always learning

Eureka! I think I’ve got it! Thanks to all of your fantastic feedback on my previous posts, I realized that the Collaboration Continuum I started this weekend isn’t really a continuum at all – it’s a cycle:

To me, the cycle idea makes much more sense than a continuum. For starters, I really didn’t like the idea that teachers would feel that they should be at one end of the continuum – the pressure to “figure out” where you are on the path and how you compare to others is just too tempting (and intimidating).  I also didn’t like the visual impression that it was a finite process, appearing as if once you make it to the mentoring stage you’re done.

So, I went back to the drawing board, and came up with the concept of a cycle.

I love the fact that there’s no definite beginning or end, which acknowledges the fact that all teachers come to a school with different history and different needs. Not everyone will need to start with “full collaboration” when they come to ISB because they might have already done something like that at a previous school.

I also like the idea that the cycle builds in a support infrastructure for continuing this process indefinitely – once a teacher has been through the process and reaches the mentoring stage, s/he will go on to be a fully collaborative with another teacher who’s ready on their team, and then that teacher will do the same for another member of the team. This way the learning and experience of one teacher turn into the learning and experience of many – especially important in international schools where we tend to have lots of staff turnover.

What do you think? Is this better? More approachable and less intimidating to staff? Any other ideas for improvement?

Just out of curiosity, could/would you use this at your school? Do you have someone who could be responsible for implementing this process and begin the collaboration cycle with a group of willing teachers?

After some very helpful comments on my last post, I have revised my collaboration continuum to reflect the need for some pre- and post-assessments, as well as consistent professional development and an emphasis on learning and assessment:

I still couldn’t think of different terms to define the continuum, although I don’t like the fact that “dependence” could have a negative connotation even though “full collaboration” is a good thing – we want to have more collaboration, more teaming, and more sharing of strengths. Any ideas?

What else is missing or needs to be revised? I’m definitely liking how this is starting to look…

Today Jeff and I also talked about the LOTI in relation to this collaboration continuum. Once we do a pre-assessment of where we’re at, we can look at using this model to help us move to higher levels of technology implementation. So, I made a nifty little graphic for that one too:

As I was browsing the site, I also came across this article about effective 21st Century leadership which I also plan on sharing with my admin team tomorrow.

What do you think? Do these work together well or am I off track here?