CFG+Protocols

These abbreviated protocols are intended to assist facilitators in their planning and implementation. The short versions are designed to be used after reading the full protocol description in the book. They are not designed as stand-alone guides, nor do they contain all the information necessary to successfully conduct a session. We offer no variations here, nor do we fully describe the process. Duplicating these and distributing them as presented here, to colleagues who are inexperienced, is unwise. In most cases we anticipate that facilitators will download these protocols onto their computers and edit them, adding their own notes, time frames, steps, questions, and so forth. We encourage customizing to suit the facilitator’s and the group’s needs.
 * Abbreviated Protocols**


 * Brief Protocols

Postcards** Black-and-white art cards used as an opener. Participants each pick an individual card and, in turn, explain why it represents their work, how it represents their apprehensions about this conference, how it represents their feelings about mathematics, and so forth. Reflection on a Word Each person first writes and then shares in a Go-Round his or her take on a word or a term. There is no dialogue, nor is there any discussion. A variation can be to put these on chart paper and post for a “gallery walk.”

“Talk with the person next to you for 3 minutes about_________. Then we will share anything surprising/interesting that has come up.” A variation is a Dyad in which each person has exactly 2 (or 3 or 4) minutes to talk on the topic while the other person listens. Time is kept by the facilitator.
 * Pair-Share**

Beginning a meeting with time to clear any thoughts that are on people’s minds. Rules include: nothing is irrelevant; only speak twice if everyone else has already spoken; no dialogue; silence is okay.
 * Clearing**

Used to open and close, and whenever there is a need to defuse, broaden participation, or deal with an issue. Rules are generally inferred-no interruptions or responses, just go around in turn with the option of passing. There is usually a time limit.
 * All-Purpose Go-Round**


 * Longer Protocols

Fears and Hopes** Purpose To acknowledge the fears and hopes that participants bring to a meeting and by doing so to build a sense of shared expectations. Details Time: 5 to 20 minutes. Size of group: up to 25. Supplies include writing materials for individuals, chart paper, markers. Steps 1. Introduction. Write briefly your greatest fear/your greatest hope. 2. Pair-share. Share with a partner, if time. 3. Listing. Facilitator charts fears and hopes. 4. Debriefing. Did you notice anything surprising? What was your reaction to expressing negative thoughts? Would you use this activity?

Purpose Not only to establish expectations for behavior but also to give “permission” for risk-taking and full participation. Details This can take 10 minutes or an hour, depending on how deeply the facilitator and the group want to go. Supplies. Chart paper and markers. Steps 1. Brainstorming. All ideas are listed; facilitator can add own. Allow silence at the beginning. 2. Discussion. Acknowledging that this is only a brainstormed list, the facilitator invites discussion/questions. 3. Synthesis. The facilitator helps form norms where there may be some disagreement-“Can we agree to use judgment about use of cell phones?” 4. Consensus. The group agrees to use these norms and revisit them regularly. They also agree that it is a working list and can be revised at any time.
 * Protocol for Setting Norms**

Purpose To acknowledge the various ways in which we are diverse and explore the implications for our work. Detail Best in a group of at least 20 people-can be up to 200. If groupings become overly large, they can be divided into smaller groups for discussion purposes. Steps 1. Introduction. Part of the explanation is that the directions will be “vague” and that it will be up to the group to define for themselves which subgroup they will go to. 2. Grouping. The facilitator chooses categories, generally going from lesser to greater levels of sensitivity. Categories should fit the group’s purpose. Once the group has formed, they have a brief discussion about the impact of this particular identity on their work. Examples: Where you are from; the kind of high school you went to; birth order; the kind of student of mathematics you are; your gender; your ethnicity. 3. Reporting. After members of each grouping have talked among themselves, they report out. 4. Regrouping. The facilitator announces a new category. Groups reform and have the same discussion about impact of this new identifier. 3 to 5 rounds. 5. Debriefing. Participants discuss feelings that emerged during the activity, along with any insights about the meaning and impact of diversity and its effects on professional experience.
 * Diversity Rounds**

Purpose To facilitate rapid communication about a topic at hand; to get to many points of view in a short time. Steps 1. Introduction. Form groups of 5 to 7 and instruct groups that they will be answering a series of prompts and should answer in turn, with each person taking only 30 seconds. Groups should gauge their own time. 2. Questions. These can range from course-specific queries to ones that serve to debrief an experience. Give the group a minute to think before beginning. “What do you think of when you think of women’s studies?” “What is one thing that the book made you think about differently?” 3. Debriefing. First in groups, and then, if time, in the large group. Discuss implications/learnings from this first exploration of topic for the longer-term work of the group.
 * Marvin’s Model**

Purpose To expand the interpretation of one or more texts by encouraging the emergence of a variety of interests, viewpoints, and voices. Details Unlimited number of groups of 3 to 5. Participants highlight passages that have special meaning for them. Copies of text have been distributed before or during meeting. Thirty to 60 minutes depending on group size and time available. Steps 1. Introduction and selection. Facilitator explains all steps briefly. Text is read in advance if possible-time for review given in any case. Participants (as individuals) identify passages that have meaning for them. 2. Arrangement. Tight circles of 3 to 5 members are formed. The order of presentation for participants is established and a timekeeper is identified. 3. Presentation. First participant shares the selected passage and explains why it is meaningful. (2-3 minutes) 4. Reflecting back. Each listener in turn has 1 minute to reflect back on what they understand the presenter to have said about the passage and its personal significance. 5. Final word. First round ends with 1 minute for presenter to reflect on what has been said by others. 6. Round repeats. Each participant has a turn to start a new round as described in previous steps. 7. Written reflection. Following the completion of all rounds, participants write for 5 minutes and then share in a Go-Round (time permitting). Reflection prompts can include things learned from rounds, challenges and advantages of protocol, applications.
 * Final Word**

Learning From Speakers Purpose To structure the experience (for speaker and learner) of the invited speaker format so that learning is maximized. Details Explain structure to speaker in advance. Length of presentation agreed upon in advance. Group size 15 to 100. Thirty minutes or more. Steps 1. Introduction. Explain the format to the group. 2. Speech. The invited speaker makes presentation. 3. Five-minute warning. Given by facilitator to speaker 5 minutes before agreed-upon ending time. 4. Huddling. Small groups form to explore questions and select their top questions. 5. Top questions. Speaker records questions but does not answer them until all questions are raised. 6. Answering. Speaker responds, attempting to construct responses that address all questions. 7. Sharing. If time allows, floor is open to additional questions and/or reflections to be shared with the speaker.

Purpose To structure the experience (for panel and learner), so that interaction with experts is meaningful. Details Lasts 2 to 2½ hours. Any size group broken into smaller groups of 4 to 10. Panel members design case study(s) in advance. Steps 1. Introduction. The facilitator explains process. Panel members introduce themselves and give brief overview of their areas of expertise. 2. Case reading. Each group gets a case to read and is encouraged to make notes. 3. Case interpretation. Groups discuss the case and prepare a 2- to 3-minute presentation in response to: What is this a case of? What are the action steps we recommend to solve the problem in it? What are our points of consensus/divergence with respect to these action steps? 4. Expert consultation. Groups may call over experts to answer specific questions. 5. Presentations. Small groups present. 6. Expert reactions. Each expert has time to respond to the presentations, highlighting strengths, weaknesses, overlooked issues, principles for decision making, and so forth. 7. Questions and comments. Participants have opportunity to question each expert.
 * Panel Protocol**

Purpose To infuse a conversation about a particular topic with a quick and contrasting set of viewpoints on it-viewpoints that participants in a learning group can use to help elicit, shape, and reexamine their own perspectives and attitudes. Details Facilitator selects quotations (provocative prompts) in advance. Copies of quotes with sources are ready for distribution. Reaction to quotes is followed by group discussion. Depending on format used of four described below, may need Post-Its, chart paper, container for random drawing of quotations. Protocols 1. The facilitator distributes quotes. Each group member chooses one quotation and shares in a Go-Round why he or she chose it. (3-5 minutes each) 2. The facilitator distributes quotes. Each group member chooses a quotation that provokes him or her to think differently about the topic at hand, and writes a brief account of the difference. Partners are formed, and each has a turn to share thoughts while the other listens and reflects back what was heard. This can be done with several changes of partners. Each group member reads his or her quotation and responds on the spot. 3. The facilitator distributes quotes randomly, each written on a slip of paper. 4. Facilitator writes quotations on chart paper and posts sheets around the room. Participants use Post-It notes to respond with questions and comments as they choose.
 * Provocative Prompts**

Purpose To help people learn from contrasting points of view, particularly when one of the views is a less familiar. Details One hour long. Participants have read one full text in advance. Facilitator preselects 4 or 5 substantial quotes from each of the contrasting texts. Any size group broken into subgroups of 4 (homogeneous with regard to the full text read). Steps 1. Introduction. Facilitator explains process and provides a prompt similarly worded to this one: "Based on your reading of your assigned text, how do you think the author would respond to each of these quotes? Would the two agree or disagree? What underlying beliefs of your author does each quotation either tap or challenge?" 2. Reading. Members get quotations from the "other" text and read them silently with the prompt in mind. 3. Facilitation and discussion. Group members take turns leading a brief discussion of reactions to each quotation. 4. Summarizing. Each group prepares a brief summary of their discussion. 5. Open conversation. Groups report the highlights of their summaries, and others react or ask clarifying questions. 6. Reflection. Group shares thoughts regarding the value and challenges of the activity.
 * Mars/Venus Protocol**

Purpose To deal with a text that is particularly dense or ambiguous in meaning, complex in discourse, or complicated in structure. Details Groups of 5 to 15. Takes approximately 1 hour. Best with short, demanding text - can be photo/poem/video, and so forth. Facilitator must be very familiar with text. Chart paper and markers are needed. Steps 1. Introduction. The facilitator explains the process, previewing the steps. 2. Reading and noticing. Participants review text and notice elements that interest, puzzle, or surprise them-they take notes. 3. Sharing. Each participant shares one to three elements they noticed. All are listed on chart paper. 4. Checking. Facilitator asks the group if there is anything on the list that needs verification before moving on. Notes regarding verification are made on chart paper. 5. Interpreting. Facilitator helps groups select two or three items to interpret. Use a Go-Round for each point selected. Interpretations are noted on chart paper. 6. Identifying a perspective. Participants select one idea from the text under study and write about it, based on a particular perspective or theory that they bring to it. The facilitator should define this theory or perspective as “some overarching idea." 7. Pair-share. Participants share writing in pairs. 8. Final Go-Round. Participants say one thing about the whole text. 9. Reflection. Feedback on the use of the protocol.
 * Rich Text Protocol**

Purpose Help someone think through a problem through framing and reframing the issue. Details About 40 minutes. Group of 10 to 12 or small groups of 3 to 5. Steps 1. Problem presentation. Presenting group member describes the problem, laying out its different dimensions, and including attempts to address it. Others are silent. 2. Clarifying questions. Other members of the group (consultants) ask questions to get needed information. 3. Reflecting back. Group members share their perceptions of the problem, trying to gain a shared understanding. Presenter is silent. They begin with "What I heard you say was . . . .” 4. Responding. Presenter briefly responds to the consultants’ expressed understanding of the problem, and provides further clarification of the problem if needed. Consultants are silent. 5. Brainstorming. Consultants brainstorm possible solutions or next steps. Presenter is silent. 6. Response. Presenter talks about his or her current thinking after listening to what has been said to this point. Consultants are silent. 7. Debriefing. "How did it feel to be the presenter? How did it feel to be the consultant?" Also, “Besides the presenter, who else gained something from this consultation?”
 * Descriptive Consultancy**

Purpose To develop good coaching habits Details About 50 minutes. Group size 10-15. Steps 1. Presentation. A participant presents an authentic, unresolved problem. 2. Clarifying questions. Other group members (called consultants) get needed information. 3. Active listening/reflecting back. Each consultant briefly restates the problem in consulting terms-no interpretation or speculation. Presenter waits to speak. 4. Check-in. Presenter responds to: “Quickly, are we hearing you correctly? If not, what would you change/add?” 5. Interpretive listening/reflecting back. Consultants, in turn, finish the sentence: “What I think is going on in this problem is. . . .” 6. Check-in again. Presenter responds to: "How does our thinking sound to you? Does it make sense?" 7. Probing questions. Consultants pose questions designed to help the presenter think more deeply about the problem. No immediate response to questions - presenter is silent. 8. Response. Presenter reacts to the questions, not necessarily answering them. “Has your thinking changed about the problem? What are your current thoughts on the issue?” 9. Suggestions. If presenter agrees that suggestions are desired, consultants may offer some suggestions. Presenter is silent. 10. Response. Presenter responds with thoughts about next steps. 11. Debriefing. Beginning with presenter, all respond to: “What was it like to go through these steps? Which kind of question was most useful/least useful?”
 * Issaquah Coaching Protocol**

Purpose To help participants analyze the different facets of a problem, and move beyond familiar or predictable responses. Details Forty-five to 60 minutes. Groups of 5. Chart paper and markers are needed. Steps 1. Introduction. Participants introduce themselves and assign themselves a number from 1 to 5. Facilitator explains that the groups will be asked a series of subquestions related to the larger question (or problem, issue) at hand. They will be given 5 to 7 minutes to wrestle with each question, then one person will be called on (by number) to report his or her group’s answer. 2. First subquestion. Facilitator asks first subquestion. 3. Responses. The facilitator calls a number, and each of the participants with that number answer the subquestion, in turn. 4. Second subquestion, and so on. Facilitator repeats steps 2 and 3 through all the subquestions, creating new subquestions on the spot as seems appropriate. 5. Revisiting the larger question. Facilitator asks group to review what has been recorded and reflect on what has been learned concerning the larger question, problem, or issue.
 * Constructivist Learning Groups Protocol**

Purpose To engage colleagues in collaborative analysis of cases from practice in order to understand the circumstances and actions that make them successful ones, then to apply this understanding to future practice. Details Twelve to 30 participants in small groups of 3 to 6. Chart paper. Note pads for participants. 1 to 2 hours. Steps 1. Preparing a case. Participants prepare to describe one area where they are finding success or making progress in practice. May be done in advance. 2. Sharing. In small groups, first person shares his or her case of successful practice. Others take notes. 3. Analysis and discussion. Group reflects on the success. Participants offer insights into what specifically contributed to success. Presenter is encouraged to participate and can be prodded through questioning. 4. Repeating the pattern. Repeat steps 2 and 3 for each member of the group. 5. Compilation. Groups compile a list of specific successful behaviors and underlying principles that seem characteristic of the cases presented. 6. Reporting out. If there are multiple small groups, the groups report. 7. Discussion. Surprises, commonalities, underlying principles. 8. Debriefing. Applications to other areas of our own work? Uses with students?
 * Success Analysis Protocol**

Purpose To provide direct and respectful feedback to presentations of ongoing practice. To tune the practice to larger and/or different perspectives or standards. Details Forty-five to 60 minutes. 6 to 12 people (or larger, with modifications). Steps 1. Introduction. Goals and norms reviewed, steps explained. 2. Presentation. Presenter shares the problem, or draft of a plan. Responders are silent. 3. Response. Respondents share warm and cool reactions. Presenter is silent. 4. Reaction. Presenter reacts to any responses he or she chooses to react to. Respondents are silent. 5. Conversation. Open conversation. 6. Debriefing. “How did it feel hearing warm and cool feedback?” “How did it feel not being able to respond to the feedback?” “How can you apply this protocol in your ordinary work?”
 * Tuning Protocol**

Purpose To provide a structured way to develop appreciation for the complexity of a problem. Details Forty minutes. 10-12 people. Steps 1. Sharing the problem or issue. Presenter shares a question that they would like help with. 2. Clarifying questions. Participants elicit additional information. 3. Active listening. Participants respond to: "I understand the question to be. . . ." The presenter is silent and takes notes. 4. Peeling/probing. New Go-Round to pose additional questions raised by having heard the first round. 5. Response. Presenter responds to: "Having heard these questions, please share any new thoughts about the problem you presented.” 6. Open conversation. If time permits, open conversation. 7. Debriefing. “How was this like peeling an onion? Why did we do this activity? What other onions are there to peel in our work together?”
 * Peeling the Onion**

Purpose To help teachers design better lessons and improve their teaching. Details Requires 2-hour sessions on a consistent basis. Participants share a common curricular framework. Groups are led by teachers. Steps 1. Problem selection. The Study Group sets the problem to be worked on. 2. Lesson design. Group designs new lesson to address the problem. 3. Simulation. One group member teaches the lesson while others role-play students. The teaching design is adjusted as needed before working with students. 4. Test run. A different group member teaches the lesson while the rest of the group observes. 5. Critique. Teacher who piloted lesson speaks first, describing/critiquing. Other members add what they noticed. Focus on lesson design over teacher performance. 6. Revision. The Study Group revises the lesson design. 7. Second test run. Revised lesson is taught to a different class by yet another member of the study group. Study group observes with other teachers also invited. Results critiqued on the same day, with the teacher speaking first and others invited to add design problems they have noticed. 8. Final revision. Study Group invites other colleagues and sometimes outside experts to participate in final revision. Group publishes the lesson in an internal or external report.
 * Japanese Lesson Study**

Purpose To focus attention on teaching and learning in situations where time is tight. Details About 30 to 45 minutes. Six to 20 people seated in a circle. Two or three pieces of recent student work. Steps 1. Presentation. First piece of student work is presented (read or posted or copies distributed) by facilitator. Participants review. 2. Question. Facilitator prompts, “What comes up for you when you examine this piece of work?” Few moments think time. 3. Round of response. Each responds to the question in turn. No repeats. Facilitator may opt for two rounds. 4. Conversation. Open conversation. 5. Repeat. If time allows, a second piece of work is used for a repeat of the process.
 * What Comes Up**

Purpose To sharpen teachers’ perceptual skills by looking deeply at a single student’s work; to encourage a balance in perception; to help teachers see how they can act individually and collectively on what they learn in order to benefit their students. Details About 45 to 90 minutes. 5 to 30 people. Student work-one piece rich in detail or several pieces from the same student (e.g., a portfolio). Copies for participants or post around room. Steps 1. Presenting. Teacher presents student’s work with minimal context. Participants examine the work, making notes. 2. Describing. Group members describe what they see in the work. No judgments. 3. Raising questions. “What questions does this work raise for you?” Participants respond. Presenting teacher listens and makes notes, but does not respond. 4. Speculating. “What do you think this student is working on?” Participants respond. Presenting teacher listens and makes notes, but does not respond. The facilitator presses for evidence. 5. Responding. Presenting teacher responds as he or she chooses: to offer additional context; to share thoughts about the student work; to respond to any other questions regarding the student, the context, the assignment, and so forth. 6. Reflecting and discussing. Open discussion for reflection on the experience. Participants may share what they found particularly helpful or difficult while participating in the activity, or ideas about use of the protocol in their own work with colleagues and/or students.
 * Collaborative Assessment Conference**

Purpose To foster standards-based teaching through structured conversation focused on actual teaching plans, the standards they address, and the student work that resulted. Details Teachers prepare by compiling a “Learning Experience,” a detailed description of a unit of instruction. Must include a narrative of teaching plans, a list of materials required, the specific state Learning Standard(s) and performance indicators that the teaching addresses, a plan for assessing student work based on these standards and indicators, and samples of actual assessed student work. Up to eight reviewers, plus one person acting as recorder. Approximately 90 minutes. Steps 1. Introduction. Review overview and ground rules. Set the tone. 2. Presentation. Presenter provides context for the learning experience, its focus and purpose, and its targeted learning standards and performance indicators. Copies of material distributed. Reviewers are silent. 3. Reading time. Reviewers read material using Post-It notes to flag evidence related to criteria (listed in the next step). 4. Review. Reviewers respond to the Learning Experience in balanced but separate warm and cool comments using following criteria:
 * The New York Peer Review Protocol**

 Relation to targeted learning standards  Degree of intellectual challenge  Quality of assessment plan  Power of engagement  Adaptability to other teaching contexts  Effective technology integration (where technology is involved)

5. Response. Presenter responds. Reviewers remain silent. 6. Full group conversation. General conversation. 7. Reflection period. Reviewers reflect and record warm and cool feedback on a recording form for the purpose that they are asked to sign. 8. Summary. The recorder offers a summary of the review by criteria with opportunity to revise and to test consensus regarding “readiness” of lesson for Academy or needed revisions. 9. Consultation. Reviewers leave. Facilitator, presenter, and recorder meet to debrief.

Purpose To help answer a question raised by a school, school district, college, or other educational program. Details Takes one-half to 1 full day. Significant preparation time. Work collected over a 24- to 36-hour period. Parent permission when appropriate. Space to display material collected. Steps 1. Preparations. Work collected following guidelines and displayed appropriately. 2. Introductions. Introductions and review of guiding question. An overview of the slice is given. How representative is it? What were the parameters for the collection - for example, does it include photos and xeroxed copies of notes and jottings? 3. Norm-setting. Facilitator suggests norms for the reading time regarding note taking, discussion, and so forth. 4. Reading. Participants read through the slice and review all material, moving around as needed. 5. Seminar. Discuss in seminar format-about 1 hour. 6. Reflection on the question. Brief period for written reflection, followed by sharing. 7. Reflection on the process. Participants reflect on the protocol.
 * Minnesota Slice**

Purpose To situate a student’s work within the context of his or her own complex work life, and thus to understand the student better and teach him or her more effectively. Details Student, parent (when appropriate), and all teachers involved must agree to process. Shadower must be a skillful observer and recorder, and capable of withholding his or her own interpretations of the findings. Shadower and facilitator stay in close communication. Steps 1. Shadowing. The shadower spends an entire school day with the student, noting the most salient intellectual tasks that the student faces (within and outside the formal curriculum). 2. Preparation for presentation. The shadower selects four to six representative tasks, prepares a brief description and collects an artifact relating to the student’s performance on each task. 3. Introduction. The facilitator presents the rationale for the protocol and introduces the shadower. 4. Presentation. The shadower presents an account of the student’s day in terms of several tasks and the performances that resulted. 5. Questions. Participants ask questions, and the shadower responds, though in a way that minimizes inference and interpretation. 6. Private speculation. Each participant writes several speculations concerning the student’s intellectual strengths. 7. Sharing. Participants read in turn what they have written, without commentary or questions from others. 8. Open conversation. Participants discuss the entire set of speculations, highlighting common threads as well as “out-of-the-box” insights. 9. Planning. Participants brainstorm teaching strategies that build on their perceptions of the student’s strengths.
 * Shadow Protocol**

Purpose To stimulate teachers’ perceptions of qualities of thinking and feeling in their students’ work and to connect these perceived qualities with standards. To engage in collaborative reflection and get feedback from other teams. Details Participating teams select a sample of student work that raises an issue or set of questions of deep concern to the team’s work. Teams prepare exhibits that are respectful of the students and the media in which they work. Steps 1. Introduction. Participants introduce themselves and offer brief overviews of their projects. 2. Presentation. Teams observe the work of one of the teams. The presenting team provides no context. Observers infer what students are addressing and accomplishing in the work exhibited. 3. Observers’ discussion. Observers discuss their perceptions beginning with descriptive, nonjudgmental assessments of what the work seems to address, and then to build toward interpretations of what the work accomplishes. Presenters are silent. 4. Presenters’ discussion. Presenters discuss the issues or questions that provoked them to exhibit this particular collection of student work, acknowledging the ways in which the observers’ discussion has affected them. 5. Context and standards. The presenters distribute a short written account of any contextual details they wish to share, along with the standards and performance indicators that guided the teaching related to the exhibit. 6. Observers’ response. Observers respond, addressing questions of fit and misfit between the standards and the student work. Presenters are silent. 7. Open conversation. All participate freely. 8. Reflection. Presenters share what they learned from the process and how, if at all, it may benefit their team.
 * ESP (Empire State Partnerships) Protocol**

Purpose To look at student and teacher work in order to understand its relation to promoting equity. Details A presenter brings work for feedback. Nine to 12 participants. Steps 1. Presentation. Teacher presents the assignment, describing context and his or her expectations concerning the student work it would produce. 2. Go-Rounds. One question per round. Possible questions:
 * Equity Protocol**

 What do you see that would be engaging to many different students?  What do you see that would meet more than one learning modality?  What do you see that would support/hinder students with special needs?  What do you see that would support/hinder English Language Learners?  What do you see that could be considered bias in the language used in the assignment?  What do you wonder about?

3. Student work. The presenter distributes student work samples that resulted from this assignment. Participants review the work. 4. Final Go-Round. Participants reflect on the relationship between the questions raised earlier and the student work reviewed. 5. Reflection. The presenter reflects on all that he or she has heard, and comments on any new insights or opportunities that have arisen. (5 minutes) 6. Open conversation. “What do we think we have learned from this?”