Tuning protocol is a staff development process that is embedded in what a teacher does in the classroom, or what an educator does in a school. A group of colleagues comes together to examine each other’s work, honor the good things found in that work, and fine tune it through a formal process of presentation and reflection.

There is no "sage on the stage" preaching to subordinates. Instead, educators work collaboratively.

Tuning protocols were developed by David Allen and Joseph McDonald at the Coalition of Essential Schools. McDonald characterizes tuning protocols as a way "a teacher presents actual work before a group of thoughtful ‘critical friends’ in a structured, reflective discourse aimed at ‘tuning’ the work to higher standards" (Allen, 1995, p. 2). Tuning protocols were first developed as a way to critique the design and context for student exhibitions, but the process is equally valuable for examining any aspect of teaching and learning: a unit design, an evaluation system, a classroom conduct plan, a plan for teaming, or a problem that has occurred.

Tuning protocols work best if the group is small (5 to 12), remains the same, meets regularly, and has at least an hour to work together. Sometimes tuning protocol groups need a member to act as facilitator, especially early in the process. All groups need a timekeeper.

Times given are for an hour-long protocol session, and should be adjusted proportionally for different time periods.

1. Introduce the protocol concept - 5 minutes

This needs to be done only the first time a group meets. Briefly explain the tuning protocol process and the format and steps to be followed. A handout will help. Decide on a facilitator if one is needed. Decide on a timekeeper and establish time limits.

2. Presentation - 15 minutes

The presenter sets the context, describing the teaching/learning situation to be discussed and distributing materials related to the practice being described – for example, collections of student work, audio or video tapes of students in the classroom, assessments, or lesson plans. Participants say nothing but take notes.

The presenter then poses one or two key questions he/she wants the group to address. For example, the presenter brings a student’s portfolio to the meeting and, after describing the assignment that led to the portfolio, asks: What habits of mind does this portfolio convey? How can I use portfolios to push the student’s thinking deeper?

3. Clarifying questions - 5 minutes

Participants ask non-judgmental questions about the presentation, avoiding questions that could be perceived as critical, such as "Why didn’t you try X?" After reviewing the portfolio of student work, for example, they might ask: "Is this the first portfolio the student has done in your class?" "Who evaluates portfolios?" "What happens to portfolios after they have been evaluated?"

4. Individual writing - 5 minutes

Participants write about the presentation, in particular trying to answer the presenter’s questions for themselves. A participant might, for example, try to list all the habits of mind she noted in the portfolio, or note places in the portfolio that suggest shallow thinking by the student.

5. Participant discussion -15 minutes

While the presenter is silently taking notes, the participants discuss issues raised during the presentation and clarified during individual writing. They strive to deepen their understanding of the situation and to answer questions posed by the presenter. Each person’s comments are directed to the whole group, not to the presenter. For example, a participant might say: "Here are some of the habits of mind I noted. . . ." Others may add to that list. Another might say: "The thinking represented in this portfolio could be enhanced if the teacher asked students to reflect after completing each section, not just at the end."

Participants should both praise and criticize, offering a mix of "warm" and "cool" feedback (Allen & McDonald, 1993). If the discussion is overly laudatory or overly critical, participants (or the facilitator, if there is one) should point this out and help the group adjust the comments accordingly. Many presenters may be used to blanket praise. Without thoughtful but probing "cool" questions and comments, they won’t benefit from the tuning protocol experience. After taking part in the tuning protocol process, presenters often say they would have liked more "cool" feedback. (Cushman, 1995). If participants view themselves as "critical friends" to the presenter, their comments will be more likely to be thoughtful and provocative.

6. Presenter reflection - 15 minutes

The presenter reflects aloud on the participants’ discussion, using the issues the participants raised as a framework and reflecting on possible answers to the questions posed. The participants remain silent.

7. Debriefing - 5 minutes

First the presenter and then the participants discuss how well the protocol process worked. Then they engage in more general discussion of both the process and the content of the protocol. The presenter might, for example, suggest ways that the feedback from the protocol session will be used to modify the particular practice being examined. Other participants might describe insights into their own practice they’ve gleaned from the process.

Allen, D. (1995). The tuning protocol: A process for reflection. Studies on Exhibitions No. 15. Providence, RI: Coalition of Essential Schools.

Allen, D. & McDonald, J. (1993). Keeping student performance central: The New York assessment collection. Studies on Exhibitions No. 14. Providence, RI: Coalition of Essential Schools.

Cushman, K. (1995, March). Making the good school better: The essential question of rigor. Horace, 11(4). Providence, RI: Coalition of Essential Schools.

Allen, D., Blythe, T., & Powell, B. S. (1996). A guide to looking collaboratively at student work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project Zero.

Cushman, K. (November 1996). Looking collaboratively at student work: An essential toolkit. Horace, 13(2). Providence, RI: Coalition of Essential Schools.

McDonald, J.P. (1991). "Exhibitions: Facing outward, pointing inward." Studies on Exhibitions No. 4. Providence, RI: Coalition of Essential Schools

McDonald, J.P. (1996). Redesigning School. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Coalition of Essential Schools: www.essentialschools.org