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

Introduction to Bank Street • Graduate School of Education • School for Children • Innovation, Policy & Research • Education Center 3

Past Assessment Process External standards- based Compliance Multiple Quantitative accreditation Driven data deadlines Faculty only 4

Moving to an Inquiry Group Process Institutional New dean with culture of Timing was Major self strong questioning, right to try study deadlines background & self-reflection, something new were behind us interest in and inquiry conversations 5

What is an Inquiry Group Process? It starts with a question or wondering about learning or the learners. Participants meet together to: • Share and discuss readings • Study evidence • Reflect on their practice (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014) 6

Assessment Task Force Expanded: 3 department faculty, 3 department chairs, 3 department reps, Associate Dean, Assistant Accreditation Members serve Dean, Registrar, & led by Coordinator, as chairs for the Dean & led by Associate inquiry group work Dean Originally formed Inquiry on to get us through Assessment Assessment NCATE Task Force Task Force accreditation 7

Timeline for First Inquiry Year September discussion of two articles with focus question, “What ideas about assessment October and inquiry can we find in these two mixed groups of faculty and essays ?” staff formed 1. “What Is Bank Street” by Barbara Biber 2. “Teacher Education for Social Justice: November A Learning Problem and a Political discussion about Problem” by Marilyn Cochran -Smith evidence December through April monthly meetings May through June group presentations 8

Choice of Three Focus Questions 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 one is as an educator? 3. issues of translating theory into practice? 9

Let’s Talk 10

Questions to Consider • 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? 11

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?” 12

Reflection on our Process Assessment cultural shift Leadership Group dynamics & process 13

Assessment Cultural Shift • The culture of assessment has largely been externally- driven. o Alignment with professional organizations & accreditation processes. • Values Conflict o Inquiry is a major tenet of progressive pedagogy, yet shifting to this approach to assessment was met with some hesitation. • Cultural Shift o ”It’s so good we are doing this.” 14

Leadership • New dean, new approach to assessment and accreditation. o Trepidation, though she has been nationally recognized for her expertise in inquiry-based qualitative approaches to assessment for accreditation purposes. • Women in leadership roles o 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”. 15

Group Dynamics and Process • Given the culture and leadership shift, it is no wonder we observed resistance — which was very NORMAL! • Stages of group o Forming Can we learn anything from this? 2015 – 2016 o Norming Transition stage o Storming  Some resistance • Trying something new with someone new. • Fear of being judged, evaluated • Challenging taken-for-granted knowledge 2016 – 2017 o Working o Mourning At some point in the future. 16

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) 17

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) 18

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) 19

Inquiry in Year Two Faculty: Look at Student services: impact of student Look at the possible More support given learning through Decision to reasons that to facilitators in coursework ; How separate faculty contribute to Assessment Task do students and staff this year. students Force meetings. experience their interrupting their coursework and our studies. instruction? 20

Thank You! Amy Kline, akline@bankstreet.edu Gretchen Adams, gadams@bankstreet.edu Wendi S. Williams, wwilliams@bankstreet.edu 21

References 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 22

References (continued) 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 of 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. 23