Collaborative Inquiry for Learning in Mathematics: Team-Based Collaborative Planning, Teaching, Observation and Learning

• In Event: The Challenge of Using Adaptive Models of Collaborative Inquiry: Tensions Between Knowledge Generation and Dissemination Within Schools and School Districts

Abstract

Purpose and Perspective
This paper examines a collaborative inquiry process combining team-based student data analysis, co-planning, co-teaching and lesson observation as a way to build connections between math content knowledge for teaching and instructional actions of co-teachers that respond to student learning. The initiative’s design aligns with a large body of research on teacher professional learning. For example, Catherine Lewis’s work on lesson study (Perry and Lewis, 2010) and Borko, Wolf, Simone and Uchiyama’s (2003) work on six integrated dimensions of capacity with school settings both provide theoretical relevance to the collaborative inquiry processes embedded in this initiative.

Methods and Data
The study which informs this paper used a mixed method approach. A cross case analysis of four case study collaborative sites combined with pre- and post-survey data from teachers (N=259) and students (N=433) were the main sources of data. The surveys had a response rate of 47% for teachers. Response rates for students could not be calculated as the researchers did not have access to full class numbers (Bruce and Ross, 2011). Combined, the study measured efficacy and learning for participating students and teachers.

Results and Significance
This collaborative inquiry model has a sophisticated design which includes participation of teachers as well as school district and school leaders. The success as a learning experience for participants was more or less dependent on five key factors (Bruce and Ross, 2011). Deep professional learning of participants depended on the degrees to which:

1.Teachers had previous experience working collaboratively in an inquiry-based approach to professional learning;
2.Teachers had an existing disposition towards ongoing professional learning and willingness to adapt practice in response to new ideas and understanding;
3.Leadership support was provided through active participation of school and school district leaders as learning colleagues;
4.Teachers made explicit, ongoing connections between formal learning sessions and daily work in classrooms; and
5.Support was provided by facilitators with expertise in mathematics teaching and learning who worked flexibly, were careful listeners and provided external critique within the professional learning experience.

When these conditions were in place, activities within this model built measurable increases in teacher efficacy for teaching and learning in mathematics. This in turn led to increases in student efficacy as mathematics learners, their expectations in math lessons and their achievement in math. Notably, these conditions are also dynamic and evolving. The conditions which ensure success are also the conditions that are developed as the model becomes sustained over time.

Equally, there was evidence that the model was beginning to expand beyond the planned participating schools. The ways that adaptations of success in this model are scaled informally across a school district is a critical part of collaborative inquiry processes. Understanding the nature of these adaptations informs provincial strategy and direction. This is part of what Coburn (2003) refers to as a dimension of ‘spread’ within school district implementation. It may prove instrumental in the sustainability of this initiative and collaborative inquiry processes in Ontario in general.

Authors

• Judi Kokis, 21st Century Education Development Research Institute

• Lucie McCartney, Ontario Ministry of Education