The Adaptive Schools Approach:
How Professional Learning Communities Become Effective

by Mark Ravlin
Director, Via Mandala Educational Consulting
and Training

(Click here for a print friendly version.)

(A photo from our 2006 Summer Leadership Institute.)

Professional learning communities (PLCs) have been advocated as a tool for school improvement since the early 1990s (DuFour et al., 2005). As schools implemented various versions of the PLC idea, it became clear that it would require more than advocacy and teacher meetings labeled “PLCs” to assure its effectiveness in improving the learning of all students. Effective PLCs must focus on student learning and its relation to teachers’ instructional practices. They must engage in sustained collaborative inquiry using methods and structures designed to support such work, and they must be intentionally equipped. The Adaptive Schools approach provides PLCs with the tools which they need to improve the learning of all students.

A leading advocate of professional learning communities, Rick DuFour, observes that the movement:

"has now reached a critical juncture, one well known to those who have witnessed the fate of other well-intentioned school reform efforts. In this all-too-familiar cycle, initial enthusiasm gives way to confusion about the fundamental concepts driving the initiative, followed by inevitable implementation problems, the conclusion that the reform has failed to bring about the desired results, abandonment of the reform, and the launch of a new search for the next promising initiative (DuFour et al., 2005, pp. 31-32).”

Fundamental to this consternation about professional learning communities is continuing emphasis on what they are, to the detriment of understanding how they develop and are sustained. Recent large-scale evaluation of the impact of professional learning communities provides guidance for meeting this challenge. This research: (1) offers insights about what is needed for this work to deliver measurable improvement in student learning, and (2) focuses attention on how to create and sustain effective professional communities in schools.

Published by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (Supovitz and Christman, 2003), the evaluation focused on system-wide professional community development in two large public school systems, Cincinnati and Philadelphia. Its central finding was that when professional communities study student learning and its relation to teacher practice, and alter instructional practices accordingly, improved student learning results. Cincinnati’s Students First initiative involved development of “team-based schools” in which three to five core subject teachers beginning at each gateway grade (K, 4, 7, 9) remained with a defined group of students for a minimum of two years, with a range of structural supports including student learning outcomes and regularly scheduled time to meet. In Philadelphia’s Children Achieving initiative, all 257 schools were asked to implement “small learning communities” in which groups of 200 to 400 students were taught by a team teachers, again with a range of structural supports.

While there were differences in initiatives, the purposes, experience in the development of professional learning communities, and evaluation findings were remarkably consistent.

In both locales, the reforms positively influenced the communal culture of schools and the relationships among teachers. However, only in a subset of the schools, and teacher communities within, did the reforms penetrate the instructional culture between teachers around teaching and learning. …in both cities, only where communities focused on changing the instructional practices of their members was there measurable improvements in student learning.

In both Philadelphia and Cincinnati, there was evidence to suggest that those communities that did engage in structured, sustained, and supported instructional discussions and that investigated the relationships between instructional practices and student work produced significant gains in student learning (Supovitz and Christman, 2003).

We Know What is Needed to Impact Student Learning

Researchers and advocates for professional learning communities have identified five elements that are essential for professional communities that generate measurable improvements in student learning: shared norms and values, focus on student learning, collaboration, public practice, and reflective dialogue (Louis, Marks & Kruse, 1996).

Shared norms and values are basic to any community. Members of a school community affirm, through language and action, common beliefs and values underlying their assumptions about children learning, teaching, the nature of human needs and human relationships, and their capacity to determine the outcomes of their work.

Collective focus on student learning describes an unswerving concentration on student learning, a core characteristic of professional community in schools that are successful with all students. Teachers’ professional actions focus on choices that affect students’ opportunities to learn; their conversation focuses on ways in which their instruction and assessment promote students’ learning – as distinguished from simply focusing on activities that may engage student attention.

Collaboration takes place as teachers share expertise and faculty members call on one another to discuss the development of skills related to the sustained improvement of teaching practices. Collaborative work also increases teachers’ sense of connection with one another, and their sense of mutual support and responsibility for the learning of all students.

Public practice develops as teachers move inside the classrooms of their colleagues to share and trade off the roles of mentor, advisor, and specialist. Peer coaching relationships, structures for teaming and for structured classroom observations are methods that professional learning faculties develop.

Reflective dialogue involves deep conversations about teaching and learning, in which teachers examine the assumptions that they hold about students, learning, and their instruction, as well as those that are basic to quality school practices. Reflection on practice leads to deepened understandings of the process and outcomes of high quality instruction.

The research of these authors and others (Goddard, Hoy & Hoy, 2000; Lee & Smith, 1996) demonstrates that when teachers’ professional communities exhibited these characteristics, measurable improvements in student learning result.

The more recent work in Cincinnati and Philadelphia demonstrates that “structured, sustained, and supported instructional discussions that investigate the relationships between instructional practices and student work” are the hallmark of the learning communities that generate improvements in student learning. The essentials for such communities, we learn, are

“the tools and training to develop structured routines in which [teachers] systematically inquire into the relationships between their practices and the learning of their students. … They need strategies and tools that will help them plan, assess, and revise their efforts…, they also need structures to capitalize on the opportunities created by time together in order to have disciplined conversations about the connections between their instructional strategies and student learning (Supovitz & Christman, 2003).

We Know How to Do What is Needed

If professional learning communities constitute the “what” of school improvement that can positively impact the learning of all students, the ideas and practices of the Adaptive Schools approach serve as the “how.” The organizing idea of adaptivity is borrowed from the biological sciences. Adaptivity calls for clarifying identity while shifting form. No Child Left Behind brings statutory muscle to the expectations that schools must serve all students. This expectation defines an identity that differs from earlier times, when some students were served while others were not. Serving all students requires new ways of working: collaboration has become a must, in contrast to earlier times, when teachers worked in isolation (Lortie, 1975).

Adaptive Schools Toolbox

The Adaptive Schools approach includes the tools, lenses, and organizing ideas that provide for the “structured, sustained, and supported instructional discussions” that generate improvement in student learning. It brings together concepts and practices from Cognitive Coaching (Costa and Garmston, 2002), Pathways to Understanding (Lipton and Wellman, 2000), and systems thinking (Senge, 1990), as well as leadership and the new sciences (Wheatley, 1992). The approach is designed to address twin priorities, of developing the organizational capacities while also growing the professional capacities that must be present for professional learning communities to develop, nurture and sustain the collaborative culture that can improve student learning school-wide. Some of the most essential adaptive schools approaches include:

Adaptivity

An organizing theme, the identity work of becoming adaptive is guided by a series of focusing questions.

1. Who are we?
2. Whom do we aspire to become?
3. Why are we doing this?
4. Why are we doing this, this way?

Community only develops through the discovery of shared interests; conversation in response to these questions is to develop the connections of individuals to their common work – a cultural phenomenon that diverges substantially from the history of rugged individualism dominate in many America’s schools. An effective learning community is likely to focus on these repeatedly, deepening its understanding of the identity which defines its commitments.

Two Ways of Talking: Dialogue and Discussion

Think of everyday talk as conversation: those engaged may be learning from one another or simply be enjoying one another’s company. For our purposes, this is the overarching term for talking together. When conversation begins to organize around a purpose, a choice is in order. When the purpose is understanding, dialogue is called for; when the purpose is decision-making, discussion is in order.

Dialogue is a reflective learning process in which group members suspend their respective assumptions, and seek to understand each other’s viewpoints and assumptions. The word dialogue comes from the Greek dialogos. Dia means “through” and logos means “the word.” In this “making meaning through words,” group members inquire into their own and others’ beliefs, values, and thinking to better understand how things work in their worlds. The adage, “Seek to understand before being understood,” is essential to dialogue. Dialogue employs divergent thinking, seeks multiple points of view, and rests on the skills of suspension of one’s own point of view and inquiry into those of others.

Discussion employs convergent thinking. A subject of common interest may be viewed from many points of view provided by those who take part. The purpose of such discussion is customarily to have one’s point of view accepted by the group. Quality discussion supports sound decisions. A common challenge is that one person may accept part of another person’s point of view, but basically be focused on prevailing over others.

The purpose of dialogue is understanding; of discussion, sound decisions that “stay made.” Understanding is at the heart of the study of student learning and instructional practices. Effective learning communities seek multiple perspectives on the learning of their students, and on the relationships of their methods to the outcomes they observe. Decisions, too, affect the work of learning communities – from when to meet to instructional approaches to implement. The point of discussion is quality decision-making.

Norms of Collaboration

Adaptive Schools develop the skills of dialogue and discussion through the use of a set of explicit norms that support these two ways of talking. Norms influence the ways that members of a group interact with one another, by defining expected behavior in the group. Norms exist in all groups, whether a classroom of kindergartners or a state board of education. In most groups they remain tacit and unspoken. Defined and supported openly over time, seven particular norms combine to provide essential support to the development of collaborative cultures among communities of learners. The seven Norms of Collaboration of the Adaptive Schools approach draw extensively on decades of experience in Cognitive Coaching.

1. Promoting a Spirit of Inquiry. Exploring perceptions, assumptions, beliefs, and interpretations promotes the development of understanding. Inquiring into the ideas of others before advocating for one’s own ideas is important to productive dialogue and discussion.

2. Pausing. Pausing before responding or asking a question allows time for thinking and enhances dialogue, discussion, and decision-making.

3. Paraphrasing. Using a paraphrase starter that is comfortable for you – “So…” or “As you are…” or “You’re thinking…” – and following the starter with an efficient paraphrase assists members of the group in hearing and understanding one another as they converse and make decisions.

4. Probing. Using gentle open-ended probes or inquiries – “Please say more about…” or “I’m interested in…” or “I’d like to hear more about…” or “Then you are saying…”
increases the clarity and precision of the group’s thinking.

5. Putting ideas on the Table. Ideas are the heart of meaningful dialogue and discussion. Label the intention of your comments. For example: “Here is one idea…” or “One thought I have is…” or “Here is a possible approach…” or “Another consideration might be…”.

6. Paying Attention to Self and Others. Meaningful dialogue and discussion are facilitated when each group member is conscious of self and of others, and is aware of what (s)he is saying and how it is said as well as how others are responding. This includes paying attention to learning styles when planning, facilitating, and participating in group meetings and conversations.

7. Presuming Positive Intentions. Assuming that others’ intentions are positive promotes and facilitates meaningful dialogue and discussion, and prevents unintentional put-downs. Using positive intentions in speech is one manifestation of this norm.

Most groups have not experienced the use of explicit norms to support productive group development and activity. The Norms of Collaboration are essential resources in providing the focus, structure, and discipline to the conversation of productive learning communities. They serve as a significant tool in support of the powerful work that was observed by Supovitz and Christman (2003). A Supporting Toolkit for the Seven Norms of Collaboration will be found at www.adaptiveschools.com.

Listening for Understanding
Deep listening is essential to the work of effective learning communities. Such listening for understanding requires: (a) the intention to understand rather than to judge or react, (b) a quiet mind, (c) a focus on the speaker, and (d) complete attention. The Chinese actually capture the complexity of this idea in a single character that means, “listen respectfully.”

Three forms of listening that are common must be set aside to listen for understanding.

Autobiographical Listening. Shifting the focus from the speaker to the listener when the topic being discussed triggers the listener’s own experiences or feelings.

Inquisitive Listening. Listening from the perspective of the listener’s self-serving curiosity.

Solution Listening. Listening with the intention of providing answers, solving the speaker’s problem, or offering advice.

There are three additional forms of listening that should also be set aside. They too interfere with listening for understanding.

Interruptive Listening. Interrupting the speaker to say what the listener is impatient to say, to shift the conversation to unrelated tangents preferred by the listener, or to sidestep the issue being discussed by the speaker.

Surface Listening. Pretending to listen while the listener’s mind is thinking about something else, or when the listener is uninterested in the speaker or the topic.

Editorial Listening. Interrupting the speaker to correct or revise the speaker’s words or to finish the speaker’s lines.

These are common ways of listening, so effective learning communities “check up” periodically on their patterns and listening and explicitly examine their capacity for listening for understanding. One way to do so is to use a scale such as the following for each set aside, asking that community members rate themselves and then talk, as a group, about their ratings.

Energy Sources

Finally, the Adaptive Schools approach to school improvement includes the idea that energy matters. The most effective learning communities are groups that derive energy from five sources. These develop through intentional and sustained capacity-building for listening for understanding, using the Norms of Collaboration to guide the group’s interactions, consciously choosing dialogue and discussion when each advances the community’s work, and by continually focusing on opportunities for adaptivity. This energy results in:

Efficacy. The group believes in its capacity to produce results and stays the course through internal and external difficulties to achieve its goals. The group aligns energy and activity to pursue its outcomes.

Flexibility. The group regards situations from multiple perspectives, works creatively with uncertainty and ambiguity, and values and utilizes differences within itself and the larger system of which it is a part. The group attends to both rational and intuitive ways of working.
Craftsmanship. The group strives for clarity in its values, goals, and standards. It attends to both short- and long-term time perspectives. It continually refines communication processes within and beyond the group.

Consciousness. The group monitors its decisions, actions, and reflections based on its values, norms, and common goals. Members are aware of the impact that their actions have on one another, on the group as a whole, and on individuals and groups in the larger system.

Interdependence. The group values its internal and external relationships. It seeks reciprocal influence and learning. Members view conflict as opportunity to improve and learn about themselves, the group, and other groups. The group trusts its interactions and the processes of dialogue and discussion.

These and other components of the Adaptive Schools approach (Garmston & Wellman, 1999) provide the structures and processes with which professional learning communities can undertake the conversations that are essential to improving learning for all students. They constitute the “how” of effective professional learning communities. More can be learned at www.adaptiveschools.com.

References

Costa, A. & Garmston, R. (2002). Cognitive Coaching (2nd Ed.). Norwood, MA:
   Christopher-Gordon.

DuFour, R., Eaker, R. & DuFour, R., (Eds). (2005). On Common Ground: The Power of    Professional Learning Communities. Bloomington, IN: NES.

Garmston, R. & Wellman, B. (1999). The Adaptive School: A Sourcebook for Developing    Collaborative Groups. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K. & Hoy, A. W. (2000). “Collective Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning,   Measure, and Impact on Student Achievement.” American Educational Research Journal,   37 (2), 479-507.

Lee, V. E. & Smith, J. (1996). “Collective Responsibility for Learning and Its Effects on Gains    in Achievement and Engagement for Early Secondary Students.” American Journal of    Education, 104, 103-147.

Lipton, L. & Wellman, B. (2000). Pathways to Understanding (3rd Ed.). Sherman, CT:    MiraVia.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M. & Kruse, S. (1996). “Teachers’ Professional Community in    Restructuring Schools.” American Educational Research Journal, 33 (4), 757-798.

Senge, P. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (1990).    New York: Doubleday.

Supovitz, J. & Christman, J. B. (2003). Developing Communities of Instructional Practice:    Lessons from Cincinnati and Philadelphia. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Wheatley, M. Leadership and the New Science. San Francisco, Berrett-Kohler.
  

For further information or to converse with Mark Ravlin about Adaptive Schools methods
and school improvement, you may reach him by email at Mark@viamandala.com.

See our Feature Article Archives for past articles!