More haste, less speed

An ISTE describes how her colleagues supported her to shift from patterns of interaction that were consistent with a Model I theory-in-use to ways of working that are more characteristic of a Model II theory-in-use.

I was working as a facilitator with a teacher of a year 9 English class of low achievers. After two terms, the students had made few gains in their learning, and behavioural issues were also becoming apparent. After a brief informal conversation with the teacher, we agreed to look at the possibility of adapting a successful reading and writing programme that another teacher and I had developed the previous year for a similar class. We also discussed the possibility of trialling a second programme that encourages students to take risks in their learning and to work beyond content that they can easily manage.

I provided the teacher with a draft of the reading and writing programme and a summary of the risk-taking initiative. I also drafted an agenda for the teacher to modify in the hope that this would speed things up at the next meeting. We had a lot to cover and only forty-five minutes to do so. My motive was to assist the teacher to enter the meeting as an equal, understanding the programmes and equipped to make practical and viable contributions to the discussion.

The teacher had endorsed the agenda, but shortly into our meeting, it became apparent that she had not read the material. I boxed on, mindful of our limited time frame. But by the end of our time together, I could tell that the teacher had ceased to be a partner in the discussion and in adapting the programmes. It had become clear to me that she was not sure of her role in our discussions, which also contributed to her lack of engagement.

The teacher had agreed to my videoing our meeting as part of my professional learning activities. Reviewing the video footage with my facilitator colleagues helped me to get a clearer picture of where things had gone wrong. The teacher had no ownership of this early phase of the process and did not engage in any of the proceedings beyond a token response to my promptings. I’d made the mistake of assuming all was well because she was responding positively to my suggestions. At no point did I check her understanding of what I was saying.

My colleagues and I discussed some alternative ways of working, which I then trialled in role plays with a colleague. We evaluated the results and decided on an approach much more in keeping with Model II for when I next worked with the teacher.

At the next meeting with the teacher, I openly expressed my concern that it would be difficult for her to participate as an equal if she was not prepared for the meeting. I offered her a hot drink and time to read through the material, recognising the value of sacrificing time for shared ownership in the initiative. When she had completed the readings, I checked her understanding and answered a string of questions she had about the programmes. Finally, we discussed some of the issues that might arise from applying the programmes.

At our subsequent meetings, we have been able to set the agenda together and have progressed to a stage of shared understanding about the programmes and mutual engagement in our discussions.

The key things I learned from this experience were:

• the need to be open and honest and to table my thoughts and concerns so that they can be validated and addressed if necessary
• the importance of regular check-ins with the other person to establish a shared understanding even if it takes a little longer
• the need to show respect for the other party, in this case by allowing them time to explore the supplied readings before moving on.

Return to top