form. Iago’s performance looks \n quite different in those terms. Have the class cull examples of manipulation. \n Have them engage in one-upsmanship. The prize goes to the best tale of manipulation! \n Create a portfolio of nominees of "The Iago Achievement Award." OR! \n Shifting things around, what if you had the kids in math class take a "Show \n Your Work<\/strong>" episode, and retell<\/em> it in terms of the morality \n of human manipulation? Go Shakespearean on that quadratic equation. Talk about \n the scheming of subtracting an entity from your side (protagonist), the left \n side, so that your "opposite," the right side (antagonist), had to \n do exactly the same thing, lest the equality of the equal sign, that which may \n not be compromised, the beloved parallel shafts in eternal balance and beloved \n by all (even that right side), should lose its balance and collapse into itself \n and in that collapse, threaten that greater collapse, for where might balance \n ever be found again, if equality itself was to be made unequal…?<\/p>\nNow this all seems heady stuff, but I have to say–from my recent experience \n working nightly with my freshman daughter on her algebra that it was a major<\/em> \n stumbling block getting her to understand the notion of manipulation for manipulation’s \n sake<\/em> that is at the root of so much of algebraic prowess (not to mention Iago’s \n highly stylized machinations). She would say, whenever I tried to get her to \n "play" with an equation, to manipulate it (according to rule) this \n way or that way, she would say with a roll of her eyes, "What’s the point?" \n Since she couldn’t see the outcome, she couldn’t take the leap simply to engage \n in algebraic maneuvers right there at her disposal. Over and over I pleaded: \n So many of the good results of the Solved Problem<\/strong> stem from \n the sheer willingness–and ability–to manipulate like expressions simply for \n the sake of manipulating them. To know that "5-2" and the number "3" \n are exactly the same thing, and that the one can be substituted for the other….<\/p>\n Anyway…anyway…<\/p>\nI think the power of a team approach is unleashed when all the teachers involved \n are able to make regular references<\/em> to what is going on in the other \n classes. I am convinced that the value of a team approach does not lie in the \n "lessons" per se; it lies in having the teachers all on the same page. \n But to make this happen, you really need to insist that your team gets to the \n specifics<\/em> of its curriculum. Every<\/em> teacher must somehow be \n willing to take the leap to be conversant in every<\/em> discipline. To some \n extent. That’s where the potential of the "in-class connecting reference" \n lies…. If approached in the right way, this "bringing up to speed" \n of one another could be highly collaborative–or it could be divisive and threatening. \n I don’t think, however, teams should just assume that the issue is solved or \n not an issue–simply because you’re all colleagues and professionals. The most \n damaging attitude is the one whereby individuals, out of collegial respect or \n personal fears about their competence in other disciplines, leave interdiscipliary \n planning to each expert. That’s not collaboration! Just as I think kids in the \n classroom have to be taught explicitly how to collaborate, I think teachers \n need to be taught (or to teach themselves) how to be teammates. What if there \n were some formal team-building activity that oriented everyone to the vision \n of interconnected planning and instruction? <\/p>\nI anticipate that one rejoinder is going to be, "Who has the time for \n this kind of shared planning?" But anything worth doing is worth doing \n well. In this sense, the costs of such an approach are analogous to the costs \n of integrating technology in your teaching. To do it right involves excessive \n costs; it can take over. But after you let it take over, you’re in a different \n place, and you begin to glimpse possibilities you haven’t seen before. And with \n the other rewards comes a new, heightened efficiency–and the freeing up of \n time in unexpected ways. But this whole process would take lots of administrative \n support so that such planning meetings might be continued and supported over \n extended periods of time. For I would emphasize that in the shared planning \n model the advance planning (before the semester) is not nearly as important \n as the day-to-day, in-process team interaction as the lessons are being taught. \n The day-to-day activity ideas flow from the in-process brainstorming and discussions \n of the team.<\/p>\n So in a nutshell, here is my formula:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Get the team to share specifics of their curricular plans. Be formal about \n this. Assign each team member one day to bring the group up to speed on his\/her \n upcoming lessons, goals, activities.<\/li>\n<li> Come to some agreement as a team on the theme of each chunk of time.<\/li>\n<li> Find some way to keep the focus on team meetings during<\/em> the semester, \n rather than just before<\/em> the semester. Find some way to achieve agreement \n on the structure of the meetings; so often teachers need to de-pressurize, \n so there are powerful lures just to vent and short-circuit real thinking in \n team meetings. It can be a lot of work to have the kind of curricular-sharing \n meetings I’m talking about, so I think the group needs to be strategic about \n protecting the productivity of the day-to-day, in-process meetings.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nFinally, I would simply say that the kind of collegial discussion I have sketched \n here does<\/em> happen and has happened<\/em> since the creation of the \n first school at the very dawn of collegiality. I’ve seen it in various schools \n where the faculty members do<\/em> talk to each other. So I’m not proposing \n anything new. But I don’t think the "institutions" of school and professional \n life support these practices. People engage in them because<\/em> they are \n professional and dedicated and intelligent, and they see what is needed to make \n something work. The question I’m getting at is how can we reform professional \n structures to be more "friendly" to the kinds of interactions and \n collaborations that are needed to make innovations like team approaches work \n in the way they need to work to tap into their potential?<\/p>\n<\/body> \n<\/html><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"test<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-reform-in-education","category-thoughts-on-teaching-and-learning"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bonadonna.org\/sites\/wordpress\/bonadonna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bonadonna.org\/sites\/wordpress\/bonadonna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bonadonna.org\/sites\/wordpress\/bonadonna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bonadonna.org\/sites\/wordpress\/bonadonna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bonadonna.org\/sites\/wordpress\/bonadonna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bonadonna.org\/sites\/wordpress\/bonadonna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bonadonna.org\/sites\/wordpress\/bonadonna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bonadonna.org\/sites\/wordpress\/bonadonna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bonadonna.org\/sites\/wordpress\/bonadonna\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}