1. PLC Year 2 Day 2 Inquiry Cycle
Timeframe: 12:50-1:40 (50 minutes); 22 slides with team discussion
Purpose: The purpose of this benchmark lesson is to help provide PLC facilitators with a frame of thinking related to some key questions to ask during an inquiry cycle. We are not teaching the skills of inquiry cycle but a way of thinking, so that PLC facilitators have tools in their toolbox to facilitate data conversations regardless of the data discussion protocol being used. There are no required formats or worksheets for the PLC team inquiry cycle. These decisions are made at the school and/or PLC levels.
Fish Bowl (option)
Purpose: Opportunity to model each step after a critical chunk of content. This should be brief (e.g., 2-3 minutes) just so participants understand the big ideas.
Trainer may want to ask for an “AWAY” team to volunteer for the fish bowl at this point. Trainer may also want to have space set-up in advance for this to occur and materials ready. Trainers will be the facilitators of fish bowl.
Trainer Materials for this section:
Poster Paper and markers for fish bowl
Participants:
Graphic Organizer from the Cave- Participants will use their graphic organizer to record additional critical information/key questions on the inquiry cycle throughout this benchmark.
PPT on Canvas, if desired
Benchmark #3
“Asking the Right Questions to Guide the Right Work”

2. Poll Everywhere
Partners: What step of the inquiry cycle do you think is the most important for ensuring high quality action/interventions plans that will maximize student achievement?
Purpose: This is a hook to make connections from independent cave work to upcoming content and afternoon “Away Team” work.
Partners: Dyads take the poll and then briefly discuss results. Have a few share and explain their thinking. Revisit question at the end of this benchmark.
No need to guide or providing any answers here. Consider cuing participants to listen to critical information throughout the benchmark to help with any final conclusions.

3. “If you are not looking at data, you are not doing Professional Learning Communities (PLCS)” - Richard DuFour
Task for the Year
How can PLCs in Pasco County systematically analyze and make decisions based upon student and instructional data?
In our training, you will prepare for data conversations utilizing student data. Specifically, you will:
Develop a common formative assessment
Set goals for student performance
Gather Results
Facilitate the inquiry cycle to identify the most effective teaching strategies and develop action plans for all students

4. Benchmark #3: Inquiry Cycle
4.0
I can use common formative assessments to inform my PLC team planning for instruction for all students, including students with disabilities
3.0
I can integrate and facilitate different data discussion protocols
I can facilitate an inquiry cycle using common assessment data
2.0
I know the essential questions of the inquiry cycle
I know data discussion protocols (e.g., inquiry cycle, common assessment protocol, etc.)
1.0
I can do 2.0 content with assistance
This is a 2.0 benchmark- I know the essential question of the inquiry cycle. AND I know data discussion protocols (e.g., inquiry cycle, common assessment protocol, etc.).
The next section of this pd content “Analyzing and Making Instructional Decisions” will build upon the 2.0 in this benchmark and will address the 3.0 content.

5. Problem-solving/Inquiry Cycle as a Way of work
Defined as:
Recursive
Self-Correcting
Systematic
Results Focused
Important Note: Please inform participants that we will be using inquiry and problem-solving interchangeably.
Emphasize that this is a data driven recursive, self-correcting, and systematic cycle that lends on probable solutions that will have the highest impact on reducing or eliminating the problem. It’s not about getting the right answer the first time around…PLC teams need to understand that problem-solving is calculated risk-taking that uses results to drive decisions.
Discussion: What about this definition speaks to you the most?

6. Inquiry Cycle Step 1: What is the Problem?
Goal: What is the desired outcome or goal?
(SMART goal)
Discuss 2 Essential Data Pieces.
Current Level-What is the current level of student performance? (e.g., 40% of students attained a level 3)
Expected Level-What is the expected level of performance? (e.g., 80% of students attain a level 3)
How big is the difference between current levels and expected levels?
Determine the Scope of the Problem.
Is this problem impacting ALL students, SOME students, or a FEW students?
Make connections AGAIN with Benchmark Lesson #2: “SMART Goals and Gathering Data”. Remind participants that with their “AWAY” team, they just created SMART goals and organized your data.
Frame the Problem. “What is the Problem?”
Based upon our data, what is the problem? What area(s) should we prioritize to focus our efforts? What is our SMART goal?
Determine the scope of the problem will help us with prioritizing resources (e.g., time, people, materials, budget, etc.) to address the problem and maximize student learning outcomes.
Discussion: What data sources are available to inform Step 1: Problem Identification?
-Common Formative Assessments
-Benchmark Assessments
-Observations
-Student Work

7. Inquiry Cycle Step 2: Problem Analysis
Discuss the pitfalls related to focusing more on the WHAT and HOW and less on (or even skipping) the WHY, specifically related to high probability and effective action/intervention plans. Consider using the medical model as an example.

8. Inquiry Cycle Step 2: Why is the problem Occurring?
Brainstorm: What barriers are preventing learners from reaching our SMART goal?
What barriers should we prioritize that we have the most control over and will have the biggest impact on our SMART goal?
From the prioritized list, why do we think these barriers are occurring? (symptoms versus root causes)
What evidence do we have and/or can we collect to confirm or invalidate barriers?
What lingering questions or guesses do we still have? Consider developing a plan to address.
Note: Make connections with the previous COILE slide. Discuss various ways to gather evidence to confirm and/or invalidate barrier (e.g., Review, Interview, Observe, Test). There is equal importance with hard and soft data. We want to ensure that we are developing a action/intervention plan around a confirmed barrier to increase the likelihood of a high impact and effective intervention that will address the root of the problem.
If teams have additional questions/guesses, encourage them to note those and develop a follow-up plan to collect data to confirm and/or invalidate. In some cases, you may consider stopping at step 2 to data to address questions and then come back to table with data to confirm/invalidate barrier and then develop action/intervention plan.
This is not an exhaustive list but will get teams started with asking the right questions.

9. Inquiry Cycle Step 3: What are we going to do about it?
Action/Intervention Planning
What specifically will be done?
When and how much will this happen?
Who is responsible?
What assistance do we need?
Progress Monitoring Plan:
How will we monitor progress?
How will we ensure this plan is implemented as intended?
How often will we meet to discuss data? How will we organize the data? Who is responsible?
These are guiding questions for action/intervention and progress monitoring plans.
This is not an exhaustive list but will get teams started with asking the right questions.

10. Inquiry Cycle Step 4: Is it working?
Evaluate Progress:
Is the gap between what is expected and what is occurring closing? Getting Wider? Or Maintaining?
How much progress did we make towards meeting our SMART goal?
Who has evidence of the most effective instructional strategy? Why? What team learning can occur?
If we collectively did not get the results we wanted, what are our next steps? (e.g., revisit problem analysis, fidelity, etc.)
These are guiding questions for Step 4: Is it Working?
This is not an exhaustive list but will get teams started with asking the right questions.