Remember the Madeline Hunter method?

Something suddenly occurred to me the other day while collaborating with my teammates.

One of us is terrific at using a whiteboard so much so that we use it as a verb - let's go whiteboard!

While we were using the whiteboard it occurred to me that this could have the potential to change the way teachers collaborate and write lesson plans.

Over the past year, our team has come to respect and build upon each other's strengths. Synergy. Our outcome is better than if each of us tried to accomplish the task alone. It's like we are a band. Each part creates a really great song that leaves a lasting impression.

This is evident on our whiteboards and our process. We have a vision; we plan strategically and then we implement and reflect.

Couldn't teachers do the same process with each other? I mean - what if each team whether by grade level or content level, got to know each other's strengths and then tapped into those strengths, map it out on the whiteboard with learning targets in mind, but strategically plan how they want their students to discover them, implement and then reflect. It's not like each teacher would have to implement the same way, but that they contribution to the whiteboard conversation is valuable bringing the entire group and ultimately, process, to a higher ground for student learning.

I wonder...

Inspiration versus Incentive

I've been thinking a lot about these 2 things. Basically, the burning question I have is which one produces the better product.
I suppose better is the operative word.

I think I am finally understanding the meaning of Infusion and I think personal value plays a significant piece to this. When I think of fusing, I think of becoming connecting to the point that 2 separate pieces become one, cannot be broken and become something different.

I also think that inspiration is the key to bringing that value, not "doing project-based learning" or the likes although these hold great instructional value to the process. I have found that incentives, while nice, do not lead to infusion or higher. But again, incentive is sometimes the motivation needed to kick-start the process - and as a fellow colleague of mine once said, it takes strategic conniving (but conniving in a constructive, nurturing way) in the part of staff development facilitator to bring out this creative thinking.

It's the point of no return. It's the point where the teacher could never go back. It's the point where s/he has contributed to the learning in such a way that makes them personally involved, or infused.

What if we tapped into what inspires each teacher and find a way to bring that value into the classroom or to students?