Hilton Presents to Alliances

Sterling Hilton

Sterling Hilton, chair of the BYU-Public School Partnership's Comprehensive Mathematics Instruction (CMI) project, shared with the McKay School's Alliances for the Strength of Youth some experiences and advice on group collaboration at a seminar in March. The Alliances is a group within the McKay School that promotes interdisciplinary research. Since both groups are working to make education more readily available through collaboration, Hilton's ideas were beneficial to members of the Alliances.

There are three different phases to becoming a functional collaborative research-based group, Hilton explains. CMI is comprised of appointed delegates from the five partnership school districts and from BYU faculty-- formed to look at the teaching of mathematics. First comes the investment period, in which the group becomes a group. He illustrated this by telling about the first few years of CMI. Taking the initial forefront position, Myra Tollestrup, former associate director of CITES, created opportunities to develop common understandings, trust, and respect between the various group members.. As a group, they were able to create a sense of common purpose, Hilton explained. "Not everyone was persistent, but those who did persist coalesced into a cohesive group."

From the investment period, the group then moves into the second phase, which Hilton terms the trial period, where the outcomes of their research are only the beginnings of their plans. At this point the group begins to work toward accomplishing their common goal.

One of the problems that Hilton cited from CMI's experience in the trial and investment periods is conflict of interests. As CMI has moved from the first phase to the second phase, a conflict of interest arose between the various members of the group. Members representing different aspects of education felt competing interests and needs. For example, the university faculty needs to publish research, while the school districts need faster, more tangible results to share with their stakeholders. "So far because of the common goal, trust and respect, we are willing to give to each other in the spirit of moving forward," Hilton explained to the members of the Alliances. "There can't be rigid protocol-collaboration requires everyone to give and take and renegotiate, which is allowed through the group's common purpose."

It is important, Hilton noted, to maintain role identification and role flexibility in order to keep a collaborative dynamic and keep moving forward. In time, purposes of the group changed and they needed to reorganize the leadership to fit the direction of the group.

The last phase Hilton spoke of is the action period, CMI's current status. During this phase, the group is producing results. The most visible outcome is the $513,000 grant awarded to the group in 2006 by the Utah State Office of Education. The grant enables CMI to extend their model of instructional framework to three more schools.

As chair of a successful committee, Hilton was able to give the Alliances insight on how to lead a collaborative group thru the three phases. As the chair, Hilton refuses to let the decisions fall back to him. Everything, he says, always goes back to the committee. He never makes a CMI decision on his own. "It is important that it is not just me, and that I always bring it back to the committee. This is our committee, this is our grant. This is not me, this is us. This is joint ownership."

Hilton's wise words were well received by everyone present. The Alliances will meet next for a presentation on writing collaborative research, to be presented by Carol Westby, Janet Young, and Roni Jo Draper at noon on April 15, 2008 in 166 MCKB.

7 April 2008