Calibrating Conversions

Calibrating: A Third-Point Conversation

The document being used in the calibrating conversation becomes what is called a third point in the communication. The third point serves as a focus separate from each of the parties in the conversation.

A conversation between two people may signal a difference in status (Rock, 2009) — with one person as evaluator or judge and the other being judged. In a third-point conversation, however, the data — for instance, the standards rubric — is set in a position that both parties can observe free of judgment.

The value of designating a third point is that both parties can refer to it in an impersonal way. The third point does not belong to either party; it is simply a reference point for the conversation.

Physically referencing the third point in a space off to the side between the parties provides a psychologically safe place for information and depersonalizes ideas. Thus, placement of the conversational focus creates a triangle, either literally or referentially, keeping the conversational container psychologically safe (Wellman, 2009).

Establishing a visible “third point” for the conversation increases psychological safety for the teacher by shifting the focus to the data and promotes conversations about the factors producing positive results and what may be causing any perceived performance gaps (Grinder, 1997).

Resources

Here are resources on standards for teacher and leader performance.

Costa, A. & Garmston, B. (2015). Cognitive coaching: Developing self -directed leaders and learners. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC 2008. As adopted by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration. Washington, DC: Author.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011, April). InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Author.

Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Educational Testing Service. (2005). Introduction to the PATHWISE Framework Induction Program. Princeton, NJ: Author.

Hattie, J. (2003, October). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper presented at Australian Council for Educational Research Annual Conference, Melbourne, Australia.

Marzano, R.J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. www.nbpts.org.

Saphier, J., Haley-Spica, M.A, & Gower, R. (2008). The skillful teacher: Building your teaching skills. Acton, MA: Research for Better Teaching.

Silver Strong & Associates. (2014). The Thoughtful Classroom teacher effectiveness framework. Ho-Ho-Kus, NJ: Author.

Sternberg, R. & Horvath, J. (1995, august_September). A prototype view of expert teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(6), 9-17.

Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2014). Making classrooms better: 50 practical applications of mind, brain, and education science. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.

Tsui, A. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies in ESL teaching. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.