Communication Center  Conference  Projects Share  Reports from the Field Resources  Library  LSC Project Websites  NSF Program Notes
 How to Use this site    Contact us  LSC-Net: Local Systemic Change Network
Newsclippings and Press Releases

LSC Reference Materials

LSC Case Study Reports

Annual Report Overviews

Summer Workshop Plans

LSC Reference Materials

  New!     

Habitats: Facilitator's Guide

author: Deborah Bryant, Barbara Miller, Susan (Sinkinson) Elko
submitter: Partnership for Systemic Change: A School/Business Collaboration to Enhance Science, Mathematics, and Technology Teaching and Learning
description: The Facilitators Guide, along with an accompanying Case Study, is used a tool for professional development.

Copyright © 1997 by the Merck Institute for Science Education - Version 1.0
DO NOT USE WITHOUT PERMISSION

published: 12/18/1997
posted to site: 12/18/1997
Habitats

Facilitator's Guide

Facilitator's Guide developed by
Deborah Bryant and Barbara Miller,
Education Development Center, Inc.
and
Susan Sinkinson,
Merck Institute for Science Education

Copyright © 1997 by the Merck Institute for Science Education - Version 1.0

DO NOT USE WITHOUT PERMISSION



NOTES


Facilitator's Guide for
HABITATS

Summary of the Case

Gina Caruso and Pat Brown, two third-grade teachers at Jefferson Elementary School, have teamed up to teach a hands-on, inquiry-based science unit on habitats. Pat is new to teaching this unit, and new to this type of teaching. Gina had used similar units in her classroom for the last couple of years. Gina and Pat have worked together on the previous unit, where Gina taught the unit, and Pat assisted and observed. With the habitats unit, their roles are reversed.

As the case opens, Gina is observing Pat teach a lesson in which the children are building terrariums. Although the children are engaged, the lesson raises concerns for Gina. She feels that Pat has over-directed the lesson, providing children with information about what should be in a terrarium, rather than engaging them in thinking about the science of the lesson, namely, the elements of a habitat that will allow living creatures to survive.

In the second scene, we see Gina in a brief interaction with Jefferson's principal, Maureen Hart. Gina expresses to Maureen her concerns about whether she has the expertise to be guiding Pat. Maureen offers Gina reassurances about her expertise and expresses her confidence in Gina.

In the final scene, Gina and Pat meet after school to talk. Gina makes indirect suggestions to Pat about improvements in that day's lesson, and in subsequent lessons. Pat presses Gina to tell her how the unit is going. Gina is unsure how to respond: On the one hand, she feels that Pat needs to make several improvements in her teaching of the unit, and on the other hand, she does not want to discourage Pat.

Major Themes

The case focuses on a coaching relationship between Pat and Gina, in which Gina is in the role of coach, observing Pat and offering feedback based on her observations. The case addresses a variety of perspectives on coaching, offers a dilemma about communicating feedback in a coaching context, and raises the question of how to create an effective coaching relationship.

In particular, the case offers the opportunity to explore the following dichotomies:

  • Expertise vs. inquiry. To what extent is a coach someone who shares his or her own knowledge and extensive expertise? To what extent should a coach insist that others discover ideas for themselves? What is the balance between the two approaches?

  • Isolation vs. Collegiality. The norms in traditional schools dictate that teachers do not offer feedback to each other unless specifically requested by another person. In fact, teachers often have very limited experience seeing one another teach because they tend to be isolated in their individual classrooms. An alternative relationship among teachers might mean that a coach offering constructive feedback is viewed as part of what colleagues do for one another as professionals.

  • Egalitarianism vs. leadership. When a teacher is acting in the position of coach, taking on the responsibility of working with another teacher to be reflective about practice and offering his or her perspective to that teacher, this activity can be perceived as going against norms of egalitarianism. A school culture in which every teacher is on equal footing with every other teacher, and there is no differentiation in terms of ability or experience, is at odds with a school culture that supports teacher leadership

In addition to the coaching themes offered above, the case addresses the challenge of using a hands-on, inquiry-based pedagogy in science.

Summary of Discussion Activities

This guide offers four activities to support discussion of the case. They are meant as suggested activities only. Facilitators should feel free to add or delete activities, adapt them to suit their own purposes, or reorder the activities to fit the needs of the group they will be working with. As presented here, the activities are structured to focus first on the data of the case itself, and then to move beyond the story line of the case to consider next steps for the characters as well as larger issues concerning coaching.

The four activities are as follows:

  • Getting Started. A large-group discussion of the range and variety of the issues contained in the case.

  • Understanding Perspectives. A small- and large-group activity designed to focus discussion on understanding and analyzing different perspectives on a coaching relationship between two colleagues.
It is helpful for the facilitator to record responses on an overhead transparency or on flip-chart paper. This creates a visual record of the conversation and contributes to the development of a common understanding of the dilemmas in the case.

  • Communicating Feedback. A small- and large-group activity designed to look specifically at the final scene of the case, analyzing the communication between Pat and Gina, and looking at the relative effectiveness of several possible responses to Gina's dilemma at the end of the case.

  • Considering Ground Rules. A paired role-play activity in which participants step away from the story line of the case to take on the roles of Pat and Gina in order to consider the ground rules for a successful coaching relationship.
A natural pitfall for participants at this early point in the discussion is to want to offer solutions for the compelling dilemma at the end of the case. The challenge for the facilitator is to keep participants on track in defining the problem, and resisting the temptation to problem-solve.

Getting Started

This initial discussion activity is intended to support participants in developing a common understanding of the range and variety of issues in the case. Discussion in this section encourages participants to articulate problems and issues in the case.

Large-group discussion (10-15 minutes)

It is preferable to conduct this initial discussion in a large group setting, in order to foster a common understanding among participants about the issues described by the case. Some useful discussion questions:

At the beginning of a case discussion, it is important to base discussion on information accessible to everyone in the group: the case text itself. Asking participants to stick closely to the information provided in the case grounds the discussion in the concrete reality of the case. As you circulate around the room, encourage participants to work from the evidence in the case, asking,

  • What evidence in the case leads you to believe that is a concern for Gina (or Pat)?

  • How did you arrive at that conclusion?
  • Can someone give a brief description of what happened in the case?
  • Can someone else add to that description?
  • What is the main problem in the case? Whose problem is it?
  • What are the other problems in the case? Whose problems are they?
  • What are the key issues raised by the case?

Understanding Perspectives

Each of the adult characters in the case (Gina, Pat, and Maureen) has a perspective on coaching relationships: a set of beliefs or mindsets about coaching relationships between professional colleagues, about both what it means to be a coach and what it means to be coached. Likewise, participants in the case discussion will also have beliefs or mindsets about Gina and Pat's coaching relationship, as well as about coaching relationships more generally. The following set of activities focuses first on understanding the perspectives on coaching represented by the characters in the case, and then moves away from the story line and asks participants to reflect on their own experiences and beliefs with regard to professional coaching relationships.

Periodic synthesis of the conversation by the facilitator helps participants keep track of the conversation by reflecting back to what is being said. It can also serve to bring out any unrepresented or underrepresented perspectives in the conversation.

Gina's perspective (20-30 minutes)

The case provides the most data on Gina's views about coaching as she struggles to define her coaching relationship with Pat. Ask participants to work in small groups, identifying Gina's concerns and beliefs about coaching. Helpful discussion questions include the following:

  • What does Gina believe her role is as coach to Pat? What evidence of those beliefs exists in the case?
  • What adjectives would you use to describe Gina's approach to her role as coach to Pat?
  • What are Gina's concerns about her coaching relationship with Pat?
Have small groups then contribute to a large-group discussion of these same questions. Record contributions on an overhead transparency or on flip-chart paper. As facilitator, you may want to offer a synthesis of trends you see in the interpretations the group offers.

Pat's perspective (20-30 minutes)

In contrast with Gina, much of Pat's perspective on the coaching relationship is implicit in the case text. Ask participants to work in small groups on the following questions:

  • What does Pat believe Gina's role as her coach is? What evidence is there in the case of these beliefs?
  • What adjectives would you use to describe Pat's view of being coached by Gina?
  • What are Pat's concerns about the coaching relationship?
After the small-group discussion, discuss Pat's perspective in the large group by addressing the same questions.

Maureen's perspective (20-30 minutes)

In the case text, Maureen's perspective on coaching is represented in two ways: Her view of Gina's coaching of Pat and in Maureen's coaching of Gina. Ask participants, again working in small groups, to consider Maureen's perspective.

  • Put yourself in Maureen's place, looking at the coaching relationship between Gina and Pat. What are Maureen's beliefs about the coaching relationship? What evidence of those beliefs exists in the case?
  • Now put yourself in Maureen's place, working with Gina. Do you think Maureen was a coach to Gina? If so, what adjectives would you use to describe her approach to coaching Gina?
Ask small groups to share their analysis of Maureen's perspective in a large-group discussion. Ask the large group to consider this question:

  • How could Maureen best support Gina in acting as a coach to Pat?

Participants' perspectives (20-30 minutes)

At the beginning of this activity, alert participants that you are now switching the focus of the discussion to their own beliefs about coaching. Ask participants to consider the following questions in individual reflective writing:

  1. In this situation, imagine yourself as Gina. What would you be thinking or feeling about your coaching relationship with Pat? What would your intention or goal be in coaching Pat?

  2. Have you ever been coached by a colleague? What did that colleague say to you? What was his or her intention? What did that feel like to you? How did it support your learning?

  3. Reflect on an experience in which you acted as a coach, or imagine a situation in which you could possibly be a coach. What is that situation?

  4. Look back over your responses to questions 1-3. How would you characterize your own beliefs and expectations about coaching a colleague?

Have participants share responses with a partner. Then, in large-group discussion, ask for participant volunteers to share their responses. Concentrate on identifying approaches, and ask participants to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches shared.
It will be useful for the facilitator to have given some thought to the strengths and weaknesses of the three responses in preparation for the discussion. Below, we offer some analysis of the three responses. We offer these ideas to inform your thinking and facilitation of the discussion, rather than for sharing with participants.

A communication model that we find effective recommends that feedback contain the following elements (McGonagill and Associates) to fully express concerns in ways that minimize defensiveness:

  • concrete data -- grounds the communication in observable data.

  • impact -- makes clear why you think this is important or what the consequences might be.

  • tone of inquiry -- communicates openness to hearing others' point of view.

  • feelings -- conveys your own reaction or response.

On the next page is some analysis of the responses, identifying strengths and weaknesses of each, with particular attention to these recommendations.

"Truthfully, Pat, I don't think it's going very well. You're not really doing inquiry-based science."

This response shares the truth about Gina's assessment of Pat's teaching, but does not help Pat learn anything. It communicates Gina's judgment, but not the reasoning that has led her to make that judgment. This statement lacks concrete detail or explanation of impact, and consequently doesn't give Pat access to Gina's thought process. It also does not provide any indication of Gina's feelings.

"Pat, I think you're doing a terrific job, especially given that this is the first kit that you've taught. There's always room for improvement -- I know there is in my science classes -- but you are on the right track."

This response provides Pat with some indication of Gina's feelings, but does not share her concerns. While it might have the effect of making Pat feel better temporarily (and that may also backfire if Pat suspects Gina is simply trying to make her feel better), this response does not provide Pat with any concrete details or explanation of impact from which she can learn to improve what she is doing in the classroom. In an effort to protect Pat's feelings, Gina is also "protecting" her from learning, and undermining her own potential effectiveness as a coach.

"I am concerned about the worksheet you used today. My concern is that it provided too much structure for the students. The terrarium activity was hands-on but it didn't require the kids to do enough thinking about what ought to be in the terrarium and why. I don't think they learned very much about habitats from the activity."

This response provides Pat with concrete data about Gina's concern, and the impact she sees on students' learning. It allows Gina to share her feeling of concern without making judgments. On the other hand, the response does not offer any information on how Gina feels Pat is doing overall, and could perhaps be improved with some additional information that would "frame" the concern or put it in context (e.g., "Pat, I want to reassure you that things are going very well overall. I do have some concerns I would like to share with you...").

Communicating Feedback

The central dilemma in the case relates to Gina and Pat's communication--in particular, whether and how Gina chooses to communicate feedback to Pat. This set of discussion activities focuses explicitly on the communication between Gina and Pat in the last scene of the case. The first two activities offer a small-group analysis of the communication in the last scene and a large-group consideration of Gina's effectiveness in both listening and asserting her own perspective in that scene. This conversation should result in an understanding among participants about what was effective in the communication overall and what could have been made more effective. The third activity offers an opportunity to analyze three possible responses Gina could make to Pat's final question, using the conversation about effectiveness as criteria for analyzing the responses. The last activity invites participants to respond to the question Pat poses at the end of the case.

Small-group discussion (20-30 minutes)

Ask participants to return to the case and reread the last scene. Working in small groups, ask them to consider the following:

  • What are the strengths of the communication between Gina and Pat?

  • What are the weaknesses of the conversation?

  • What is Gina's approach to the conversation with Pat?

  • What suggestions would you make to Gina in terms of changing that approach?

Large-group discussion (20 minutes)

Ask participants to share their small group discussions with the entire group by identifying one strength, one weakness, and one suggestion for Gina.

Gina has a role in the final scene both in communicating her feedback to Pat and in listening to Pat's experience and concerns. Ask participants to consider Gina's effectiveness in both of these roles. First ask participants to consider Gina's role as a listener in the conversation:

  • How effective is Gina as a listener in the conversation?

  • What evidence in the case demonstrates Gina's effectiveness as a listener?

Ask the large group to consider Gina's approach to communicating her feedback to Pat.

  • How effective is Gina in communicating her feedback to Pat?

  • What evidence in the case demonstrates her effectiveness?

Considering responses (30 minutes)

Direct participants' attention to Gina's dilemma at the end of the case. Pat asks, "What are you trying to say, Gina? I don't get where you're coming from. On the one hand, you say I'm doing fine, but on the other hand, it sounds like you don't think it's going so well. What do you really think about how it's going?"

Below are several possible responses Gina could make to Pat. Share these responses with the large group, one at a time, on overhead transparencies.

"Truthfully, Pat, I don't think it's going very well. You're not really doing inquiry-based science."

"Pat, I think you're doing a terrific job, especially given that this is the first kit that you've taught. There's always room for improvement -- I know there is in my science classes -- but you are on the right track."

"I am concerned about the worksheet you used today. My concern is that it provided too much structure for the students. The terrarium activity was hands-on but it didn't require the kids to do enough thinking about what ought to be in the terrarium and why. I don't think they learned very much about habitats from the activity."

Have participants consider each response and ask the following about it:

  • What are the strengths of this response?

  • What are the weaknesses of this response?

  • How would you expect Pat to respond next?

Remind participants of the earlier discussion of their recommendations to Gina for what could be more effective in the conversation; those recommendations can serve as criteria for evaluating these responses.

An extension (20-30 minutes)

To extend this activity, ask participants to work in pairs to craft their own responses to Pat's question. Have several participants copy their responses onto overhead transparencies for sharing with the rest of the group. Analyze their responses using the questions above.

Considering Ground Rules

This activity addresses some aspects of Gina's "coaching" dilemma, namely, unclear expectations about what kinds of feedback will be offered, when it will be offered, and whether it will be considered and used. Participants are asked to consider what procedures or ground rules Gina and Pat should have established prior to any classroom observations or work together.

Large-group discussion (15 minutes)

The idea of establishing ground rules is likely to have come up in discussion, even in the less formal "maybe they should have figured out how to do this before they got to this point" kind of comment. This activity is intended to address that issue specifically. If it has come up, you can return to the issue by saying something like, "I'd like us to return to the issue of what Pat and Gina could have done ahead of time to prevent this situation and spend some time discussing that in detail."

Ask participants to consider this question:

  • What could Pat and Gina have done before Pat started teaching the unit to prepare for giving and receiving feedback?

Have participants generate some general ideas as a whole group. Record them on overhead transparency or flip-chart paper. This preliminary large group discussion will serve to generate ideas for participants to explore further in the role play that follows.

Role play (30 minutes)

This next activity asks participants to role-play a conversation between Pat and Gina as they set ground rules for feedback.

Remind them of the earlier discussion of Pat's and Gina's concerns as they give feedback in the conversation.

Have participants work in pairs. One person takes the role of Gina; the other person plays Pat. Participants are to role-play a conversation between Pat and Gina in which they talk about how the coaching relationships will proceed, before they begin co-teaching the science units.

Before they begin the role play, remind participants of the earlier discussion of Pat's and Gina's concerns. Have each participant reflect silently in writing about this question:

  • What do you think are your character's (Pat's or Gina's) three most important concerns about the coaching relationship?

These reflections should form the basis of their role play. Gina will initiate the conversation with Pat, and they will work together to come up with procedures or "ground rules" for the coaching relationship. These ground rules should describe when feedback will be given, and in what form. As they work on the role play, each pair of "Pat and Gina" should record the ground rules they agree upon for observing and providing feedback. As the facilitator, you should circulate around the room, and identify several different procedures. Have these pairs write their ground rules on overhead transparencies or flip-chart paper.

In reporting out to the large group, have each pair present their approach and how they arrived at that approach. Ask the group to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the approach:

  • How will it support Gina in giving feedback?

  • How will it support Pat in receiving and learning from feedback?

  • What are the risks in the strategy for Gina or for Pat?

A Note about Peer Coaching Training

This case discussion is intended to raise issues about coaching as a leadership role. The activities in this guide are not intended to represent the body of knowledge about peer coaching, nor should they serve as a substitute for formal peer-coaching training. We believe that the case complements professional development experiences related specifically to development of peer-coaching skills.