Assessing Levels of Conversation
An excerpt from “Working Smarter, Not Harder: Building Interdependent
Communities of Practice
By Diane P. Zimmerman
Level 1: Activity-Based Conversations—Show and Tell
This type of conversation assumes that if teachers rub shoulders by telling
about what they do in their own classrooms, they will learn from one another.
In these types of conversations, individual teachers tell about something that
they are doing in their classrooms, often by showing materials, and that usually
is perceived by the other teachers as an activity they could try in their
classrooms. In the rubbing of shoulders, some ideas stick, but most do not.
While activity-based conversations are not wrong, they have limited
power to change practices. Teachers listen for “what works for them,” sometimes
finding something to apply immediately. This type of sharing rarely
introduces the nuances and complexities of teaching, but rather stays at
the surface, at the level of activities. At their worst, activities are gimmicks;
at their best, they are carefully thought out sequences of instruction.
Activity-based conversations must become more than “show and tell,”
and interdependent facilitators need to work to take conversations to the
level of deep, interdependent practices by moving the conversation through
the levels of content to thinking processes and then back again to practice.
When working with groups, skilled facilitators look for evidence of a collective
impact on practice. It may or may not be there, as groups can arrive surreptitiously
at new levels of conversation that deepen practice. However, unless
the members of a community become purposeful in navigating through the
various levels of conversation, it is likely to stagnate and not have a collective
impact on practice. Groups that learn to purposefully navigate through
the continuum move from happenstance to purposeful action that applies
complex schemas of practice—a journey from novice to expert.
Level 2: Content-Based Conversations—The Debates
This type of conversation assumes that if teachers focus on content,
developed either by others or by themselves, they will be better teachers.
Often these types of conversations turn into debates about what the nature
of the content should be, and more often than not they polarize groups.
In one school district, the community galvanized around two approaches
for the teaching of algebra, so much so that the school board mandated
that junior high students be allowed to choose which text they wanted to
learn from, creating a nightmare for scheduling. Instead of trying to find a
common understanding and coming to recognize that both avenues offer
appropriate pathways for learning algebra, this community split into two
camps. A leader could have asked the teachers to delve deeper into their
practices to find common and divergent points of understanding instead of
arguing about their own “right choice.” This experience reminds us that as
leaders we have a moral imperative to help groups transcend their conflicts
and grow smarter together. Groups must learn how to work smarter and
interdependently, not harder.
Content-based conversations have a place in communities of practice
when participants learn to embrace conflict and work through it. Together,
there is true value in seeking deeper understandings, nuances, and contrasting
ideas that do not match one’s own philosophical stance. However,
content discussions often turn into autobiographical teaching conversations,
where educators debate and advocate “what worked for them.” The
more stuck they become, the less they listen and the more they work to
justify their own beliefs. This often becomes a nonproductive vicious cycle
in which some fight and others retreat. One teacher once said, “In my first
year of teaching I tried to tell the other teachers what I thought, but they
didn’t listen so I stopped talking.”
Scott Peck (1987), in his work with church communities and belief
systems, came to understand the emergent quality of conversations and
noted that no community became a “true community” until its members
were able to work through their conflicts, in contrast to groups that retreat
(flee) or argue (fight). He describes the successful path as being through
emptiness—the setting aside of the need to judge, or control, or fix, or
convert. Likewise, moving beyond content wars requires groups to learn to
work through differences of opinion and to embrace conflict as a healthy
element in interdependent communities of practice. Avoiding conflict is
the flip side of creating conflict.
Often when groups avoid conflict, they seek the first solution, pushing
their true feelings and beliefs underground—a behavior best described by
the economic term satisficing. This term is the clever combination of two words,
“satisfy” and “suffice,” and describes a decision-making phenomenon—
choosing the first option that gives satisfactory results and, although
it may not be optimal, suffices for the current need. Satisficing is a strategy
of expediency, which works well for nonessential decisions, but creates blind
spots for more complex decisions. Indeed, the satisficing phenomenon is
more common than most of us would like to think. Since time is a teacher’s
most valuable commodity, many will adopt the first solution suggested by
a group member just to get the job done. While this may be efficient in
some circumstances, it is deadly for groups that are seeking shared meanings
and a common language. Satisficing short-circuits the conversation
and assumes that all agree, only to discover later that the only agreement
was complicity of “rushing to solution.”
Interdependent leaders would be well served to learn how to observe
for satisficing and to use process skills (e.g., the facilitator’s tool box; see
Garmston & Zimmerman, in press) to surface presuppositions that block
thinking, and to invite groups to persist and think deeply.
Level 3: Process-Focused Conversations—Reflective Dialogue
For process to work, it must be meaning-centered and linked to content
or activities, which is why these three types of conversations—activity,
content, and process—must be married to create a seamless flow that supports
interdependent learning. Of course, the ultimate process is “thinking”
and so communities that have learned to use meaningful processes have
a reflective quality to their conversations. They talk about what they are
thinking and how they are shifting viewpoints or changing their minds.
When groups begin to truly listen and embrace the diversity of thought in
the group, they have become interdependent. This type of conversation
is called a dialogue, the necessary ingredient of all true communities. This
is why working from the middle out (starting with level 3) produces more
coherent, high-powered learning.
In an earlier article (Williamson & Zimmerman, 2009), we suggested
that understanding and paying attention to process was the tipping point
for groups as they move from good to great. It is the glue that holds all
three levels of the above-mentioned conversations together, creating a
structure through which the participants can navigate and create shared
understandings and meanings.
Consider the contrast between empty process and meaning-centered
process. A favorite meaning-centered way to get groups engaged is to find
a few well-chosen quotes related to the group’s work and have pairs of
members talk about what a quote means, looking for nuances. Not only
does this meaningful focus prime the members’ attention toward the work
at hand, but it moves them into a micro-community, as each person has
to negotiate meaning with at least one other person.
Contrast this with an empty process icebreaker in which group members
are given a paper plate with the name of an animal on the back and go
around getting clues from others about the animal. While such an activity
helps group members get to know one another, it does not efficiently move
groups into the work at hand. The reader readily should note that this is
the dilemma of the “activity trap” in which the facilitator does not pay
attention to content or process. The facilitator would be well advised to
begin planning by asking, “How does this opening activity provoke deeper
understanding and thoughtful consideration of ideas?”
To Read about Levels 4 & 5 you will want to buy the book:
Costa, A. & O’Leary, P. (2013). The Power of the Social Brain: Teaching,
Learning, and Interdependent Thinking. New York: Teachers College Press.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Power-Social-Brain-Interdependent/dp/0807754145