It Started with a Question: A Year-long Inquiry Group Process with - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

It Started with a Question:

A Year-long Inquiry Group Process with Faculty and Administration

Amy Kline, M.P.A., Assistant Dean Gretchen Adams, M.A., Senior Administrator Wendi S. Williams, Ph.D., Associate Dean for Academic Affairs

Bank Street College of Education

AGENDA

 Introduction to Bank Street  Past assessment work  First year of inquiry groups  Case study to illustrate our experience  Reflection on our process  What we learned in year one  Looking ahead to year two

3

• Graduate School of

Education

• School for Children
• Innovation, Policy &

Research

• Education Center

Introduction to Bank Street

4

Past Assessment Process

Compliance Driven

External standards- based Quantitative data Faculty only Multiple accreditation deadlines

5

Moving to an Inquiry Group Process

Timing was right to try something new Major self study deadlines were behind us New dean with strong background & interest in inquiry Institutional culture of questioning, self-reflection, and conversations

6

It starts with a question or wondering about learning

• r the learners.

Participants meet together to:

• Share and discuss readings
• Study evidence
• Reflect on their practice

What is an Inquiry Group Process?

(Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014)

7

Assessment Task Force

Assessment Task Force

Originally formed to get us through NCATE accreditation 3 department reps, Accreditation Coordinator, & led by Associate Dean Expanded: 3 department faculty, 3 department chairs, Associate Dean, Assistant Dean, Registrar, & led by Dean Members serve as chairs for the inquiry group work Inquiry on Assessment Task Force

8

Timeline for First Inquiry Year

September discussion of two articles with focus question, “What ideas about assessment and inquiry can we find in these two essays?”

• 1. “What Is Bank Street” by Barbara Biber
• 2. “Teacher Education for Social Justice:

A Learning Problem and a Political Problem” by Marilyn Cochran-Smith October mixed groups of faculty and staff formed November discussion about evidence December through April monthly meetings May through June group presentations

9

What can we learn about how Conference Groups and SFW become learning communities that develop an inquiry stance toward:

• 1. issues of social justice?
• 2. learning about self alongside learning about who
• ne is as an educator?
• 3. issues of translating theory into practice?

Choice of Three Focus Questions

10

Let’s Talk

11

• What do you think it would be like to engage in this

work?

• Who would you gather around the table from your

institution?

• How do you think

they would react?

Questions to Consider

12

Case Study on Inquiry Group Experience

Beginning of process – September

• “Why do we have to do this?”
• “We did this before, how will this time be different?”

Middle of process – January

• “It is so great that we are doing this.”
• “If we already know that we do good work, why do we have to

do this?”

End of process – May

• “It is wonderful how much we learned.”
• “Is there a way to continue this work next year?”

13

Reflection on our Process

Assessment cultural shift Leadership Group dynamics & process

14

Assessment Cultural Shift

• The culture of assessment has largely been externally-

driven.

• Alignment with professional organizations & accreditation processes.
• Values Conflict
• Inquiry is a major tenet of progressive pedagogy, yet shifting to this

approach to assessment was met with some hesitation.

• Cultural Shift
• ”It’s so good we are doing this.”

15

Leadership

• New dean, new approach to assessment and accreditation.
• Trepidation, though she has been nationally recognized for her expertise in

inquiry-based qualitative approaches to assessment for accreditation purposes.

• Women in leadership roles
• Rosette et al. (2017) distinguished between agentic deficiencies and penalties.

Agency is generally defined as independent achievement, self-direction, and the pursuit of competence, proficiency, and control. When one is deficient, they are seen to lack capability or competence. When one is penalized, it is because they are acting outside the social and cultural expectations for how a woman is to

• act. In other words,
• Though “traditional ideas” of good leadership have been described as

agentic (i.e., exerting assertive agency, autonomy, and decisiveness), communal or nurturer ideals (e.g., kindness, care, niceness, being helpful) have been associated with women’s styles of leading (Rudman & Glick, 1999; Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010) (Williams, 2017, p. 392).

• Eagly and Carli (2007) suggest that to “successfully negotiate the labyrinth,

women are required to demonstrate both agentic and communal skills”.

16

Group Dynamics and Process

• Given the culture and leadership shift, it is no wonder we
• bserved resistance—which was very NORMAL!
• Stages of group
• Forming
• Norming
• Storming
• Some resistance
• Trying something new with someone new.
• Fear of being judged, evaluated
• Challenging taken-for-granted knowledge
• Working
• Mourning

2015 – 2016 Transition stage 2016 – 2017 At some point in the future.

Can we learn anything from this?

17

Strengths of the Process and Experience

• Act of listening deeply and respectfully
• Ability to take risks and to share work in face of uncertainty
• Diversity in groups broadened thinking and expanded

repertoires

• Allotted time allowed groups to find their own pace, build

ideas and questions

• Research skills (e.g., honing skills, systems to collect and

analyze data, developing a focusing frame, reliable process for studying data)

• Advisor skills - paying closer attention to students’ efforts to

connect theory and practice; developing awareness of the urgency of social justice issues.

(Traugh, 2016)

18

Challenges of the Work

• Having enough time.
• Inconsistency of: attendance, program

representation, evidence not being provided by all group members, experience as advisors or in working with issues of social justice.

• Uncertainty about the desired outcome.
• Feeling disconnected between meetings.
• Need for reference that could be a

resource on their topic of study.

(Traugh, 2016)

19

What We Learned in Year One

The work we did…

• enabled us to engage in a parallel process with our students.
• helped us feel the tension between answers and questions.
• provided us the opportunity to raise questions that are

important to us.

• reframe what counted as data.

(Traugh, 2016)

20

Inquiry in Year Two

More support given to facilitators in Assessment Task Force meetings. Decision to separate faculty and staff this year. Faculty: Look at impact of student learning through coursework; How do students experience their coursework and our instruction? Student services: Look at the possible reasons that contribute to students interrupting their studies.

21

Amy Kline, akline@bankstreet.edu Gretchen Adams, gadams@bankstreet.edu Wendi S. Williams, wwilliams@bankstreet.edu

Thank You!

22

Bush, B., Frank, I., & Dixon Krauss, L. (2014). Assessing beyond minimal compliance. Action in Teacher Education, 36(56), 351-362. Eagly, A. & Carli, L. L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 85(9), 62-71. Kwo, O. & Fung, D. (2014). Liberated to learn: Teacher education as transformation of relationships. Education As Change, 18(S1), 2014, S47–S61. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2014). Collaborative inquiry in Ontario: Where we are now and what we have

• learned. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Student Achievement Office.

Peck, C.A. & McDonald, M. (2013). Creating “cultures of evidence” in teacher education: Context, policy, and practice in three high data use programs. The New Educator, 9(1), 12-28. Sloan, T.F. (2015). Data and learning that affords program improvement: A response to the U.S. accountability movement in teacher education. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 14(3), 259-271. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1004

References

23

Sanchez-Hucles, J. V., & Davis, D. D. (2010). Women and women of color in leadership: Complexity, identity, and

• intersectionality. American Psychologist, 65, 171–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017459

Traugh, C. (2017). Report on assessment inquiry 2015-2016. Unpublished report, Bank Street Graduate School

• f Education, New York, NY.

Williams, W. S. (2018). Discrimination and identity management among diverse women. In C. B. Travis and J. W. White (Eds.), APA Handbook of the Psychology of Women: Vol. 2. Perspectives on Women’s Private and Public Lives, (pp. 385-402), Washington, DC: APA.

References (continued)