1 Why

Collaborative
Inquiry?

Powerful professional learning designs provide the activities that make

professional learning communities more than just a structure.
(Easton, 2008, p. 4)

E veryday educators face a variety of challenges. Some challenges are

technical in nature while others are adaptive in nature. Technical chal-
lenges are ones in which the problem is clear, the knowledge and capacity
to solve the issue already resides in the expertise of individuals, and solu-
tions and implementation are readily understood. In education, a technical
solution entails doing things we already know how to do—for example,
increasing the penalty for late or missing work. A problem arises when
doing what has always been done is not the right thing to do or does not
result in the outcomes intended. An adaptive challenge is “one for which
the necessary knowledge to solve the problem does not yet exist” (Vander
Ark, 2006, p. 10). Adaptive challenges are more difficult to resolve as solu-
tions and implementation require new learning and upset past ways of
doing things—for example, raising awareness of ineffective grading prac-
tices. To tackle adaptive challenges, individuals must adopt new values
and beliefs.
Heifetz, Grashow, and Linsky (2009) noted that when individuals and
organizations meet adaptive challenges, they themselves become some-
thing different—they adapt. Change of this magnitude is not easily accom-
plished, as people’s ideas about how things work are not easily
reconstructed. By focusing efforts on professional learning approaches

•1
2 • Collaborative Inquiry for Educators

that challenge mental models and engaging

“The definition of insanity is people in learning and working collaboratively,
doing the same thing over and individuals and organizations will be more
over and expecting different
likely to meet adaptive challenges. Collaborative
results.” (Benjamin Franklin)
inquiry is a structure in which members of a
The adaptive challenges professional learning community (PLC) come
educators face vary in their together to systematically examine their educa-
nature and complexity. Educators tional practices. Teams work together to ask
might be grappling with one or questions, develop theories of action, deter-
more of the following issues:
mine action steps, and gather and analyze evi-
ƒƒ Supporting English dence to assess the impact of their actions.
Language Learners Throughout this process, teams test presuppo-
ƒƒ Closing the gap between sitions about what they think will work against
groups of students in the the evidence of what actually works (City,
areas of literacy and Elmore, Fiarman, & Teitel, 2009). By closely
numeracy examining and reflecting on the results of their
ƒƒ Accommodating students actions, individuals and teams begin to think
with learning disabilities differently. They begin to question long-standing
ƒƒ Improving graduation rates beliefs and consider implications for their pro-
ƒƒ Accessing background fessional practices.
knowledge when working Leading educational researchers recognize
with groups of diverse the power of the PLC concept to transform
students schools and help educators meet the adaptive
challenges confronting them and, therefore,
Whatever student needs are continue to promote collaborative inquiry as a
identified, the challenge of strategy for strengthening teaching and learn-
change is “compounded by
ing. In a study that examined specific character-
pressure from others to remain
istics of school improvement plans that were
the same” (Levin, 2008, p. 81).
Levin noted that effective most related to student achievement, Reeves
change in schools comes from (2010) found that the inquiry process was one of
“thoughtful application of nine characteristics that had a measurable and
effective practices in particular significant effect on gains in student achieve-
contexts” (p. 81). When doing ment in reading and mathematics in both ele-
what has been done does not mentary and secondary schools. Reeves (2010)
result in outcomes intended, encouraged teachers to take an active role in
real change is required. Real expressing and testing hypotheses and backed
change comes and is sustained the notion that collaborative inquiry can have a
when goals are achieved in new profound impact on the professional practices
ways under complex not only of the participants but of their col-
circumstances. When real
leagues as well. Katz, Earl, and Ben Jaafar (2009)
change occurs, students and
included collaborative inquiry that challenged
educators benefit.
thinking and practice as a key component in
 Why Collaborative Inquiry? •3
their theory of action for enabling impactful PLCs. Supovitz (2006) noted
that when members of PLCs engage together in investigating challenges of
practice, their understanding of those challenges grows deeper and is more
unified, practice grows more sophisticated and powerful, and the group
develops a tighter sense of camaraderie and common purpose. As a result,
teams can construct common understanding, share knowledge and experi-
ence, and develop common goals (Supovitz, 2006).
Teacher-driven inquiry is not a new approach. For years, Lieberman
among others has promoted a culture of inquiry where teachers have oppor-
tunities to discuss, think about, try, and hone new practices through struc-
tures such as problem-solving groups or decision-making teams. Promoting
a contextual and collaborative approach, Lieberman and Miller (2004)
stated, “The concept of learning in practice is now viewed as foundational
to teacher leadership; it rests on the idea that learning is more social, collab-
orative, and context-dependent than was previously thought” (p. 21).
Although it is not a new approach, collaborative inquiry is more fre-
quently being used to address school improvement efforts. As elements
of and conditions for effective professional learning are identified and
better understood, educators are recognizing the potential impact that
collaborative inquiry could have on sustaining
changes in practice and ultimately achieving
Some educators associate
greater success for all students. Learning
collaborative inquiry and action
Forward (Killion, Hord, Roy, Kennedy, &
research with experimental
Hirsh, 2012) identified standards that can be research approaches and hesitate
used to guide the design, implementation, to participate, as they are not
and evaluation of professional learning. Under confident in their skills to
the category of “Learning Communities,” conduct research. While
Learning Forward promotes an inquiry collaborative inquiry is a process
approach stating that high-quality profes- in which educators come
sional learning includes learning communities together to examine their
that “apply a cycle of continuous improve- educational practices
ment to engage in inquiry, action research, systematically using techniques
data analysis, planning, implementation, of research, the intent is not for
reflection, and evaluation” (Killion et al., 2012, participants to focus on rigorous
research designs or
p. 16). Learning Forward also promotes a col-
methodologies. Collaborative
laborative approach to learning noting, “The
inquiry is primarily a process to
more one educator’s learning is shared and support professional learning.
supported by others, the more quickly the cul- Since it is contextual in nature, it
ture of continuous improvement, collective is not expected that findings are
responsibility, and high expectations for stu- generalized to a larger
dents and educators grows” (p. 17). More fre- population.
quently, educational leaders are engaging
4 • Collaborative Inquiry for Educators

practitioners in the process of inquiry, recognizing that it embodies the

characteristics of high quality professional learning and valuing its
potential for school improvement.
While collaborative inquiry is becoming a more commonly used pro-
fessional learning model and it has been shown to be an effective approach
to sustaining meaningful changes in practice, studies show that the invest-
ment does not always yield anticipated results. Katz (2010) stated that the
majority of learning communities do not produce sustainable changes in
professional understanding, classroom practice, or student achievement.
Mitchell and Sackney (2009) suggested that PLCs “have remarkably little
impact on the ways in which teachers teach, students learn, or leaders
lead” (p. 12). After many observations across various settings, the research-
ers concluded that “deep, rich, authentic learning promised by learning
community discourse” (p. 9) was evident in only a small number of high-
capacity schools. Fullan (2006) also noted that it was common for commu-
nities to be operating on a superficial level.
As the adaptive nature of this work unfolds, facilitators face challenges
in their efforts to embed collaborative inquiry into the work of PLCs in a
way that is purposeful, productive, and impactful. DuFour, DuFour, Eaker,
and Karhanek (2010) noted that one of the most common mistakes educa-
tors make as they attempt to implement PLC concepts is to regard collabo-
ration as the end itself, rather than as a means to an end. They noted that
collaboration would impact student achievement in a positive way only if
collective inquiry focused on the right work. Easton (2008) warned,
“Without meaningful learning activities that occur during PLC time, PLCs
may go the way of so many other structures that were instituted without
any attention to what teachers and students do that would take advantage
of those structures” (p. 4). This book answers the question for leaders of
educational change: How can I facilitate teams through the stages of collabora-
tive inquiry while ensuring the work is purposeful, productive, and impactful?

A FOUR-STAGE MODEL
This resource has been designed for facilitators interested in guiding
school teams through a formal process of inquiry. It is of increasing impor-
tance to support individuals and teams through the change process, as
collaborative inquiry requires people to think, reflect, and work together
in new ways. Simply providing time for teachers’ growth opportunities is
not enough. The tools to support meaningful collaboration that is focused
on what matters most—identifying and addressing the learning needs of
students—are needed as well. To ensure the integrity of the design so that
 Why Collaborative Inquiry? •5
greater success for all students can be realized, it is imperative that facilita-
tors develop a deep understanding of how to support teams through the
process. The four-stage model outlined in this book complete with the
insights, suggestions, and prompts, will provide facilitators with what
they need to guide teams so that the efforts of the team make a difference
for the students they serve.
The four-stage model includes the following:

Stage 1: Framing the Problem. During this stage, facilitators assist teams as
they determine a meaningful focus, develop an inquiry about a particular
link between professional practices and student results, and formulate a
theory of action.

Stage 2: Collecting Evidence. In the second stage, facilitators guide teams

in developing shared understandings and building additional knowledge
and competencies. Teams determine the type of evidence to collect. They
also determine when, where, and how it will be collected.

Stage 3: Analyzing Evidence. Once teams feel they have gathered enough
information to address the question posed, facilitators guide teams
through a five-step approach to analyzing evi-
dence. Teams learn how to make meaning of The four stages of collaborative
data by identifying patterns and themes and inquiry (framing the problem,
formulating conclusions. As teams refine their collecting evidence, examining
thinking, they revisit their theory of action evidence, and documenting,
accordingly. sharing, and celebrating) are the
same stages used in action
Stage 4: Documenting, Sharing, and Celebrating. research. The difference between
During this final stage, teams come together to the two approaches is that
document, share, and celebrate their new under- collaborative inquiry is
standings. Teams consider next steps by identi- conducted by a group of
fying additional student learning needs and educators interested in
reflecting on what they learned through their addressing a school, department,
inquiries. Finally, teams debrief the process by division, or common classroom
issue driven by student learning
considering how their work was reflective of
needs. The work is often
the characteristics of collaborative inquiry.
connected to a broader district
and/or school improvement
Once facilitators engage teams in collabora- strategy. Action research is
tive inquiry, they will find it is a more cyclical conducted by individuals and a
than linear model. Teams cycle through the single classroom is more often
stages, revisiting each stage as they change and the unit for improvement.
refine their thinking.
6 • Collaborative Inquiry for Educators

GETTING STARTED
In preparing to lead teams, there are a few things for facilitators to con-
sider. For example, facilitators need to consider issues regarding timing,
including when to begin and the length of the cycle of inquiry. When form-
ing a collaborative inquiry team considerations include optimal size, par-
ticipants, and recruitment strategies. In addition, facilitators should
consider ways to foster academic discourse. These ideas are expanded on
in the section that follows.

Timing
When is the best time during the school year to begin? How long might
it take to complete a cycle? These are some commonly asked questions as
people prepare to get started. If the work is going to be connected to larger
improvement efforts, the best time to introduce collaborative inquiry is
when the process of school improvement planning takes place. In many
school districts, school improvement planning begins in the last month of
the previous school year—projecting ahead for the year to come. Some
school districts wait until the current school year begins to conduct a com-
prehensive needs assessment. In any case, if collaborative inquiry is going
to be used as a structure to guide school improvement efforts, the two
processes must begin simultaneously to complement each other. By intro-
ducing collaborative inquiry as a strategy for school improvement, it will
help team members understand how it relates to the work that is already
happening in schools.
The length of the cycle will depend on the team, the question, the
school year calendar, and structural conditions. For teams new to the
process, it may take longer to complete a cycle than it would for teams
who have experienced it before. It is similar to when teachers introduce
a new strategy to students. Initially, students’ cognitive energy is spent
processing how to use the strategy. Once they become familiar with
how the strategy works, they are able to focus cognitive energy on the
content and advance their learning. Once collaborative inquiry teams
get used to the stages and engage in one full cycle, they will be able to
use their time more efficiently. The length of the cycle will also depend
on the question posed. Questions that identify a change in classroom
practice that requires a steep learning curve for participating teachers
will increase the length of time the team engages in professional learn-
ing and the implementation of strategies in the classroom. A skilled
facilitator will ensure that the practices identified are high-leverage
 Why Collaborative Inquiry? •7
while scaffolding learning accordingly so that team members feel safe
in the learning environment. The length of the cycle will also depend
on the school year calendar. Facilitators should be aware of the start
and end dates of terms when working with teams in schools that oper-
ate in a semester system. Ideally, cycles should be completed during a
single semester. Finally, the length of time to complete a cycle will also
depend on supportive structural conditions. Hord (2008) described
supportive structural conditions as “those such as time to meet, a place
to meet, and policies and resources that support the staff coming
together for study and learning” (p. 12). Teams will be most productive
if supported and provided with time embedded in their daily practice
to engage in the work.

Forming a Collaborative Inquiry Team

Collaborative inquiry teams may comprise as few as two educators.
Teams ranging from five to seven participants are ideal. When teams con-
sist of more than seven people, facilitators might find it challenging to
ensure that all voices are heard. In addition, depending on the makeup of
the team, the larger the team becomes, the more difficult it may be to iden-
tify a common student learning need. However, larger teams may work as
long as the individuals coming together are able to identify a school,
department, or division issue driven by the consideration of common and
current student learning needs.
Identifying informal leaders who are open to sharing their practice
and who have the ability to engage and motivate other staff is impor-
tant. Katz et al. (2009) suggested that formal leaders “distribute leader-
ship, identifying those teacher leaders who are in the position to lead
in a focus area because of their expertise” (p. 75). Additionally, the col-
laborative inquiry team should consist of individuals who are able to
take action and who are willing to engage in and promote an inquiry
approach to professional learning in their schools, departments, or
divisions.
When recruiting individuals, facilitators might consider the idea of
“starting with why” proposed by Sinek (2009). Sinek suggested that for
leaders to inspire action, they need to start with why rather than how or
what. While what people do serves as proof of what they believe, why they
do it represents their purpose and beliefs. Consider the following two
approaches. In the first example, the facilitator’s recruitment script begins
with what, while in the second approach, the recruitment strategy begins
with why.
8 • Collaborative Inquiry for Educators

Example 1

WHAT—“This year, teachers will conduct collaborative inquiry while participating

in a professional learning community.”
HOW—“Forty minutes a week will be structured into your schedule.
Teachers in the same division will share common time in which they will
come together to investigate an issue stemming from an identified common
student learning need.”
WHY—“As a result of our collaboration, we will all be better equipped to
address the learning needs of our students.” (Donohoo, 2012)

Example 2

WHY—“I believe that students deserve the very best education but they come to
us with gaps in their understanding and that makes it difficult and challenging
for educators to meet the diverse needs of all learners.”
HOW—“We can work together to identify the gaps in our knowledge based
on identified student learning needs. Collaboratively, we can learn about differ-
ent approaches, identify strategies to test them, assess their impact, and revise
them accordingly.”
WHAT—“Collaborative inquiry is an approach for teacher development and
learning and it provides a structure where teachers and administrators come
together to continuously seek and share learning and then act on what they
have learned.”

Sinek (2009) suggested that great and inspiring leaders appeal to people’s
emotions and inspire action by starting with purposes, causes, or beliefs
rather than describing the what. Heath and Heath (2010) also noted that in
successful change efforts, leaders speak in ways that influence emotions
and not with analytical arguments. Since people are motivated by emo-
tions, starting with why will prove to be an effective recruitment strategy
for facilitators when forming collaborative inquiry teams.
In addition, team members should be made aware of the commitment
of time and energy that will be required throughout the process. When
recruiting individuals, it is important to share with potential team mem-
bers an overview of the four stages of collaborative inquiry along with the
estimated length of time involved so that they know what is expected of
them. Some individuals may be hesitant to commit but for those who do
agree to participate, having clear expectations will lead to the creation of a
healthier and more productive team.
 Why Collaborative Inquiry? •9
Fostering Academic Discourse
MacDonald (2011) described a “culture of nice” as the “underlying
culture that inhibits the team from reaching a level of rigorous collabora-
tive discourse where teachers are challenging each other’s and their own
thinking, beliefs, assumptions, and practice” (p. 45). The author pointed
out that “teachers must be willing to expose their struggles and failures
with their colleagues, and colleagues must be willing to tell the truth, or
teams will go through the motions of collaborative inquiry but never see
results” (p. 45). When facilitators enter into this process, they must be
prepared to foster academic discourse that shifts from a culture of nice so
that team members can gain insights into their practices and results for
students can be realized.
To produce meaningful change, facilitators need to provide opportuni-
ties for teams to respectfully discuss differences between beliefs within the
organization. It is difficult and challenging work. Fullan (2011) pointed out
that adaptive challenges and social complexity are one and the same, not-
ing, “It is not that the problem is mysterious; it is more that helping people
discover and embrace change is socially complex” (p. 18). At times, discus-
sions will make people feel uncomfortable, but it is necessary to engage in
difficult conversations. Facilitators can begin by valuing and acknowledg-
ing that people have different ways of interpreting things. Encouraging
team members to listen with curiosity and not judgment will help people
to engage in conversations in respectful ways. When discussing classroom
practices and/or student work, facilitators should ensure that participants
provide descriptions rather than offering interpretations. City et al. (2009)
noted that to talk to one another productively about what we see in class-
rooms, we have to describe what we see “without the heavy judgmental
overlay that we typically bring” (p. 87). Specific descriptions provided
about classroom practices and/or student work will give participants an
enormous amount of information to reflect on in terms of their practice. If
the facilitator is not prepared to foster these types of conversations, the
time spent engaging in the process is unlikely to result in sustained
changes in practice.
Activities and prompts contained in this book have been designed to
assist facilitators in structuring conversations so that people’s assumptions
are safely challenged. Focusing conversation on evidence rather than opin-
ion, providing opportunities for all voices to be heard, and promoting
reflection on professional practices will help facilitators shift the culture
from “nice” to a more honest discourse where results can be realized.
Senge (1990) used the term “learning organizations” to describe orga-
nizations that transformed themselves to meet adaptive challenges and
10 • Collaborative Inquiry for Educators

become knowledge-generating versus merely knowledge-using organiza-

tions. Vander Ark (2006) noted that meeting an adaptive challenge required
“creating the knowledge and tools to solve the problem in the act of working
on it” (p. 10). To shape an organization that can generate the knowledge to
meet adaptive challenges, system leaders must provide opportunities for
teams of learners to engage in inquiry, develop and apply theories of
action, collect and analyze relevant data, reflect on practice, determine
next steps and actions, and evaluate the process. Collaborative inquiry
provides the structure for teams to collaboratively generate knowledge
while investigating problems of practice. This book was developed to
guide facilitators in leading teams in meeting adaptive challenges. A syste­
matic approach to conducting collaborative inquiry is outlined in the
chapters that follow.