Sharing Small Success Stories
Protocol
Description
This protocol is a great one for celebrating those small successes which eventually
lead to huge accomplishments. It helps to build a learning community committed
to making our learning and efforts more public, thus encouraging a more
collaborative culture.
The protocol can be done in pairs if there is little time or in small groups, if time
permits. Done correctly, it becomes a form of job-embedded professional
development for school leaders and/or teachers.
Directions
The facilitator determines the topic of the protocol, based on what has been
going on or what the leader or faculty has been working on…..as part of the
School Improvement Plan, professional development or other issue, etc.
Then, the outcome on the meeting agenda might be…Be ready to…
 Share a Success Story about progress with a struggling student.
 Share a Success Story about implementing writing across the curriculum.
 Share a Success Story about a relationship with a student or group of
students.
 Share a Success Story about outreach to the community.
 Share a Success Story about helping students make the connection
between their successful learning and the amount and nature of the effort
they put into it.
Steps in the Protocol
1. Describe the situation. What was going on…or what wasn’t going on?
2. What, as the teacher or leader, did you do to address this situation?
3. What was the impact of your action, intervention, series of steps, etc?
4. Most importantly, what did you learn from this experience?
Source: Nancy Anne Colflesh, Ph.D., Colflesh & Associates, LLC * ncolflesh@sbcglobal.net
"In-Basket" Exercise
ACTIVITY:
A group of colleagues listens to a teacher describe an instructional or management problem
which an individual has recently experienced or is presently facing. After describing the
situation, the teacher asks a particular question or questions on which s/he wants assistance.
The teacher who is presenting the in-basket problem may want some discussion on one or more
alternatives for the purpose of understanding the rationales. The presenting teacher closes the
discussion by thanking the group.
GOAL:
To provide a positive, non-threatening source of assistance for teachers regarding curriculum,
instruction, assessment, management or other problems.
GUIDELINES:
1. The decision to present an in-basket problem belongs to the individual teacher.
2.
The description of the problem should include the essential elements of the situation; those
elements which would need to be considered for possible solutions.
3.
The description is closed with a question or questions. A more focused request for
assistance will likely bring forth helpful ideas.
4.
The group response is in three parts:
(a) ask clarifying questions to ensure an adequate description of the problem
(b) brainstorm a wide range of alternatives
(c) individuals present their individual response to the question (optional)
5.
The discussion should focus on positive and creative problem solving. The group should
capitalize on the differences rather than trying to get agreement on every point.
6.
The purpose of the exercise is not to prove one approach is "best." It is important that
group members feel they are properly treated even though they have different views.
7.
Ultimately, the teacher faced with the problem needs to make the decision. This forum
may cause teachers to:
(1) consider more alternatives
(2) understand the rationale of various approaches
(3) consider the probable outcomes of each possible choice
(4) feel good about the final decision
8.
It is appropriate to update colleagues on progress regarding an in-basket item, if the teacher
chooses to do so at a later session of the collegial group.
Protocol
from
Teacher Teams That Get Results by Gregory & Kuzmich
Find Someone Who Can Tell You…
One way to help students
be self-reliant
One way to manage
homework
A suggestion to help
motivate learners
A notetaking and
summarizing skill
A way to promote
metacognition
An assessment that gives
immediate data
A strategy to challenge
high-ability learners
A vocabulary technique that An answer to a question
works
you have about
differentiation
NANCY’S PROTOCOL
Discussion Directions
for
Shared Professional Reading
Nancy A. Colflesh, Ph.D., Facilitator
Overview
When a group of professionals have completed some common professional reading, it can be
helpful to structure their discussion so that it remains embedded in the literature. The following
directions can provide that structure.
Directions for Discussion
Each member of the reading group responds to this set of directions, then, after going around the
group once, the group can go around again, until all have shared the highpoints of the text as
much as they would like. Then, the group can open up for a whole-group discussion of the
reading and link it to practice.
1. Review the section(s) or chapter(s) we have read for today’s session and find a
statement or paragraph that really stood out for you as you read; or a statement or
paragraph that really spoke to you in your current role; or a statement or paragraph
that really struck you as important in context of your organization or profession.
2. Share the page number (and location on the page) of that statement or paragraph and,
when we are on that page with you, read it aloud to the group.
3. Next, explain why it stood out for you, why it spoke to you, or why it struck you as
important. This is the most important step in contributing to a solid and growthevoking discussion of professional reading that colleagues have read in common.
4. The group may want to pause for a brief discussion after each statement or paragraph
is shared, especially if several group members had highlighted the same section. Be
careful not to get too far off track!
5. Now, the next person does steps 1 – 3, and then the next person and all around the
group, in turn or at random.
6. After all sections have been shared and discussed, the group may want to open the
discussion to a more broad discussion of the article or book and make connections to
practice.
Resources
Articles for professional reading and shared discussion can be readily obtained at the following
websites:
www.ascd.org
www.nsdc.org
www.edweek.com
www.allthingsplc.info
CAROUSEL
Carousel is a facilitation strategy to be used with groups to:




brainstorm options or ideas
generate input in response to specific questions
identify issues, concerns, etc. about a particular topic, policy, etc.
generate questions to guide a learning session
Recommended guidelines:
1. Keep the group size small; 3-5 people.
2. Limit the number of charts; 3-4 charts.
3. If working with a large group, conduct two parallel carousel activities and
pull charts 1 & 4, 2 & 5 and 3 & 6 together to review at the end.
4. If participants write their responses using alternative marker colors, their
work will be easier to read from a distance.
5. If responding to questions, concerns and issues (where more is not
necessarily better), it can be useful to limit the small group’s number of
contributions and say that all small group members must agree before the
response is written on the chart.
Directions:
1. Determine which 3-4 questions, topics, etc. you want people to brainstorm.
2. Count off, 1 through whatever number equals the total number of charts.
3. Small groups gather at their first chart for 5-10 minutes; then move (at the
facilitator’s signal) to the next chart to add their contributions. They need
less time at each consecutive chart as the contributions accumulate.
4. When the small groups return to their original chart, there are several steps
after they review it:
 Circle the top 3 or 5 contributions (from their perspective)
 Choose a spokesperson to share these top ones with entire group
5. Last, make a decision about how to use, or respond to, the charted
contributions.
Inside/Outside Protocol (Fishbowl)
Source: This protocol works much the way a fishbowl does. It also resembles the California
Protocol, developed for the California Center for School Restructuring (CCSR) in 1996 by Steve
Jubb and Joel Shawn.
Overview: This protocol involves groups that share the same problem or need to address the
same issue. The groups take turns playing an analysis role and a reflector role, deepening the
discussion each time they switch. Participants sit, fishbowl-style, in two concentric circles, both
facing inward. There is no single presenter because everyone knows the problem or issue; there
may, however, be a facilitator for each group.
The purpose of the protocol is not to solve the problem or resolve the issue, but rather to simply
illuminate it so that people have greater understanding and can move toward solutions or
resolutions.
Other Uses: This protocol can be used to deepen discussion on student work or professional
practice, as long as all participants understand and have a stake in what is being presented. This
protocol can also be modified so that groups can present plans, gain feedback from each other,
and reflect on feedback before switching places and repeating.
Number of Participants: The number of participants can vary from 8 (two groups of 4) to about
30 (two groups of 15). If there are more than 30 participants, the amount of airtime for each is
reduced.
Time Required: 30-60 minutes
Steps (suggested times based on a 60-minute session):
Step 1: Introducing the Protocol (first time only; 5 minutes)


The facilitator welcomes the entire group and explains the steps to the protocol.
The facilitator reminds the participants that the purpose of the protocol is not to solve the
problem or resolve the issue, but rather to dig deeply into the issue or problem for better
understanding that can lead to solution or resolution.
Step 2: Framing the Issue or Problem (10 minutes)



The facilitator states the problem or issue as succinctly as possible (or asks a participant
to do so).
The facilitator restates the problem or issue as a key question for the group (or asks a
participant to do so).
Though the group may not entirely agree on the problem or issue or on the key question,
the protocol needs to proceed, as it is likely that the problem or issue or key question will
be clarified. If absolutely necessary, the facilitator may invite clarification from
participants before starting the dialogue, but the group should trust that he protocol itself
will help them achieve clarification and be willing to proceed.

The facilitator should have the group divide into two relatively equal groups, A and B.
There groups should be constructed randomly (e.g., through numbering off) unless
groups similarity or diversity is desired, whereupon the whole groups should decide the
makeup of the two groups (e.g., “Let’s have all elective teachers in group A and all the
core teachers in group B to discuss the new schedule.”). Group A forms the inner circle,
and group A forms the outer circle.
Step 3: Group A Discussion (15 minutes)


Group A discusses the problem or issue and the key question while Group B listens and
takes notes.
At the end of the specified time, Group A and B switch seats with each other.
Step 4: Group B Discussion (15 minutes)



Group B discusses the problem or issue and the key question while Group A listens and
takes notes.
Members of Group B may want to build on what Group A has said, brings up their own
topics, or do both.
At the end of the specified time, Groups A and B return to their original places.
Step 5: Group A Reflection (10 minutes)




Group A reflects aloud on what Group B said in step 4, and may also reflect on their own
discussion in step 3.
If someone from Group B wishes to enter the inner circle to contribute or ask a question,
he or she may but must return to the outer circle after having done so.
It is also possible for someone from Group B to “tap out” a fellow Group B member from
the inner circle if he or she has stayed there too long of if someone else from Group B
wants to follow up with a question or comment.
At the end of the specified time, Groups A and B switch places.
Step 6: Group B Reflection (10 minutes)


Group B reflects aloud on what Group A has said so far, and may also reflect on their
own discussion in Step 4.
Members of Group A may comment on the reflection in the same way that members of
Group B may in step 5.
Step 7: Reaching Consensus (10 minutes)


Group B (inside circle) turns to face Group A (outside circle). Participants talk to each
other, trying to determine the points of which the two groups have reached some kind of
consensus.
The facilitator should begin round-robin reporting, during which each pair contributes a
point of consensus. If possible, these points should be recorded on chart paper, perhaps
by the facilitator or a volunteer from either group.

Each time a point is repeated, a checkmark should be made next to that item on the chart
paper, to show that more than one person felt it was a point of consensus.
Step 8: Open Discussion (10 minutes). The facilitator should begin the open discussion with any
of these questions:



Have we properly defined the issue or problem?
On what points have we reached consensus?
What is left for us to do regarding this issue or problem?
Step 9: Debriefing (5 minutes). The facilitator should prompt the participants to debrief the
process. What went well? What could have gone better? What did we learn? What do we know?
What do we still want to know?
Critical Elements: One critical element for this protocol is that grouping of participants. They
should be grouped so that they feel they can both listen to each other and have a chance to say
something. Sometimes this works best if grouping is entirely random; at other times, grouping
should be purposeful, related to the issue or problem. The group as a whole needs to make the
determination, prompted perhaps by the facilitator.
Another critical element is reaching clarity about the problem or issue. If groups delay reaching
step 3 before reaching absolute clarity, they might never begin. So, they have to trust the process
to bring them closer to clarity and to reveal some points about a solution or resolution for which
there is a consensus.
Finally, a group may not reach consensus about many items, and that’s OK. Solving the problem
or resolving the issue can begin with whatever points everyone can agree on.
Tips for the Facilitator: The facilitator plays a relatively major role in this protocol, especially
in steps 7-9. The facilitator may find it helpful to take notes during the group discussions and
reflections, searching for consensus points. Then, to illustrate the possibility of consensus in step
7, the facilitator might say I was listening to what you were talking about in steps 3-6. I heard X
frequently and think it might represent some kind of consensus. ”
Peeling the Onion:
Developing a Problem Protocol
(adapted from Nancy Mohr and the National School Reform Faculty)
Purpose: To provide a structured way to develop an appreciation for the complexity of a
problem while avoiding the inclination to start out “solving” it. Most of u are eager to
solve problems before we we understand their depth. This protocol is designed to help a
group peel away the layers to address the deeper issues that lie underneath the
surface.
Time: Approximately 50 minutes.
1. The presenter explains the dilemma and poses a focus question.
2. Clarifying questions (4 minutes)
3. Round 1: One by one, everyone finishes the statement: “I understand the
question to be…” The presenter is silent and takes notes.
4. Round 2: One y one, everyone finishes this statement: “One thing I assume to be
true about this problem is…” The presenter remains silent and takes notes.
5. Round 3: One by one, everyone finishes this statement: “A question this raises
for me is…” The presenter remains silent and takes notes. If there are more
questions among the group, this round may be repeated.
6. Round 4: One by one, everyone poses a question starting with the following:
“What if…?” or “Have you thought of…?” The presenter remains silent and takes
notes.
7. The presenter re views notes and says, “Having heard these questions, I think
there are implications for…”
8. Together, the presenter and responders think of possibilities and options that
have surfaced.
9. The process observer leads an open discussion of the process. (5 minutes)
Be sure to discuss the following:
 How was this like peeling an onion?
 What about the process was useful?
 Was the process frustrating? If so, how?
SOURCE: Learning Along the Way: Professional Development by and for Teachers,
Diane Sweeney. 2003.
Rounds Protocol
Source: This protocol is a variation on The Descriptive Review of a Child by Pat Carina at the
Prospect Center in Bennington, Vermont, for reflecting on students and their work, as described
by Kelly (1996). This protocol is also based on ideas from Marilyn Wentworth and others at The
Fulton Academy of Geographic and Life Sciences and Fort Pitt Elementary School in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania; Vanessa Turpin, Trish Rygalski, and Jerome Morris of the Summer 1997 CFG
Coaches Training Workshop; Steve Hoffman of the Alternative Community School in Ithaca,
New York; and Steve Strull of DuSable High School in Chicago.
Overview: This protocol is very similar to the Tuning Protocol, except for the participant
discussion, which consists of three rounds. During the first round, participants simply describe
what they’ve seen in the student work examined. During the second round, participants reach
some conclusions or generalizations about what they have described. During the third and final
round, participants base a set of recommendations (both cool and warm in nature) on what they
have concluded and generalized from the second round. Note that the descriptions in the first
round of discussion should be objective. It if often hard for educators to describe rather than
evaluate a work.
Other Uses: This protocol can also be used to understand a student through his or her work; in
fact, this was the purpose of the Descriptive Review of a Child, on which this protocol is based.
Number of Participants: 8-10 participants, a presenter, and a facilitator. This protocol can also
be done with multiple concurrent groups, each with its own presenter and facilitator, or with one
presenter and multiple concurrent groups.
Time Required: Typically 45 minutes to 1 hour.
Steps (suggested times based on a 60-minute session):
Step 1: Introduction (first time only, 5 minutes)



If participants don’t usually work together, they briefly introduce themselves.
Facilitator briefly introduces information about and guidelines for protocols, and
establishes time limits for steps.
Participants explore the assumptions that are important to making protocols work (see p.
13).
Step 2: Presentation (10 minutes)



Presenter sets the context, describing the teaching/learning situation, while participants
remain quiet and take notes.
Presenter shares materials related to the teaching/learning situation described, including
student work. When student work is being presented, presenter should allow participants
time to examine the work.
Presenter poses one or two key questions about the teaching/learning situation.
Step 3: Clarifying Questions (5 minutes)



Participants ask nonevaluative questions about the presentation (e.g., “What happened
before X? What did you do next? What did Y say?”).
Facilitator guards against questions that approach evaluation (e.g., “Why didn’t you try
X?”). Participants who ask evaluative questions may be invited to rephrase the questions
as clarifying, or to save the questions for the participant discussion step.
It is entirely possible that the group will not get all its questions answered – there is never
enough time! – but participants should have enough information at this stage for the
protocol to be productive.
Step 4: Individual Writing (5 minutes). Both the presenter and the participants write about the
presentation, addressing the key question(s). This step helps each participant focus and have
something to say during the participant discussion.
Step 5: Participant Discussion (15 minutes). The participants move through the following
rounds. If possible, a recorder writes what participants say on chart paper. The presenter remains
silent and takes notes throughout.



Round 1: Description (5 minutes). In round-robin style, participants describe what they
do (or do not) see in the work (e.g., “The student indents for new paragraphs”).
Participants can pass if they have nothing to add.
Round 2: Generalization (5 minutes). In round-robin style, participants make
generalization about what they do (or do not) see in the work, based on the descriptions
from the first round (e.g., “The student uses indentation erratically”). Participants can
pass if they have nothing to add.
Round 3: Recommendations (5 minutes). In round-robin style, participants make
recommendations based on the descriptions and generalizations from the previous two
rounds (e.g., “The student needs to learn the rules for forming paragraphs”). Participants
can pass if they have nothing to add. The group should make every effort to offer warm
and cool recommendations; warm recommendations indicate what works and should be
continued, and cool recommendations indicate what needs improvement. The group
should also make every effort to address the presenter’s key questions about the work.
Step 6: Presenter Reflection (15 minutes)


The presenter reflects aloud on the participants’ discussion, using the issues the
participants raised to deepen understanding and reflecting on possible answers to
questions posed. The presenter can also suggest future actions, questions, dilemmas, and
so forth, and may correct any misunderstandings.
Participants silently take notes on the presenter reflection.
Step 7: Debriefing (5 minutes)


The presenter discusses how well the protocol worked and thanks the participants for
their work.
Participants discuss how well they think the protocol worked and thank the presenter for
bringing the work to them to be tuned.


The presenter and participants engage in more general discussion of both the situation
examined and the protocol process itself.
The facilitator engages participants in discussion of the three rounds and why they are
important.
Critical Elements:



A balance of warm and cool feedback (unless the presenter has declared a need for more
of one than the other)
Attention to the presenter’s key questions
Thoughtful, provocative, and substantive discourse
During the participant discussion, the facilitator may also help the participants to stick to
nonevaluative descriptions in the first round, and base both generalizations and recommendations
on these descriptions. If participants make generalizations or recommendations that are not based
on previously made descriptions, the facilitator should encourage them to come up with relevant
descriptions.
Tips for the Facilitator: One of the best activities the facilitator can engage participants in
before staring this protocol is practice with description. For example, the facilitator could start by
asking participants to describe the room they are in. If a participant says, “It’s crowded,” the
facilitator could gently point out that this is a generalization. Participants should simply describe
the size of the room, it furnishings, the number of people in it, and so forth before concluding
that it’s crowded. Similarly, if participants say that the room is cold, they should first establish
the temperature; if they volunteer that the room is noisy, they should first describe all the noises I
n the room. As further practice, they might then try describing a piece of student work that is not
being used for the protocol.
Whole Faculty Study Groups
PROTOCOLS
Tuning Protocols
Pairs of study groups come together and fine-tune each other’s work.



Presenting group shares action plan and how they plan to get student results.
Listening group asks clarifying questions
Listening group gives warm feedback such as “I like the way…” or “It’s exciting to
see…”
 Listening group gives cool feedback such as “I wonder why…” or “What would happen
if…”
 Presenting group shares what was learned from the feedback.
Repeat.
 Listening group becomes the presenting group.
Murphy & Lick, 1997
The Final Word Protocol
Designed to explore a piece of text.

Everyone reads the text and takes notes of what they agree or disagree with and questions
they have.
 They sit in a circle and discuss under the direction of a facilitator.
Round 1 (6-10 minutes)
 First person beings by sharing a line or two from the article and his or her thoughts.
 Proceeding around the circle, each person responds to the lines shared by the first person.
 The first person has the final word.
Rounds II and on
 The next person shares and the round is completed as in Round I.
From ATLAS Communities: www.atlascommunities.org and atlas@edc.org
Collaborative Assessment Protocol
A method of examining student work developed by Harvard’s Project Zero.




A facilitator guides the participants.
The presenting teacher shares copies of the selected work without comment.
The group describes the work as they see it without making judgments or stating any
personal preferences.
The group asks questions about the child, the assignment, or the curriculum. The
presenting teacher makes notes but does not respond.


The presenting teacher adds perspective and responds to questions from the group.
Everyone reflects on the process.
From ATLAS Communities: www.atlascommunities.org and atlas@edc.org
“Wows and Wonders” Protocol
A timed protocol for looking at student work in study groups.







A facilitator guides the participants and a time keeper keeps the group on task.
A teacher presents student work (3 minutes).
Participants ask clarifying questions (2 minutes).
Participants examine the work without talking (3 minutes).
Feedback (20 minutes total).
o Wows! such as “I like the way” or “The student really seems to…” (10 minutes)
o Wonders! such as “I wonder why” or “The gap seems to be…” (10 minutes)
Presenting teacher reflection (5 minutes).
Facilitator leads open discussion to debrief (5 minutes).
From ATLAS Communities: www.atlascommunities.org and atlas@edc.org
Consultancy Protocol
Helps someone think through a dilemma or problem. The protocol helps define and set the
problem without being judgmental or prescriptive. It recognizes that the best advice is the least
advice. Participants are not to talk about their own experiences.







Dilemma or problem is described (5-7 minutes).
Clarifying questions can be asked if they are only for information (2-3 minutes).
The presenter is silent while the rest describe what they are hearing (7 minutes).
The presenter responds and further clarifies the problem (4 minutes).
The presenter is silent while the group brainstorms possible solutions and next steps (7
minutes).
The presenter responds again (5 minutes).
Debrief (7 minutes).
Developed by Nancy Mohr.