Unpacking My Process: Fostering Adult Learning PITP

 

Overview
Over the last four years in my role of Inclusion Specialist, I often felt acutely aware of wanting more opportunities to collaborate with others.  A few of us in Point Loma started having informal “Inclusion Lunches” about a year ago, and I really valued and appreciated the opportunity to share ideas with others, and more importantly, to bring dilemmas to the group for advice, feedback and direction.

​
When I first entered my new role as “Associate Director” at the end of last school year, I reached out to many fellow Inclusion Specialists to elicit their thoughts and ideas about what was going well, and about areas for change and growth.  I heard a consistent message from almost everyone I spoke with: there was a sense of feeling isolated from others who are in the same role, and a strong desire to talk, to share ideas, and to support each other.


This fall, I began working with Kelly to initiate a plan to pursue the goal of increasing collaboration among all of the Inclusion Specialists across our schools.  I started by clearly articulating the goal, in writing: “to develop a rich professional learning community for inclusion specialists across our schools.”  I then took the goal (along with a few ideas) to a Director’s meeting, and asked for thoughts, reactions, ideas, and feedback.  The goal was well received by school Directors, and with Kelly’s support, I decided that the next step should be the formation of an action group whose purpose would be to clearly identify and define the structures that would be necessary to foster an adult learning community of inclusion specialists.



“Meta” Process
The timing of the development of this action group harmonized beautifully with the “Fostering Adult Learning” class.  The class really pushed me to think about how to effectively structure the action group.  My initial thought was, “I’ll gather a group together, pose the goal and some questions, and we’ll just TALK until we arrive at some great solutions!”  After being exposed to a lot literature about facilitation and shared decision making over the past weeks, a few key ideas have dramatically changed my thinking.


First is the idea that the use of a protocol constrains participation in order to heighten it.  This notion is eloquently explained in the first chapter of “The Power of Protocols”: “In forcing transparency, protocols again teach us habits that we wish we already had: to take the time to listen and notice, to take the time to think about what we want to say, to work without rushing, to speak less (or speak up more)” (McDonald 7).  I decided to use a protocol for many reasons, but chief among them is that I really liked the idea of structuring the conversation in a way that every voice would be included and honored, and every person would be given individual thinking and processing time before being asked to generate ideas or collaborate with others.


The second reading that changed my thinking was the “Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making” by Sam Kaner.  He writes eloquently about the dynamics of group decision-making.  He draws a distinction between a “business as usual” type of group dynamic, and a truly “participatory” group dynamic.  Regarding “quantity and quality of participation” he writes, “in a typical business-as-usual discussion, self expression is highly constrained.  People tend to keep risky opinions to themselves.  The most highly regarded comments are those that are the clearest, the smartest, the most well polished…thinking out loud is treated with impatience…this induces self-censorship and reduces the quantity and quality of participation overall.  A few people end up doing almost all of the talking…” (Kaner 25).   The description of participation during a “business as usual” group captures quite accurately the experience that I have had in countless staff meetings, study groups, and action groups.  The idea that “it doesn’t have to be this way” really resonated with me!  What I took from the reading is that there are a few key facilitation moves that can dramatically change the “business as usual” type of group.  The first is establishing norms with the group (a technique that is also highly endorsed in “Power of Protocols”) in order to foster a group culture and dynamic where divergent thinking is celebrated and tolerated and where people take risks.  Perhaps most importantly, where people are willing to work through “the groan zone” (the phenomenon that occurs when a diverse group of people grapple with nuanced issues, wherein inevitably people become frustrated or impatient with the process).  But a strong facilitator can foster a group dynamic in which the “groan zone” is understood to be a part of the process, and in which people are willing to stick together and stick with it instead of becoming reactive and giving up.



The Action Group
I decided upon two elements that would form the foundation of my action group: first was the use of a protocol, and second was the establishment of norms in order to foster a safe, participatory group dynamic.  I chose a protocol from the School Reform Initiative website called “Ping Pong” that I adapted for the group.  My goal was that the group would be able to generate a narrow list of “favorite ideas” in response to the focus questions that I posed (centered around the goal of developing a rich professional learning community for inclusion specialists).  I liked that the protocol would allow for individual thinking, pair-share, group share/discussion, and then a share-out at the end. 
The norms that I chose were simple: “If you think it, say it.  If you wonder it, ask it.”  These norms were presented in the opening chapter of “Power of Protocols” – they come from Daniel Baron and Gene Thompson Grove who are colleagues of the book’s authors.  I felt like the phrasing of those particular norms really captured the dynamic that I was hoping to create among the group members.


After I held the action group, a few reflections surfaced immediately.  First, I felt that I was not confident enough during the “norm” establishment process.  I initially forgot to do it, and then somewhat awkwardly stated the norms in what I think felt a bit like a side-note in the greater context of the conversation.  I’m realizing that I would much prefer to create the norms with the group, but I chose to select them myself and share them for the sake of time.  It’s challenging when you are facilitating a group that is meeting for the very first time, and will probably not ever meet again.  The learning for me is that as I work with the group of Inclusion Specialists (a group that I will be with consistently over a long period of time), it might feel easier to develop norms together, and then continually come back to them together, as a group.  I am glad that I didn’t abandon the creation of norms entirely for my action group, but I’m wondering how this could have been done more effectively (without spending more than a few minutes on it).  The simple solution is simply to devote time to it.  But the struggle was that I was already trying to do too much within a short amount of time.


The second reflection that surfaced is that I did not do a great job honoring the constraints of the protocol.  There were two moments when I checked in with the group, and asked what would be helpful (for example, the moment when, according to the protocol, each group had an opportunity to ask probing questions of group members).  I asked if this felt like it would be a helpful next step, and one person said, “I feel like we need more time to talk.”  One element that is most challenging for me as a facilitator is managing my own strong desire to make sure that everyone is feeling completely, entirely happy every moment of the experience.  I wonder what would have happened if I had said, “I think you’ll find that in honoring the structure of probing questions, you are in essence continuing to talk.  I’d like us to try it.”  This would have felt uncomfortable for me in the moment, but I would like to push myself to take risks like this as a facilitator in the future.


I sent out a survey to group members after the meeting.  Of the seven participants, four people responded.  Of those four, all of them “strongly agreed” that the protocol was an effective means of brainstorming solutions to the questions posed.   Three of them “strongly agreed” that they shared their ideas openly and honestly, and one of them “agreed.”  In response to the short answer question “how could Katie improve her facilitation of the action group” I got a variety of responses.  One person said “provide suggested times on the agenda and honor people’s time constraints.”  I went over time by about 20 minutes, and I completely agree with this feedback – in the future I need to be more mindful of not going over time, and providing anticipated time structures up-front.  Other responses were “I thought Katie's facilitation was excellent. I thought it was especially important to break the responses into Content and Structures” and “I really liked that you allowed us to change protocol and that you sought our feedback about extending time for discussion. I loved today and felt heard. I also felt valued and felt my work matters so thank you! I am so excited to move forward with this project. I know you (Katie) were worried about going over time- but I felt like it was very appropriately handled. I would rather have gone over 10 min. than have rushed through it. So keep doing what you are doing.”



Outcome:
During my video consultancy group, we discussed the balance between honoring the confines of the protocol, and honoring the desires and needs of the group.  I reflected about whether I had been too flexible in allowing us to stray from the protocol during two separate moments in the discussion.  Mike, the school Director who was participating, made a fantastic point.  He shared that the best way to measure the success of both the protocol and the process was to look the outcome.  Did the group achieve the goals that were established initially?  In pondering this, I realized that in fact the group exceeded my goal of generating a “list of ideas.”  Instead, the group was able to achieve consensus and draft a proposal!  The fact that the group exceeded the established goals indicates that the process was successful – I really like the idea of using the outcome of the process as a means of measuring its success.  (Of course, as a next step, ongoing measurement should take place to determine whether the proposal is actually implemented).
​

Here is a brief summary of the “proposal” that the group created:
Structures for PD:
  -combination of individual, site-based, region-based, and whole group
            -meet 3-4 times per year as a whole group (beginning of year,
             mid-year retreat, spring)
            -meet MONTHLY in “region” groups of Inclusion Specialists
-develop inclusion specialists as leaders who can facilitate PD with
both academic coaches and teachers at their sites and run regional meetings and site-based PD.



Ideas for Content of PD:
- shadow a student with an IEP
- shadow another Inclusion Specialist and observe an IEP
- be an “academic coach for a day”
- send out “memos” regarding topics and learning from site-based meetings
- dilemma protocols for regional meetings
  
Next Steps
My goal is to become a more confident facilitator in order to:
1. More clearly, confidently establish norms with the group (and facilitate a “meta” conversation about the reason we are taking the time to establish them).
2. More clearly, confidently honor the constraints of the protocol, with the goal of heightening participation by constraining it.
3. Measure success based upon outcome, and seek feedback of group members as part of this determination.

​

I feel excited and energized not only about the structures that I’m creating to foster a professional adult learning community among the Inclusion Specialists, but also about the role I can play as a facilitator to develop a healthy and positive group dynamic.  Because we don’t meet as a whole group more than once per year, we are in essence starting from scratch, which is a really great place to start!  We can work together to define and create the type of learning community we want to achieve.  I feel passionate about continuing to pursue this work!