How are Professional Learning Communities Created?; History Has a Few Messages

Mr. Joyce has long been involved in efforts to develop collaborative professional inquiry. He looks back at some of those efforts in hope that we can draw lessons from them and finally realize vision that Mike Schmoker set forth in his February article. In article featured on cover of February Kappan, Mike Schmoker develops two important arguments about school renewal.1 The first is a powerful call to discard approaches variously known as strategic planning, systemic reform, comprehensive school reform, and whole-school reform, which have failed miserably and in plain sight. The second, which has style of a call to arms, is that we know best way to generate school improvement and should simply get on with it. He borrows words of Judith Warren Little: improvement is most surely and thoroughly achieved when teachers engage in frequent, continuous, and increasingly concrete and precise talk about teaching practice.2 Schmoker argues that we have a consensus of expert opinion on question, and he names 28 highly visible specialists in school improvement who agree, essentially, that schools should become centers of inquiry for adults as well as children. He urges them to spread word, to create tipping when educators embrace the most productive shift in history of educational practice.3 Here, I'd like to reflect on Schmoker's call to arms from perspective of research and experience with similar ideas over last 40 years. Why? Because I'd like to see dream of professional communities of inquiry work out well this time around. And for that to happen, we need to pay attention both to idea of schools in which adults study their practice and to ways of creating that condition. I like vision Schmoker offers -- so much, in fact, that I've been involved in efforts to disseminate similar visions since early 1960s. I was heavily involved in team-teaching movement and post-Sputnik academic reform movement. Both relied on collaborative study by teachers. I directed school at Teachers College, where teams not only studied teaching but produced research for dissemination. In teacher education program connected to our school and nearby New York schools, teacher candidates studied both teaching and collaborative school improvement. We were part of national competency-based campaign that emphasized collective inquiry into teaching beginning at preservice level. We introduced teacher candidates to professional learning communities while they were in training and gave them tools for studying teaching -- tools known as interaction analysis systems. At one point, at least a hundred teacher education programs and many large school districts used such tools. For example, schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, built a cadre of teachers who spread precise study of teaching through a district that then served a quarter of a million students. Those innovations have largely disappeared, but I have not reformed, though my tools have changed. As this is written, I am working with inquiring teams whose members are studying effects of curricula they are implementing, as in kindergartens of Northern Lights School Division in Alberta, British Columbia. We discussed these efforts in these pages in October 2003.4 I know from personal experience that commitment to an idea is different from knowing how to take effective action to make it happen. I have frequently helped people with fine ambitions spin their wheels because we didn't know enough about generating implementation. Today, I have more or less continual anxiety that my present shortcomings will generate a new set of mistakes by my clients. And I'm in good company. The broad literature on school renewal describes many failed attempts to build learning communities, attempts mounted by sophisticated people, armed with considerable energy and carefully constructed strategies. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.