Educasting Study And Resource Guide On California Education Reform

Discussion Guides

Guide #1 – The Final Word Protocol
Guide #2 – Charrette protocol
Guide #3 – Four “A”s Text Protocol
Guide #4 – The Meaning Making Protocol: The Storytelling Version
Guide #5 – Questions and Assumptions Protocol
Guide #6 – Text-Based Seminar

Guide #1 – The Final Word Protocol*

Citation – adapted from the National School Reform Faculty / Harmony Education Center. Adapted from the original by Jennifer Fischer-Mueller and Gene Thompson-Grove for the NSRF. Link to the Final Word Protocol.

Purpose

The purpose of this discussion format is to give each person in the group an opportunity to have their ideas, understandings, and perspective enhanced by hearing from others. With this format, the group can explore article and interviews, clarify thinking, and have assumptions and beliefs questioned in order to gain a deeper understanding of the issues.

Facilitation

Have participants identify one “most” significant idea from the text (underlined or highlighted ahead of time), stick to the time limits, avoid dialogue, have equal-sized circles so all small groups finish at approximately the same time.

Process

Sit in a circle, and identify a facilitator/time-keeper. Each person needs to have identified one “most” significant idea from the text (in this case the audio materials). It is often helpful to identify a “back-up” quote or idea as well.

The first person begins by reading what “struck him/her most” from the interview(s). Then, in less than 3 minutes, this person describes why that quote struck him or her. For example, why does s/he agree/disagree with the quote, what questions does s/he have about that quote, what issues does it raise for him or her, what does s/he now wonder about in relation to that quote?

Continuing around the circle each person responds to that quote and what the presenter said, briefly, in less than a minute. The purpose of the response is:

To expand on the presenter’s thinking about the quote and the issues raised for him or her by the quote
To provide a different look at the quote
To clarify the presenter’s thinking about the quote, and/or
To question the presenter’s assumptions about the quote and the issues raised (although at this time there is no response from the presenter).

After going around the circle with each person having responded for less than one minute, the person who began has the “final word.” In no more than one minute the presenter responds to what has been said. Now what is s/he thinking? What is his or her reaction to what s/he has heard?

The next person in the circle then begins by sharing what struck him or her most from the text. Proceed around the circle, responding to this next presenter’s quote in the same way as the first presenter’s. This process continues until each person has had a round with his or her quote.

For each round, allow about 8 minutes (circles of 5 participants: presenter 3 minutes, response 1 minute for 4 people, final word for presenter 1 minute). The role of the facilitator is to keep the process moving, keep it clear and directed to the article, and keep time so everyone gets an opportunity for a round. Total time is about 40 minutes for a group of 5 (32 minutes for a group of 4, 48 minutes for a group of 6). End by debriefing the process in your small group.

Guide #2 – Charrette protocol*

Citation – adapted from the National School Reform Faculty / Harmony Education Center. Original written by Kathy Juarez, Piner High School, Santa Rosa, California. Revised by Gene Thompson-Grove, January 2003, NSRF.
Link to original Charrette Protocol

The Charrette is a term and process borrowed from the architectural community. Its purpose is to improve a piece of work. A common use is to call for a Charrette when a person or group is "stuck" - when the members of a group have reached a point in the process where they cannot easily move forward on their own. Charrettes are most useful in a low stakes/no stakes environment, where the requesting team has much to gain from the process and virtually nothing to lose. In short, Charrettes help scrutinize and improve work before it is ever placed in a high stakes environment. Underlying the successful use of the Charrette are two fundamental beliefs:

Individuals or groups working together can usually produce better work than individuals or groups working in isolation (“none of us is as smart as all of us”)

There is no piece of work that with more time, thought and effort couldn’t be improved (“with learning there is no finish line”).

The Charrette Protocol:

1. A group or an individual from the group requests a Charrette when the group is experiencing difficulty with the work, a stopping point has been reached, or additional minds (thinkers new to the work) could help move it forward.

2. A second group, ranging in size from three to six people, is formed to look at the work. A moderator/facilitator is designated from the newly formed group. It is the moderator’s job to observe the Charrette, record information that is being created, ask questions along the way, and occasionally summarize the discussion.

3. The requesting team presents its “work in progress” while the other group listens. (There are no strict time limits, but this usually takes five or ten minutes.) Sometimes, the invited group needs to ask two or three clarifying questions before moving on to Step 4.

4. The requesting team states what it needs or wants from the charrette, thereby accepting responsibility for focusing the discussion. This focus is usually made in the form of a specific request, but it can be as generic as “How can we make this better?” or “What is our next step?”

5. The invited group then discusses while the requesting team listens and takes notes. There are no hard and fast rules here. Occasionally (but not usually) the requesting team joins in the discussion process. The emphasis is on improving the work, which now belongs to the entire group. The atmosphere is one of “we’re in this together,” and our single purpose is “to make a good thing even better.”

6. When the requesting group knows it has gotten what it needs from the invited group, they stop the process, briefly summarize what was gained, thank the participants and moderator and return to the “drawing board.”

Guide #3 – Four “A”s Text Protocol*

Citation – adapted from the National School Reform Faculty / Harmony Education Center. Adapted from Judith Gray, Seattle, WA 2005
Link to original Four “A”s Text Protocol

Using the interviews as the source – or the text – group members listen to the interviews, note highlights from them, and write notes about key ideas, with the following in mind:

What Assumptions does the author of the text hold?
What do you Agree with in the text?
What do you want to Argue with in the text?
What parts of the text do you want to Aspire to?

In a round, each person identifies one assumption in the interview(s), citing the interview(s) as evidence.

Either continue in rounds or facilitate a conversation in which the group talks about the text in light of each of the remaining “A”s, taking them one at a time: What do people want to argue with, agree with, and aspire to based on the interviews? Try to move seamlessly from one “A” to the next, giving each “A” enough time for full exploration.

End the session with an open discussion framed around a question such as, “What does this mean for our lives, organizations, and/or communities?”

Guide #4 – The Meaning Making Protocol: The Storytelling Version*

Citation – adapted from the National School Reform Faculty / Harmony Education Center. Developed in the field by educators affiliated with NSRF
Link to original Meaning Making Protocol: The Storytelling Version

1. Getting Started (5 minutes)

Write in your journal about a powerful learning experience or story that one or more of the interviews made you think about

Form triad groups and identify who will tell his/her story first and identify a facilitator and a timekeeper for each round

The storyteller tells her/his story (5 minutes)
The participants listen in silence, perhaps making brief notes about aspects of the story that they find particularly significant.

2. Clarifying questions (2 minutes)
The facilitator asks the group for clarifying questions

3. Making meaning of the story (5 minutes)

Why do you think the storyteller found this to be such a powerful learning experience?

What additional insights do the participants have about why the experience was so powerful for the storyteller?

The storyteller listens in silence while taking notes of the conversation

4. Storyteller response (3 minutes)

The storyteller reflects on any new insights on characteristics or conditions of powerful learning

The triad repeats steps 1-4 until all three group members have told their story. (15 minutes per round)

5. Discussing Implications (5 minutes)
The facilitator invites everyone to share any thoughts they have about their own work, understanding of these issues, or ways that this particular experience might influence them.

6. Reflecting on the Making Meaning Protocol (5 minutes)
The group reflects on the experiences of or reactions to the protocol as a whole.

Guide #5 – Questions and Assumptions Protocol*

Citation– adapted from the National School Reform Faculty / Harmony Education Center. Developed in the field by educators affiliated with NSRF
Link to original Questions and Assumptions Protocol

Choose a discussion question from the appropriate list in the enclosed materials. In pairs, ask participants to spend 3 minutes brainstorming questions about the guiding question, writing down as many as possible. Gather the whole group back together and briefly explain the concept of assumptions and of suspending assumptions. (5 minutes)

Give an example of a phrase with embedded assumptions, i.e. education reform. Assumptions: there is such a thing as education, that it needs reform, that it is possible to reform it, etc.

Explain the concept of suspending assumptions: Could mean banishing them or pretending they don’t exist, like suspending a kid from school. Suspend could also mean “hanging” them out there for everyone to see, like laundry or drapes.

Ask participants to return to pairs, now listing as many of the assumptions embedded in this question as possible. With whole group back together, report out some of the assumptions they “suspended.” (5 minutes)

Ask participants to suggest a dilemma and generate one question (a big question) about their practice and/or their understanding of the issues raised in the interview(s). (5 minutes)

Sample prompts: Based on the interview(s), what is the one question that you ask yourself over and over? What philosophical dilemma is still unresolved for you?

In pairs, ask participants to spend 5 minutes brainstorming questions about each other’s questions, writing down as many as possible. (5 minutes)

Prompt: What questions do you need to ask about your question in order to begin to answer it?

Ask participants to return to pairs, now listing as many of the assumptions embedded in their questions as possible. (5 minutes)

Bring the whole group back together for debrief: (5 minutes)

What did you discover about assumptions?

What did you discover about questions? Encourage a few to share examples of questions and assumptions. Emphasis should be on the concepts rather than the individuals’ questions.

Guide #6 – Text-Based Seminar*

Citation – adapted from the National School Reform Faculty / Harmony Education Center. Developed by Gene Thompson-Grove
Link to original Text-Based Seminar

The purpose is the enlargement of understanding of a text (in this case, audio interview(s)), not the achievement of some particular understanding.

Ground Rules

1. Listen actively. 2. Build on what others say.
3. Don’t step on others’ talk. Silences and pauses are OK.
4. Let the conversation flow as much as possible without raising hands or using a speaker’s list.
5. Make the assumptions underlying your comments explicit to others.
6. Emphasize clarification, amplification, and implications of ideas.
7. Watch your own air time — both in terms frequency and duration.
8. Refer to the interview(s); challenge others to go to the interview(s).

Notes to Facilitators

Text-Based Seminars can be remarkably engaging and productive for both students and adults. A Text-Based Seminar facilitator has two primary tasks: posing the framing question and keeping the group focused without pushing any particular agenda.

Tips for facilitation:

Invest time in creating the framing question (you can use or adapt questions from the discussion materials provided). It needs to be substantive, clear, relevant to the participants’ experience, and likely to push their thinking in new directions. Above all, constructing a response to the question should require close reading of the text. We recommend that the framing question be genuine for everyone, including the facilitator, so that the entire group is engaged in the inquiry. Framing questions are often based on a quote from the text, which begins to establish a pattern of using the document as a basis for the conversation.

In addition to the framing question, create a few follow-up questions that seem to raise the level of participants’ thinking. If the groups takes off, you may never use them (or you may create new ones that come from the conversation itself), but it’s a good idea to have something in your hip pocket, especially if you aren’t very experienced at this kind of facilitation.

Unless the entire group does Text-Based Seminars routinely, it is useful to go over the purposes and ground rules before you begin. Because so many conversations (in school and out) are based more on opinion than evidence, and aim toward winning the argument rather than constructing new knowledge, it is often important to remind the group of the basics: work from the text / interview(s) and strive to enlarge your understanding.

Give the group time (about 15 minutes) to re-read the text with the framing question in mind.

The most common facilitation problems in this kind of seminar come from two kinds of participants: the folks who have to win, and those who want to express opinions independent of the text and will use any quote they can find as a springboard. Usually, a reminder of the ground rules will pull them back, although it is sometimes necessary to redirect the conversation if you are dealing with a particularly insistent “winner.” With the “winner,” asking the group to examine closely the assumptions underneath the arguments or opinions being presented sometimes helps. When someone doesn’t stick to the text, it is often helpful to ask the group to look for evidence of the opinion being expressed in the text. What you don’t want to do is ask these two types of participants a direct question, or ask them to cite the evidence in the text for their opinions (although you might be tempted to do so). The goal is to redirect the conversation away from these folks, not to get them to talk more!

It is sometimes useful to keep running notes of the conversation, and to periodically summarize for the group what has been said.

It is also sometimes useful (especially if you are nervous) to have a “plant” among the participants – someone who will model ideal participant behavior at an early point in the seminar.

As is always the case when facilitating, try to keep the conversation balanced. Don’t let one or two people dominate. If there are many quiet people, asking them to speak in pairs for a few minutes on a particular point can sometimes give them an entry into the conversation when you come back to the large group. Sometimes you just have to say, “let’s have someone who hasn’t said much yet speak,” and then use lots of wait time, event though it may feel somewhat uncomfortable to do so.

*Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community such as a Critical Friends Group® and facilitated by a skilled coach. To learn more about professional learning communities and seminars for new or experienced coaches, please visit the National School Reform Faculty website at www.nsrfharmony.org.