A Framework

In life we are always dividing things into discrete categories and then putting them back together again. In the language of human development, this is called differentiating and integrating. For example, when teachers introduce a complex concept in class, they frequently break down the learning into smaller components (differentiating) and then scaffold the learning to build the pieces back into a whole (integrating). As people become more masterful in any given domain of activity, they increase their ability to differentiate the whole into even more pieces and then to reintegrate those pieces back into a conceptual whole. Diana, like Pirsig’s master motorcycle mechanic, has an ability to be with her students in complex ways that give rise to outcomes of excellence. Here we introduce a framework that may help you in thinking about what it means to differentiate and integrate.

In the early HET workshops, Mike Thomas and other Battelle for Kids (BFK) colleagues found themselves engaged in a process of differentiating and integrating. As they probed teachers and listened to their discussions about teaching and learning, they recorded long lists of practices, intentions, and stories. For two years they pored over the lists until four themes emerged. They found they could split almost all of what they heard into four general categories.

Relationships: cultivating a supportive community

Continuous improvement: adapting and embracing change

High expectations: maximizing every student’s achievement

Stable environment: creating structures and processes

These categories implicitly suggest four underlying human needs: belonging, growth, accomplishment, and security. The four general categories allow us to use “either/or thinking” to logically distinguish many practices. As an illustration, recall the list of practices associated with the directive and co-creative perspectives. Each of the practices in the two perspectives can be placed in one of the above four categories as shown in figure 2.1.

The ability to categorize what they heard was useful, but Mike and his colleagues were puzzled by something else they observed. The workshop participants—people like Kelli and Diana—rarely talked about these categories in isolation. While they might begin by sharing an effective teaching practice that could be placed in one category, their description of the practice would often bleed over into the other categories. When some teachers described their practices, the boundaries between the categories seemed to soften and the practices began to connect in self-reinforcing ways. This realization led Mike and his colleagues to think about teaching in terms of a well-established framework that both differentiates and integrates effective organizational and leadership practice: the Competing Values Framework (CVF).

Figure 2.1 Practices Associated with the Directive and Co-Creative Perspectives

The CVF came from empirical research done by Robert Quinn and John Rohrbaugh in 1983 and has since been applied to many subjects and contexts. From the data collected at our HET workshops, we developed a competing values framework of educational practices. We eventually honed a simplified version called the BFK•Connect Framework, which can be seen on the inside front cover of this book.

The relationships quadrant (yellow) emphasizes things like collaboration, support, respect, and care. The continuous improvement quadrant (green) emphasizes such things as adaptability, visioning, relevance, creativity, and experimentation. The high expectations quadrant (blue) emphasizes things like goal setting, accountability, assessment, and achievement. The stable environment quadrant (red) emphasizes structures, routines, efficiency, and management. The four quadrants are summarized in Figure 2.2.

In working with teachers, we found that the colors used in the framework (see the inside front cover) are useful. The colors help teachers remember the four categories, and teachers frequently refer to the quadrants by color. The remainder of the book presents various versions of the framework in black-and-white but continues to refer to the quadrants by the colors shown on the inside cover. You can also download a color copy of the framework from BestTeacherinYou.org.

Making the connection to the CVF was an important step because it provided a way to connect and integrate the four lists of distinct practices in ways that correspond with how HETs connected these practices. The connections are shown as the vertical and horizontal lines that divide the framework into the four quadrants (figure 2.2). The vertical line represents the need to balance flexibility and openness with order and control. This tension comes into play as teachers decide how much structure to incorporate as they organize their classrooms and develop learning activities. The horizontal line represents the need to balance the relationship between internal and external issues. This tension comes into play as teachers decide where to focus their attention. An internal focus directs attention to dynamics within the classroom such as the classroom environment and students’ individual needs, whereas an external focus draws attention to demands coming from outside the classroom such as state standards and assessments.

Figure 2.2 Descriptions of the BFK•Connect Framework Quadrants

Because the four categories are distinct, they are often viewed as competing with one another. Yet the framework recognizes that all four categories are necessary. Effectiveness, in terms of this framework, requires teachers to integrate the four distinct categories. That is why we emphasize connection in the title of the framework. The tool is meant to help teachers make connections across four core categories of effectiveness. The quadrants are not dissociated dimensions of teaching and learning; they are different facets of effective practice that can be connected in practical and powerful ways in the classroom.