7
Teachers Learning Communities for Cooperation in Diverse Settings Author(s): Margarita Calderón Source: Theory into Practice, Vol. 38, No. 2, Building Community through Cooperative Learning (Spring, 1999), pp. 94-99 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1477229 . Accessed: 22/06/2014 13:16 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theory into Practice. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:16:46 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Building Community through Cooperative Learning || Teachers Learning Communities for Cooperation in Diverse Settings

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Teachers Learning Communities for Cooperation in Diverse SettingsAuthor(s): Margarita CalderónSource: Theory into Practice, Vol. 38, No. 2, Building Community through CooperativeLearning (Spring, 1999), pp. 94-99Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1477229 .

Accessed: 22/06/2014 13:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theory intoPractice.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:16:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Margarita Caldero'n

Teachers Learning Communities

for Cooperation in Diverse Settings

INCREASED DIVERSITY AMONG SCHOOL FACULTIES

is making collegial processes quite complex and sometimes turning them into superficial endeav- ors. Most schools now have staff members who are different in upbringing, belief systems, and communication styles. Some educators in a school advocate for certain types of students, while others may be oblivious or even hostile to those same students. When educators are brought together to work in collegial teams, under the banner of school improvement, the quality of their work is more and more frequently questioned by proponents of collegial teams (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996; Har- greaves, 1997; Joyce, Wolf, & Calhoun, 1993). Even teachers from fairly homogeneous schools have rarely learned to work together effectively (Hord, 1997; Lieberman & Miller, 1991). But if children from diverse backgrounds are to succeed in schools, teachers need to learn to work together effectively and efficiently.

Processes for school-based decision making rarely take diversity into consideration, much less the emotional conflicts diversity conveys. When teachers in a school come with different philoso- phies and cultural, linguistic, and socialization pat- terns, it becomes very difficult to get to the heart of equity in reform. In our studies of schools with

Margarita Calderdn is a research scientist with the Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk, Johns Hopkins University.

large populations of language minority students, we found that popular school reform processes or conflict resolution techniques were not working well. Some seemed to set a negative tone from the start. Therefore, we decided to begin with safe co- operative learning techniques to set a more posi- tive tone before attempting the arduous work of transforming schools. We hypothesized that the subsequent development of high levels of coopera- tion, with well-defined reform models, could help participants transform themselves and their school to meet the needs of the students they serve.

This article highlights some of the best practic- es and precautions gleaned from diverse collegial ef- forts as difficult reform processes were tackled. The examples are based on research conducted during 1988-1998 in El Paso, Texas, and Juarez, Mexico, under the auspices of the Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk (CRESPAR) and the Fundaci6n Fernandez.

Combating Status Quo From other articles in this issue, we can infer

that simply placing students in teams does not nec- essarily generate quality learning and team results. The same applies to teachers' collegial teams, study groups, communities of practice, or teams of edu- cators coming together to work on school reform. There are many similarities between the two types of teams.

THEORY INTO PRACTICE, Volume 38, Number 2, Spring 1999 Copyright 1999 College of Education, The Ohio State University 0040-5841/99$1.50

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:16:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Calder6n Teachers Learning Communities

For instance, when the task is inquiry, dis-

covery, or innovation, the results may be very cre- ative or very disappointing. When the school faculty reflects polarized philosophies, beliefs, or program preferences (such as bilingual education versus main- stream, whole language versus phonics, change ver- sus status quo), the team has difficulty proceeding with its tasks without team building and consensus on norms for interaction. When difficulties arise

among the teams, the work is minimized or subvert- ed. Comfort and status quo become the implicit goal. Yet a rich body of literature tells us that when students or adults in teams are taught cooperation and their task is clearly defined and focused, their

learning and productive evidence of that learning are tremendously enhanced (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Joyce, Wolf, & Calhoun, 1993).

As we began our work with teachers and school reform, we asked the following questions: If we know what helps or hinders team work, why can't we apply this knowledge to school reform teams or teacher collegial teams? Why do schools

struggle through years of "transforming schools" and "collegial endeavors" without the results they projected? What are the contexts that facilitate

meaningful learning and action? What is the activ- ity structure within these meaningful contexts? What correlates with positive outcomes from col-

legial teams? Why do schools so often go through long journeys of exploration cruising around the same neighborhoods and winding up at the same point of departure?

Hargreaves (1997) notes that in spite of an

impressive body of knowledge and expertise about the factors that enhance or undermine educational change, too many changes remain disappointing and ineffective. Fullan and Hargreaves (1996) chal- lenge teachers and their leaders to develop "inter- active professionalism in our schools" (p. xi). Yet in our studies during the past 10 years, we have seen how interactive professionalism can become a long and fruitless exercise as we compared schools and districts using various models (Calder6n, 1998). Therefore, we paid special attention to two impor- tant factors as we set up teachers learning commu- nities: (a) profound content to guide the interaction; and (b) the acknowledgment of sociocultural re- sources.

The content of professional discourse By 2010, Latino students will become the

largest minority group in the U.S. schools. Asian students will more than double their school popu- lation. This means that along with other complex problems of reform, student language background is now one of the main issues. However, relatively little attention has been paid to existing inequali- ties that create barriers to success for racial and ethnic minority students (Villegas, 1998).

August and Hakuta (1997) found through a

3-year national study that schools rarely consider

English language learners as part of the content of their school reform efforts. The content of school reform efforts rarely centers on all students. Yet without these conversations, a faculty may never

begin to learn about English language learners. There are comprehensive school reform efforts that can help school teams focus on English language learners and all students.' These comprehensive models serve as a starting point toward reform. It is also noteworthy that the most successful of these programs are built upon the use of cooperative learning for both students and educators.

The sociocultural resources in the faculty The richness of diversity in a faculty must be

acknowledged as a powerful learning tool. We need to create spaces where individual talents of teach- ers can emerge. Sociocultural theory (August & Hakuta, 1997; Vygotsky, 1978) helps us to under- stand one of the most vital aspects of group learn- ing and productivity: that most learning occurs in a social context in which individual actions and understandings are negotiated by the members of a

group. In earlier school studies, we found that in

most collegial team situations, negotiation occurred in at least two domains: the rules for how to talk about reform and the construction of the actual content knowledge of reform through these rules (Calder6n, 1996). Teams could collectively nego- tiate to water down the content or to set unspoken rules for maintaining the status quo. One individu- al could sway the focus and end-result of a year's worth of work. This was particularly evident in faculties divided along racial lines. If this were a classroom rather than a faculty, we could see this

95

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:16:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Spring 1999

Building Community Through Cooperative Learning

division more clearly. Sometimes, however, we refuse to see the same dynamics at the faculty level.

Cohen, Lotan, Scarloss, and Arellano (this issue) inform us that equal status among student groups in interracial and interethnic situations must be constructed by teachers, rather than assumed. This applies to multicultural or bicultural faculties as well. We found that quality participation in col- legial interactions may be more difficult for the speakers of less-valued discourse forms, such as Latino teachers (Calderon, 1998). Therefore, the activity structure for collegial conversations is high- ly dependent on ways to more fully engage culturally diverse speakers and promote intergroup relations among the faculty and administrators in a school.

High-Diversity Learning Communities

Effecting fundamental change is the mission of staff collegial efforts in multicultural/bilingual set- tings. Professional development must be viewed as a collegial structure that facilitates the implemen- tation of a dynamic program constantly under review and improvement. In our studies, we called these structures "teachers learning communities" (TLCs). The apostrophe is dropped from the word teachers to reflect the active voice of teachers learning.

TLCs are the structures that remain constant after an initial comprehensive inservice training on a research-based instructional model that address- es the needs of diverse students. TLCs provide structured times within the workday during which teachers get together to analyze school improve- ment efforts, share accomplishments for the week, do problem solving, exchange instructional strate- gies, brag about their students' products, learn to analyze student progress, set up peer coaching re- lationships, and learn what they need to learn. TLCs are contexts within which teachers in heterogeneous teams co-construct knowledge and meaning from their craft. A TLC is basically a community of teachers working together toward success in teach- ing and student learning. It provides an opportuni- ty for teachers to collaboratively and relentlessly examine, question, do profound study, experiment- implement, evaluate, and change (Calder6n, 1998).

TLCs began in 1989 out of the need to adapt the Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composi- tion (CIRC) program to the needs of English lan-

guage learners (Calder6n, Hertz-Lazarowitz, & Slavin, 1997; Slavin & Fashola, 1998). CIRC is a reading and writing program for second to eighth grades that uses literature anthologies, basals, or novels to teach reading and writing skills through cooperative learning (Slavin & Fashola, 1998).

CIRC seemed to contain many features that could be adapted to second language learning. Therefore, bilingual and ESL (English as a Second Language) teachers set out to pilot and experiment with the model. As the teachers probed, tested, and shared their findings, they became thoroughly immersed in the co-construction of teaching and learning. They invented structures to suit their stag- es of development. Sometimes they were research- ers, sometimes they were critics. They often played the role of students, while others took on the role of teachers. They learned to let go of their fears and invited each other to observe their classroom instruction. They invented ways of doing peer coaching that worked for them. By working on their students' and their own learning needs, they found a good balance to sustain their reform.

The weekly TLC meetings usually began with everyone sharing their greatest success of the week. Three or four activities followed, sometimes cen- tering on analysis of student writing or assessments, other times on revising lessons. Teachers modeled successful strategies for each other, read and dis- cussed journal articles, and brought problems to solve. The meetings culminated by celebrating someone's birthday, new home purchase, or any other happy excuse. Through these 2-hour sessions, they created the solid research base for the Bilin- gual Cooperative Integrated Reading and Compo- sition (BCIRC) model now widely used and recognized as a comprehensive school reform mod- el. It also became the basis, just as with CIRC, for the Reading Wings/Alas Para Leer (second through sixth grade components) of Success for All/Roots & Wings (see Slavin, this issue).

Success for All/Exito Para Todos is a com- prehensive approach to restructuring elementary schools with the purpose of ensuring reading and writing success for every child. It also attempts to address the needs of teachers, parents, and admin- istrators. The program provides schools with re- search-based curriculum materials; extensive

96

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:16:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Calderon Teachers Learning Communities

professional development; student assessments; and approaches for classroom management, tutoring, and family support (Slavin, this issue).

Because SFA/EPT provides a structured strat- egy for reform, it also works as a tool for compre- hensive collegial development through TLCs. Each school receives 23-25 person days of comprehen- sive inservice training and follow-up implementa- tion visits. Teachers meet by components as frequently as once a week during the year.

What is different about the SFA/EPT program in some schools is that bilingual and/or ESL teachers and mainstream teachers receive the same type of professional development together, the same materi- als, and the same support system. In most other bi- lingual programs, the mainstream and bilingual teachers learn different instructional approaches, from different instructional programs and philosophies, in separate inservice sessions. In the SFA/EPT programs, the shared elements have the potential for creating a strong community of teacher learners.

After the inservice sessions, mainstream and bilingual teachers face many challenges together. There is no "us versus them" because all share the same goal, the same tools, the same status, and the same community. They are brought together to learn to integrate complex instructional strategies into their teaching repertoires and to decipher com- prehensive components for addressing parents', stu- dents', and their own collective needs. Bilingual issues become a part of everyone's needs.

However, the equalizing effect will not take hold unless there is time and structure for the TLCs. TLC sessions are usually 45 minutes a week by components: reading teachers by levels, tutors, and family support team. In some cases, an early re- lease day every other week is used for all compo- nents to work in their teams and then in a school-wide session. Some schools allocate time, but the meetings are not structured to be produc- tive. The most promising activity structure seems to be a combination of topic-related discussions and study conducted through specific cooperative learning methods. Some of the topics include: in- tegration of the program with district bilingual pro- gram requirements, implementation of all program components, individual progress in using the in- structional strategies, weekly student progress and 8-week assessments, and celebrations of success.

In states such as Texas, where schools are accountable for test results in Spanish as well as English, SFA/EPT becomes another point of equal- ization for students and teachers. Some schools, however, spend the 45 minutes "teaching to the test" instead of empowering the teachers through their learning communities.

Dual Language Programs Perhaps some of the most complex and com-

prehensive programs today are the dual language or two-way bilingual in which minority and ma- jority students learn in two languages all through school. It also requires effective team teaching by bilingual and mainstream teachers. Although most programs begin with the implementation of a few classrooms at a time, the innovation is eventually implemented school-wide. The programs call for extensive reform and rethinking. Thus, the TLCs in these schools were set up to create a context where bilingual and mainstream teachers could learn to work together, perhaps for the first time; where power, language status, racism, and histori- cal misconceptions could be replaced by cultural understanding and a search for equity and excel- lence.

One of the most effective tools that the teach- ers used in their TLCs was the teacher ethnogra- phies. First they studied how to conduct ethnographic observations and how to record stu- dent behaviors and discourse (Calder6n, 1998). Afterwards, they began applying the techniques in their classrooms. While one teacher taught in one language, the other conducted the ethnography. Then the roles were reversed. They studied the dis- course and learning-teaching behaviors of their stu- dents and the status and use of each language by students and themselves.

Their 2-hour monthly sessions were used to share their ethnographies and the questions they had written ahead of time for discussion. In teams of four, they synthesized the information from each ethnography and composed a new set of questions to study once more in their classrooms. They learned how their perceived 50-50 percent time on Spanish and English was actually more around 65 percent English and 35 percent Spanish. They ob- served how even Spanish speakers were more in- clined to give English more status by the frequency

97

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:16:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Spring 1999

Building Community Through Cooperative Learning

and occasion of its use. The team teachers also learned that it would take a lot of work (e.g., more materials development, more consciousness of self- speech, tighter schedules) to bring parity to the instructional goal of 50-50.

In schools where the TLCs persisted, the team teaching became exemplary. In a school where the TLC was discontinued, the best teachers moved on to other schools and the program fell apart. At that school, two partnerships split up over "irreconcil- able" differences of opinion about the status of Spanish. The lessons learned from that school were that without ongoing intervention or TLC activity, mainstream and bilingual teachers do not develop the positive working relationships necessary for effective program implementation. They may even split up or create worse interpersonal or profes- sional problems. All this leads to the erosion of the instructional program.

Where the TLC activity continues, more ques- tions for study arise. These questions are now be- yond "What do I do with Juanito?" Instead they try to delve deeper into the roots of the problems: * What must be changed in fundamental ways to

dismantle a discriminatory system in our school? district? community?

* How do we develop an appreciation of one's own and others' culture and language?

* What is right or wrong with the social and polit- ical systems as they now exist in our school? district? community?

* What is true excellence? achievement? learning? teaching? in language minority settings?

It is too soon to determine the effectiveness of the newer activity. As teachers study these questions by reading research and interacting with researchers, they are also learning to interact with each other on a different level. This type of learning will become an equitable process for historically non-participatory members of the teaching profession: bilingual teach- ers whose voices are not typically heard. For main- stream teachers it is an opportunity to learn about responsive pedagogical practices for language minor- ity students. These monthly TLC sessions are com- bined with a yearly week-long summer institute where 80 or more teachers explore these issues further with researchers and cooperative learning facilitators.

Cooperation as Basis for Effective Teams The teachers and administrators in these stud-

ies created TLCs to begin, sustain, and improve changes toward equity and excellence for language minority students. Teachers, administrators, and in some cases, parents, worked in cooperative teams. Cooperative learning strategies, techniques, and philosophies were used to initiate the tasks of re- form and to build relationships. The teachers' tal- ents were considered for determining what knowledge, skills, and approaches would best meet the needs of students.

Ninety-five percent of the teachers reported that creating bonds and relationships with other teachers, administrators, and parents was the most important first step in reform. Although communities are supposedly built on caring and love (Hargreaves, 1997), many teachers and more administrators re- ported that this was the first time they began to care about their peers, particularly those from dif- ferent ethnic backgrounds or philosophical perspec- tives on bilingual education.

The cooperative learning processes helped many of the participants get past diametrically op- posed views of diversity and bilingualism. It gave them a variety of ways to find safe contexts where they could suspend their fears and biases.

Safety is not the same as comfort. Comfort can mean no growth. We learned that cooperative learning strategies can help participants get used to the discomfort brought on by controversial topics. Team tasks should be deliberately orchestrated to bring out talk about beliefs, values, and biases while managing emotions (i.e., self-control, self-aware- ness). Activities need to be designed to develop com- munication skills (i.e., listening, feedback, consensus, helping, accepting help). Other activities ought to guide them in appreciating multiple perspectives or knowing when conflict is a good or bad sign.

Ways of talking about diversity must be taught to students and teachers. Time needs to be allocated to build trust and a shared discourse. Hence, new norms for how to talk about reform and the construction of the knowledge for reform becomes the professional interaction in the learn- ing communities we are proposing for schools with diversity.

98

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:16:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Caldero'n Teachers Learning Communities

Note 1. For a list of the comprehensive school reform projects that focus on English language learners, see the South- west Educational Development Laboratory web page [email protected]/CSRD/cmodels.html (retrieved Feb- ruary 1999 from the World Wide Web).

References August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling

for language-minority children: A research agen- da. Washington, DC: National Research Council Institute of Medicine.

Calder6n, M. (1996). Binational cooperative learning communities. In J.D. Flores & E. Garcia (Eds.), Children of la frontera. Charleston, WV: ERIC/ CRESS publication.

Calderon, M. (1998). "TLCs" Teachers learning commu- nities. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.

Calderon, M., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Slavin, R. (1997). Effects of Bilingual Cooperative Integrat- ed Reading and Composition on students transi- tioning from Spanish to English reading (Report No. 10). Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.

Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What's worthfighting for in your school. New York: Teachers College Press.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1989). Leading the cooperative school. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.

Joyce, B., Wolf, J., & Calhoun, E. (1993). The self- renewing school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Hargreaves, A. (Ed.). (1997). Rethinking educational change with heart and mind (ASCD yearbook). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Hord, S.M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improve- ment. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Devel- opment Laboratory.

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (Eds.). (1991). Staff de- velopment for education in the '90s. New York: Teachers College Press.

Slavin, R., & Fashola, T. (1998). Show me the evi- dence! Proven and promising programs for Amer- ica's schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Villegas, A.M. (1998). In pursuit of equity and excel- lence in education. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John- Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

riP

99

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:16:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions