Teacher Talk That Makes a Difference

7/29/2019 Teacher Talk That Makes a Difference

1/6

8/17/13

Buy this issueShare on Twitter

Share on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Google+

Read AbstractApril 1998 | Volume 55 | Number7

Reshaping School Leadership Pages 30-34

Teacher Talk That Makes a Difference

Robert Garmston and Bruce Wellman

When school faculties develop the skills of dialogue and discussion, they learn how to transform their talk intomeaningful communication that improves relationships and makes a real difference for student learning.

An e lementary school staff was struggling with the p roblem of reduced money for instructional aides. Althoughconsensus and fairness were their goals, they reported that they felt like turkeys being asked to vote on the merits ofThanksgiving. No one really wanted his or her aide time cut. One 1st grade teacher was adamant: She would lose aide

time "over my dead body." Six months later, as part of a schoolwide effort supporting development of literacy andreading skills, this same teacher volunteered to share her classroom aide with a 3rd grade tutoring program "if it willreally make a difference in those students' learning to read."

What happened? In six months these teachers learned to practice two different ways of talkingdialogue anddiscussion (see fig. 1). They adopted specified norms of collaboration and, individually, they focused on theircapabilities for professional discourse and openly reflected on these to improve personal and collective practice.

Figure 1. Ways of Talking
http://shop.ascd.org/?ProductCode=198017http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/apr98/vol55/num07/abstract.aspx#Teacher_Talk_That_Makes_a_Differencehttp://shop.ascd.org/?ProductCode=198017


2/6

8/17/13

These capacities form the core of a professional community. Such communities talk about hard issues they honorcognitive conflict and minimize affective conflict (Amason et al. 1995), and they make decisions based on objectivedata, shared values, and deep examination of mental models. They measure success by increased student learningand adults' satisfaction with their work.

Developing a staff's capacities for talking together professionally is no magic bullet. But it may be the single mostsignificant investment faculties can make for student learning.

Different Ways of Talking

Conversation is informal talking in which participants can learn from one another or simply enjoy one another'scompany. But when conversation begins to take on a consciously organized purposethat is, the group must now

either deepen understanding or make a decisionthey have reached a place of deliberationa choice point: They canchoose to move toward either dialogue or discussion. Although dialogue and skilled discussion use many of the samecapabilities and tools, their core intentions are quite different.

Dialogue leads to collective meaning making and shared understanding. It builds a sense of connection and belonging,and creates an emotional and cognitive safety zone where ideas flow for examination without judgment. It connectsindividuals to their underlying motivations and mental models. This form of talk is the foundation for coherent, sustainedeffort and community building. In dialogue we hear phrases like, "An assumption I have is that. . . ."

Discussion leads to decisions that stay made. Skillful discussions display rigorous critical thinking, mutual respect,weighing of options, and decision making that serves the group's vision, values, and goals. In discussion we might hearcomments like, "We need to clarify our goals before talking about solutions."

Most school staffs are unaware that they can choose a way of talking that is different from the culturally embeddednorms. Our media-saturated world bombards us with arguments framed by commentators as point-counterpoint, proand con, left versus right, and other polarities. We carry these images into our conversations. They frame how we listento others and how we speak. If we are not careful, we listen not to understand but to hear the errors or logical gaps inothers' presentations, or we jump in to make a point. Conversations then break down into verbal combat, with winnersand losers. All too often, valued colleagues become conscientious objectors, choosing not to participate. The groupthen loses perspective and alternative viewpoints. The loudest or most persistent voices become the policymakers, andin the worst cases, the process sows seeds of passive noncompliance or sabotage within those who feel excluded.

When groups understand that they have alternative ways of talking, they consciously decide to pursue dialogue ordiscussion. They may explicitly mark agenda items as one or the other important matters require both. For reallyimportant issues, the two ways of talking may occur in separate sessions. This option is especially important if personalreflection will add to the quality of the decision.

As group members become more sophisticated with ways of talkin g, the pathways become more malleable. Forexample, during a dialogue, someone senses an emerging consensus on an issue. He or she then inquires if this is soand frames a proposal to move the item. In another case, during a discussion, emotions rise and the facts become


3/6

8/17/13

muddied. Someone then proposes that the group switch to a dialogue format for a set period of time to explore thefeelings and underlying issues that are present (see fig. 2).

Figure 2. Shifting from Discussion to Dialogue

Discussion

These test data point to a need to change our spelling program.I don't think it's the program I think it's the test.

I don't think it's either one I think it's attitude.

Transition

Wait a minute. this is sounding messier than it first looked. Can we shift to dialogue and explore our assumptionsabout what's going on with our kids and spelling?

Dialogue

We seem to have three topics before us the test scores, kids' skills, and their attitude toward spelling tests. I'mwondering whether there are other elements in this mix.Help us understand what you think some of these other elements might be.

A Closer Look at Dialogue

Dialogue is a reflective learning process in which group members seek to understand one another's viewpoints anddeeply held assumptions. The word dialogue comes from the Greek dialogos. Dia means "through" and logos means"the word." In this process of "meaning making through words," group members inquire i nto their own and one another'sbeliefs, values, and mental models to better understand how things work in their world. Each participant does much ofthe deepest work internally.

Suspension is the essential internal skill in dialogue. When we suspend judgment, we set aside for a time ourperceptions, feelings, judgments, and impulses and monitor carefully our own i nternal experience. Suspension requiresbeing alert to our listening and doing something about our thinking in the moment. Points of personal conflict can easilyemerge we feel others are not hearing us or they are distorting our points of view. We may barely be aware of ouranger or uneasiness, yet our discomfort influences our listening and can influence how we respond, which in turn caninfluence other group members. Suspension also involves becoming aware of our assumptions and "hanging themfrom the ceiling"suspended in front of the group so all can examine them. Assumptions are beliefsoftenunexaminedof why things work as they do. They drive our perceptions, simultaneously opening and blinding us tocertain awarenesses.

Participants should recognize a potential pitfall in the process of dialogueconviviality. When a group confuses safetywith comfort, it sacrifices productive tension for the ease of conviviality. Humor and banter can be avoidance strategiesas much as they can be social lubricants. Too high a comfort level weakens dialogue and undermines the learningpossibilities of the moment.

A Closer Look at Discussion

Skilled discussions are organized, collective efforts in critical thinking. The goal is to reach decisions that stay made.Decide, in its Latin roots, means to "kill choice." The purpose of discussion is to eliminate some ideas from a field ofpossibilities and have the stronger ideas win. Groups that are skilled at discussion employ many cognitive operationsrelated to critical thinking, but not in any particular sequence. Beyer (1987) lists 10 critical thinking skills:

Distinguishing between verifiable facts and value claimsDistinguishing relevant from irrelevant information, claims, or reasonsDetermining the factual accuracy of a statementDetermining the credibility of a sourceIdentifying ambiguous claims or a rgumentsIdentifying unstated assumptionsDetecting bi asIdentifying logical fallaciesRecognizing logical inconsistencies in a line of reasoningDetermining the strength of an argument or claim

The term discussion shares linguistic roots with words such aspercussion, concussion, and discuss. In its most


4/6

8/17/13

ineffective form, discussion is a hurling of ideas at one another. Often it takes the form of serial sharing and serialadvocacy. Participants attempt to reach decisions through a variety of either voting or consensus techniques. Whendiscussion is unskilled and dialogue is absent, decisions are often of poor quality, represent the opinions of the mostvocal members or the leader, lack group commitment, and do not stay in place.

Skilled discussions take place within a shape known to the participants. Three elements help form this shape: (1) clarityabout decision-making processes and authority, (2) knowledge of the boundaries surrounding the topics open to agroup's decision-making authority, and (3) standards for orderly decision-making meetings (Garmston and Wellman inpress).

Like the skill of suspension in dialogue, a parallel set of mental skills helps participants engage in skillful discussion.We call this set of skills "the balcony view," a perceptual position that is neither egocentric (I am intensely aware of my

thoughts, feelings, and intentions, and know my own boundaries) nor allocentric (I am aware of how something looks,feels, and sounds from the point of view of another). The balcony view is macrocentric. (With compassion ordetachment, I understand the nature of the situation. Looking down at my interaction with the group, I gain the mostknowledgeabout me, about the group, and about our interactionsand I can make the most strategic decisions aboutmy participation. When do I press, when do I probe for detail or let it go, how do I phrase ideas for greatest influence?)This is the same skill that teachers employ when they "monitor and adjust" in their classroom.

Just as participants in dialogue must watch out for the conviviality pitfall, so participants in discussion must be wary ofstraying from skilled discussion to an unskilled use ofdebate. When this happens, the group has overshot usefuladvocacy for ideas and landed in a place of listening only for logical fallacy and arguments to "beat down" (the Latinorigin ofdebate) the ideas of others.

Seven Norms That Enhance Teacher Talk

Our work with schools emphasizes the use of seven communication tools that enhance teacher talk:

1. Pausing2. Paraphrasing3. Probing for specificity4. Putting ideas on the table5. Paying attention to self and others6. Presuming positive intentions7. Balancing advocacy and inquiry

These tools are extrapolations our colleague Bill Baker has made from the Cognitive Coaching Model (Costa andGarmston 1994 Baker et al. 1997) and the work of Peter Senge and his colleagues (1994). When school faculties turnthese seven tools into normsnormal operating behaviors in formal and informal interactions within the schooladultrelationships improve, groups work skillfully to explore members' mental models and assumptions, and both d iscussion

and dialogue are served.

Of all the norms, balancing advocacy and inquiry requires the most cognitive, emotional, and moral sophistication a ndcreates the most profound shifts in group thinking and relationships. It is one way for individuals, by themselves, tobegin changing a large organization from within (Senge et al. 1994).

When advocating, group members make their thinking and reasoning visible by stating their a ssumptions,distinguishing data from inference, and giving examples. Members also test their assumptions and conclusions byrevealing what they are least certain about, staying open to other interpretations, and encouraging others to exploretheir thinking. When inquiring into others' views, members check for understanding, ask others to make their reasoningvisible, invite introspection, and explain their reasons for inquiring (Garmston and Wellman in press). Groups that learnto do this well are astounded by the results. A group in Iowa recently used these processes to talk about the mostimportant ideas for students to learn in math. "We never had anything like this before," said one superintendent. "Thegroup was intense, focused, and learning from one another. Previously this kind of topic would have had us griping."

Four Capabilities That Enhance Group Work

Invisible skills related to consciousness, intention, and self-control inform all behaviors of group members. Groupsseeking to enhance their joint work pay attention to four particular capabilities:

1. Knowing one's intentions and choosing congruent behaviors.2. Setting aside unp roductive patterns of listening, responding, and inquiring.3. Knowing when to self-assert and when to integrate.4. Knowing and supporting the group's purposes, topics, processes, and development.

Opportunities for private reflection and public conversation about these capabilities vastly increase members' groupskills and frequently bring members closer together as they share what is usually not shared.


5/6

8/17/13

Round-Robin Reflection

Certain structures bring safety to groups so that members can experience usefuldiscomfort and accelerate theirlearning. One such structure that leads rapidly to improved group conversations is something we call "round-robinreflection." In this process, everyone takes 30 seconds to silently respond to two questions: (1) What are some of thedecisions I made about when and how to participate in this conversation? (2) What were some of the effects of mydecisions for me and for the group?

Next, a facilitator chooses someone at random to begin talking to the group about their responses. When this person isfinished, the group pauses. Next, another member paraphrases what they have heard and respectfully asks for

clarification, more information, and so on. Now, in round-robin fashion, the person to the right of the first speaker talks tothe group and the process is repeated.

Getting Started

The collaborative norms of the group have more influence on the possibility of success than does the knowledge andtalents of the group facilitator. Thus our staff development energies must go to groups, not to designated leaders ofgroups. We have found three components helpful in groups that achieve high levels of skills in the challenging talkrequired in professional communities.

1. Overview. Provide groups with a rationale and a map for the two ways of talking (see fig. 1). Within this frame weadd key details about the seven norms, the four capabilities, the purposes of dialogue and discussion, andapproaches to constructive conflict. This overview is intended to create dissatisfaction with the current state of teamand working-group performance and provide a glimpse of productive ways of working together.

2. Inventory. Inventorying members' perceptions of how the group uses the norms reveals beliefs about currentoperating practices. Groups then can select one or two norms to develop and can establish monitoring systems toimprove their use of the map and tools. Inventories can be simple rating scales ranking personal and collective useof each norm, or more detailed questionnaires detailing subsets of each norm (Baker et al. 1997).

3. Monitor. Any group that is too busy to reflect on its work is too busy to improve. Every working group has far moretask than time and so is naturally reluctant to spend time monitoring and reflecting on its working processes. Manygroups commit themselves to a task/process ratio to overcome this tendency and budget a protected percentage ofeach meeting for examining how well the group is working and what it might do to improve.

Reflection can take many forms. The least effective way involves a process observera special role for gathering dataabout the frequency or distribution of behaviors the group feels are important. Because this places the gathering of dataoutside group members, members ultimately become less accurate in gathering their own data and self-assessments.The most effective way is through reflection on the four capabilities described earlier. This can occur through journalwriting, round-robin reflection, and dialogue focused on personal and collective learning about the power of attention to

process.

Human beings are a social species. Living and working in groups is an important part of our genetic heritage. It is ironic,then, that in many schools, professionals who are charged with preparing students to be successful, collaborativecitizens are themselves cut off from the rich resources offered by true collegiality. That we talk together in our schools isvitally important in these changing times. Howwe talk is as important, for it is how we talk that influences the personaland collective satisfaction that motivates us to continue talking together in our schools.

References

Amason, A.C., K.R. Thomp son, W.A. Hochw arter, and A.W. Harrison. (August 1995). "Conflict: An Important Dimensionin Successful Management Teams." Organizational Dynamics 24, 2: 20-35.

Baker, W., A. Costa, and S. Shalit. (1997). "The Norms of Collaboration: Attaining Communicative Competence." In TheProcess-Centered School, Sustaining a R enaissance Community, edited by A.L. Costa and R.M. Liebmann. Thousand

Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.Beyer, B.K. (1987). Practical Strategies for the Teaching of Thinking. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Costa, A., and R. Garmston. (1994). Cognitive Coaching: A Foundation for Renaissance Schools. Norwood, Mass.:Christopher-Gordon.

Garmston, R., and B. Wellman. (in press). The Adaptive School: Developing and Facilitating Collab orative Groups.Norwood, Mass.: Christopher-Gordon.

Senge, P.M., A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R.B. Boss, and B.J. Smith. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies andTools for Building a Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.

Robert Garmston is Co-Director of the Institute for Intelligent Behavior, 337 Guadalupe Dr., El Dorado Hills, CA 95617 (e-mail:

[email protected] ). Bruce Wellman is Co-Director of Pathways to Understanding, Coyler Rd., R.R. #4, Box 843, Guilford, VT 05301
mailto:[email protected]


6/6

8/17/13

(e-mail: [email protected] ).

Copyright 1998 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Requesting Permission

Forphotocopy, electronic and online access, and republication requests, go to the Copyright Clearance Center.Enter the periodical title within the "Get Permission" search field.To translate this article, contact [email protected]
http://mailcreate%28%27permissions%27%2C%27ascd.org%27%29/http://www.copyright.com/mailto:[email protected]

Teacher Talk That Makes a Difference

Documents

Transcript of Teacher Talk That Makes a Difference