University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE 1

COLLABORATIVE INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE FOR STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: AN
EVALUATION STUDY

by

John Reyes

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2017

Copyright 2017 John Reyes

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

2
2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work presented here is the fruit of the commitment, passion, expertise, and devotion
of so many individuals deserving of acknowledgment.
My dissertation committee has been a lifeline and a guiding force in completing this
study. Dr. Stowe, you continuously set the bar high throughout the process and empowered me to
meet the challenge. Your expectations of research and analysis with clarity, precision, and rigor
run deeply throughout this study – and for that, I am thankful. Dr. Picus and Dr. Ozar, I am
grateful for the expertise and investment of time you’ve poured into this study. Thank you for
providing depth and breadth to this work.
Thank you to the participants of the study who offered their time and expertise to provide
critical insight and hopefully affect and shape the work we do for the learning and growth of
every single child.
To my colleagues at the Department of Catholic Schools – it is a joy and an unspeakable
blessing to work alongside and learn from some of the most intelligent and passionate educators
in the country. You have given me a lifetime of lessons in leadership in the last four years we’ve
journeyed together. The blood, sweat, and tears you offer daily for the students we serve in our
schools in pursuit of our vision for growth is nothing short of heroic. Thank you.
Meg, I would not be the educator I am today without the fact that time and time again,
you took a chance on me and saw me for what I could be – thank you for helping me understand
and embody what it means to work for all kids.
Finally, to my fellow Trojans in Cohort 2 – thank you for sustaining me throughout the
journey through your wit, wisdom, sarcasm, sacrilege, professionalism and passion. It is an
honor to be part of a group of phenomenal professionals.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

3
3
DEDICATION
To my wife, Bev – your character and grace push me beyond my own limits.
I am undeservingly made better every day because of your love.
To my mom, Grace, and my brother, Andrew – your resilience and strength is an endless fount of
inspiration.
I hope to live out my life with even just a fraction of the boundless courage and tenacity you
embody on a daily basis.
To my dad, Robert – I told you I’d make good on the promise I made to you (even if I’m doing it
on a technicality).
We miss you every single day.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

4
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 2

DEDICATION 3

LIST OF TABLES 6

ABSTRACT 7

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 8
Organizational Context and Mission 9
Organizational Performance Goal 10
Related Literature 11
Importance of the Evaluation 14
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 15
Stakeholder for the Study and Stakeholder Performance Goal 16
Purpose of the Project and Questions 16
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 17
Definitions 17
Organization of the Study 18

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 19
Factors and Policy/Structural Responses Influencing Student Achievement in 19
K-12 Schools
Individual Leadership and Student Achievement in K-12 Schools 21
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework 24
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences 25
Organization Influences 34
Conclusion 40
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and 41
Motivation and the Organizational Context
Figure 1. Conceptual framework, visualizing potential influencers on 42
stakeholders and organization that are the focal point of the study.

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 43
Participating Stakeholders 43
Data Collection and Instrumentation 48
Document Analysis 50
Data Analysis 51
Credibility and Trustworthiness 52
Ethics 53

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS 55
Overview of Purpose and Questions 55
Participating Stakeholders 55
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

5
5
Findings 57
Summary 89

CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE 90
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 90
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 99
Limitations and Delimitations 110
Recommendations for Future Research 111
Conclusion 112
References 114

Appendices 126
Appendix A: Interview Protocol (Teachers) 126
Appendix B: Observation Protocol 127
Appendix C: Interview Protocol (Administrators) 128
Appendix D: Sample Assessment Tool Immediately Following Program 129
Implementation
Appendix E: Sample Assessment Tool: Delayed for a Period After Program 131
Implementation
Appendix F: Sample Data Reporting and Analysis Instrument 132

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

6
6
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals 16

Table 2. Knowledge Worksheet 32

Table 3. Motivational Worksheet 35

Table 4. Organizational Influencers Worksheet 39

Table 5. Summary of Sources about Assumed Causes for Knowledge, Motivation, and 40
Organizational Issues

Table 6. Interview and Observation Prospective Participant Profile 49

Table 7. Interview and Observation Participant Group Summary 58

Table 8. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 94

Table 9. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 99

Table 10. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 102

Table 11. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 104

Table 12. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Teachers 106

Table 13. Recommended Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors for Teachers 107

Table 14. Components of Learning for the Program 110

Table 15. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 111

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

7
7
ABSTRACT

The challenge established by the persistence of student achievement gaps across ethnicity
groups, socioeconomic strata, parental education, and English language learner status is the
collective responsibility of federal, state, and local education agencies both public and nonpublic.
This study aims to evaluate the extent to which the practices of collaboration and professional
development within a school site impact the growth in achievement and proficiency of its
students. The Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model utilized for this study provides a
systematic, analytical method that helps to clarify organizational goals and identify the
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences. Through a qualitative methodological
framework and the use of participant interviews, observations, and document analysis, this study
identified the presence of salient knowledge and motivation influences that are critical for
teachers to possess in effectively participating in collaboration that impacts instructional practice
and student learning. In particular, the need for collective and individual accountability,
identification of varied impacts of collaboration on individual practice, use of data to support
collaborative activities surfaced as critical knowledge assets. High levels of motivation were
attributed to the capacity to establish connections between faculty collaboration and positive
change in student learning and instructional practice, as well as teacher capacity to conceptualize
individual roles in faculty collaboration. The findings and results of data collection collectively
articulate the need for an implementation and evaluation plan that fosters the emergence of
critical behaviors among teachers that support their effective participation in faculty
collaboration that impacts student learning.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

8
8
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
In boldly declaring a clear and present danger to the “unchallenged preeminence” of the
United States, the Department of Education’s 1983 report A Nation at Risk provided an
indictment of the American education system. By presenting a litany of indicators revealing
seemingly severe educational gaps as a root cause, it effectively jumpstarted a wave of
educational reform initiatives aimed at closing those gaps. Over thirty years later, analysis of
standardized testing data from over 2 million high school graduates in 2016 revealed that 26% of
students met college readiness benchmarks in English, reading, mathematics, and science (ACT,
2016). Ethnic and race subgroup analysis shows that there is a 26-point gap in college readiness
benchmark attainment between white and Hispanic high school graduates and a staggering 38-
point gap between white and African-American high school graduates (ACT, 2016).
Additionally, since A Nation at Risk was published, socioeconomic influence on achievement
gaps have been exacerbated: the achievement gap between students in the 90th percentile of
income distribution and students in the 10th percentile of income distribution increased from 0.9
of a standard deviation to 1.25 standard deviations, a 40% increase over three decades (Reardon,
2013). Taken together, these indicators of educational effectiveness continue to suggest the
persistence of student achievement gaps.
The challenge established by the persistence of these student achievement gaps is the
collective responsibility of federal, state, and local education agencies both public and nonpublic.
Achievement gaps between students across ethnicity groups, eligibility for National School
Lunch Program, levels of parental education, and English language learner status are similar
across both public and nonpublic schools within the United States (U.S. Department of
Education, 2013). The evident problem of practice relating to the “twin goals of equity and high-
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

9
9
quality schooling” offered by A Nation at Risk must be examined with appropriate rigor,
urgency, and nuance to the organizational idiosyncrasies afforded by both public and nonpublic
K-12 schools.
This study aims to evaluate the extent to which the practices of collaboration and
professional development within a school site impact the growth in achievement and proficiency
of its students. Of particular interest in this study is the extent to which the unique characteristics
of the school impact the quality and efficacy of such practices, as well as how the needs and gaps
of an urban and predominately ethnic minority student population are met by a nonpublic,
Catholic elementary school. Engaging in this study may have significant implications for the
manifestation of the school’s organizational vision and operational vitality, as well as
contributing to the body of literature focused on teacher collaboration, professional development,
and student achievement.
Organizational Context and Mission
The mission of St. Stellar School is to “create a community of faith in which school and
parents join together in the formation and education of each child to achieve a balance of faith,
character, and academic excellence.” St. Stellar School is a nonpublic, Catholic elementary
school in the Los Angeles metropolitan area for students from transitional Kindergarten through
the 8
th
grade. As of October 2016, 168 students are enrolled, with close to 90% of the student
population comprised of ethnic minorities (55% Filipino, 33% Hispanic/Latino). One in four
students enrolled at the school is eligible for free or reduced price lunch. The school is staffed by
ten full-time classroom teachers and a full-time principal, as well as a number of part-time
instructional aides and co-curricular teachers.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

10
10
St. Stellar School is one of 270 schools in the Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and Ventura
counties affiliated with the Department of Catholic Schools of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles
(DCS). The mission of DCS is to ensure that the leadership of the Catholic schools of the
Archdiocese of Los Angeles is successful in providing the advantages of a Catholic school
education for their students (Department of Catholic Schools, n.d.). Like all schools affiliated
with DCS, St. Stellar School operates on a tuition model decided at the local school level. To
support enrollment increase and close access gaps to prospective and current families, St. Stellar
School has been the beneficiary of tuition assistance from the Catholic Education Foundation,
which has provided over 132,000 tuition assistance awards to students at DCS-affiliated schools
totaling more than $136 million since its inception in 1987 (Archdiocese of Los Angeles, 2013).
Organizational Performance Goal
St. Stellar School’s goal is that 80% of its students who are not currently meeting system-
wide benchmarks for proficiency in reading and math attain a Student Growth Percentile score of
65 or higher by July 2018. The goal was established by the principal of St. Stellar School, the
Director of Academic Excellence of DCS, and the assistant superintendent of St. Stellar School
through an analysis of student achievement data from multiple administrations of the
Renaissance Learning STAR Enterprise assessment beginning in September 2014 through
January 2016. The analysis of student achievement data conducted had a primary focus on
determining the extent to which all students were meeting system-wide benchmarks for
proficiency in reading and math. The benchmark for proficiency is a percentile rank score of 65
or higher on the Renaissance Learning STAR Enterprise assessment, and the related
organizational performance goal is that 100% of students meet the benchmark for proficiency in
reading and math. However, the analysis of student achievement data within that time period
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

11
11
revealed that less than 80% of students met the criteria for proficiency in reading and math. In
response to this trend, a decision was made to establish a growth goal and focus on adequate
progress toward closing the proficiency gap identified. Once the growth goal has been met and
adequate progress has been made towards closing the proficiency gap, the performance goal of
100% of students meeting the benchmark for proficiency in reading and math takes precedence.
Student Growth Percentile (SGP) is the primary metric referenced in the organizational
goal and is used to operationalize the established growth goal. SGP measures the growth of a
student against his/her academic peers, thereby controlling for prior achievement to determine
the impact of an academic intervention, strategy, or program (Betebenner, 2011). Based on the
28 states that have implemented the SGP model, St. Stellar determined that an SGP of 65 or
higher was equivalent to above average growth and therefore established that as the benchmark
for the SGP metric. By establishing a benchmark equivalent to above average growth, St. Stellar
School seeks to utilize the attainment of the organizational goal to close the proficiency gap of
their students in reading and math.
Related Literature
The National Assessment of Educational Progress is the measure most commonly utilized
when substantiating the presence of achievement gaps among K-12 students in the United States
(Vanneman, Hamilton, Anderson & Rahman, 2009; NCES, 2013; Klecker, 2006). The
“achievement gap” is frequently contextualized as disparate performance of students in different
ethnic-racial subgroups (Lee, 2004; Braun, Champan, & Vezzu, 2010). Researchers have
attributed the persistence of achievement gaps to several underlying causes, including frequency
of poverty, varying school quality, ineffective teaching practices, parent/family factors, and
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

12
12
English language literacy (Lacour & Tissington, 2011; Moon & Singh, 2015; Desimone & Long,
2010; Palardy, 2015; Hayes, Blake, Darensbourg, & Castillo, 2015).
Strategies and policies in response to achievement gaps among K-12 students
significantly vary, including the implementation of standards-based education, evidence-
informed instructional practice, increased instructional time, standardized testing, and
professional preparation for teachers. These strategies have been informed by numerous
assertions relating to influencers on student achievement. First, the residual effects of both
effective and ineffective teachers revealed that individual teacher effectiveness had a significant
impact on student achievement, even when researchers control for both prior achievement and
ethnicity (Sanders and Rivers, 1996). Second, Marzano (2003) and Hattie (2009) both found that
the cumulative effects of factors and practices within the locus of control of a local school and
stakeholders within that school support the assertion that schools that are highly effective
produce results that almost entirely overcome student background effects such as ethnicity,
minority status, parent/family factors, English literacy, and poverty.
In a climate of increased accountability relating to student achievement and closing
achievement gaps, inquiry into the impact of leadership as a factor is essential. Leithwood,
Seashore, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) assert that leadership accounts for about a quarter of
total school effects and that those effects are most pronounced in schools with difficult
circumstances relating to student learning. The common conceptualization of principal-as-leader
reveals that principal leadership itself can account for variation in student achievement,
particularly in terms of program coherence, professional development, and principal turnover
(Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012; School Leaders Network, 2014; Miller, 2013). However,
broader conceptualizations of leadership, especially those that focus on distributed leadership
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

13
13
across multiple stakeholder groups, have revealed substantial levels of promise in responding to
gaps in student achievement (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008; Borman et al., 2013). A more
inclusive and diverse exposition and inquiry of leadership as it relates to the achievement gap
presents an intriguing opportunity for further study.
Leadership as a factor in fostering student achievement and closing the achievement gap
includes the utilization of professional development for teachers. Professional development’s
relation to the problem of practice can be understood in three ways. First, professional
development has an impact on the practices of teachers working to support student achievement
(Desimone, Smith, & Phillips, 2013; Wallace, 2009; Polly, & Hannafin, 2011). Second,
professional development in and of itself has an impact on student achievement, especially with
respect to particular instructional strategies and content areas such as reading, mathematics, and
science (Holloway, 2006; Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007; Fisher, 2001). Finally,
the effects of professional development on mean proficiency increase, including those for
disparate ethnic subgroups of students, have been shown to be statistically significant and
sustained (Brahler, Bainbridge, & Stevens, 2004; Johnson, Kahle, & Fargo, 2007; Kennedy,
2010).
Collaboration, particularly among teachers and principals, also supports a nuanced
understanding of the impact of leadership in fostering student achievement and closing the
achievement gap. It can be understood as a primary avenue by which distributed leadership
occurs, especially among teachers (Hunzicker, 2012; Boylan, 2016; Leonard & Leonard, 1999).
Within collaboration, the aims of professional development to impact teacher practice and
reinforce a focus on student achievement can be operationalized (Klentschy, 2005; Gregson &
Sturko, 2007; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2013; Erickson, Minnes, Mitchell, & Mitchell, 2005). The
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

14
14
protocols, processes, structures, and dispositions that formulate and are formulated by
collaboration, professional development, and leadership within the context of a school’s focus on
student learning serve as the foundation for analyzing the extent to which schools function as
professional learning communities (Eaker & DuFour, 2009; Servage, 2008).
Importance of the Evaluation
It is important to examine St. Stellar School’s performance in relationship to their
performance goal of 80% of its students who are not currently meeting system-wide benchmarks
for proficiency in reading and math attaining a Student Growth Percentile score of 65 or higher
for a variety of reasons. First, the affiliated organization’s vision for academic excellence is as
follows: “Administration and faculty exhibit professional competency and engage in on-going
professional growth so that every student masters all essential standards for every grade.”
However, student achievement data shows that this target of 100% mastery of essential grade
level standards is still not a reality. In August 2015, DCS established a 65
th
percentile benchmark
on the STAR Enterprise assessment for all students in the areas of reading and math – a level of
proficiency that reflects mastery of grade level standards and college readiness (Kingsbury
Center, 2010; Renaissance Learning, 2015). As of October 2016, less than 60% of students in
grades 2-8 meet the proficiency benchmark in math, and less than 40% of students in grades 2-8
meet the proficiency benchmark in reading. An examination of the organization’s performance
related to the performance goal may reveal implications and recommendations for practice that
similarly situated schools, including other elementary schools affiliated with DCS, could benefit
from in order to close similar achievement gaps.
Second, St. Stellar’s stated performance goal relating to growth targets for student
achievement in reading and math are central to its operational vitality. Absent any state-
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

15
15
sanctioned private school choice program in California, the majority of funding for St. Stellar
School’s operational expenditures comes from family-funded tuition (Boychuk, 2015). This
creates a relationship wherein the school as a provider is accountable to parents as consumers,
and educational outcomes form one dimension of that accountability relationship (Stecher &
Kirby, 2004). If St. Stellar School is not able to reach its stated performance goal and thereby not
meet the accountability benchmark of high levels of student achievement, the school risks
experiencing increased parent dissatisfaction and enrollment attrition. With a number of public,
charter, and parochial alternatives for parents of school-aged children that can meet those
benchmarks (Meyer, 2007), the enrollment attrition that may result from not meeting the
performance goal can have disastrous consequences vis-à-vis operational vitality.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

16
16
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
St. Stellar School is a Community of Faith in which school and parents join together in the
formation and education of each child to achieve a balance of faith, character, and academic
excellence.
Organizational Performance Goal
By July 2018, St. Stellar School will have 80% of its students who are not currently meeting
system-wide benchmarks for proficiency in reading and math attain a Student Growth Percentile
score of 65 or higher.
Principal Goal Teacher Goal Student Goal
By June 2017, the
principal will allocate non-
instructional time for
formalized teacher
collaborative problem-
solving and professional
learning focused on
student learning.
By June 2017, each teacher will
regularly participate in and
implement changes to instructional
practice based on professional
learning and collaborative
problem-solving focused on
student learning with other
teachers at the local school site.

By June 2017, all students will
be able to state the purpose for
learning, demonstrate their
level of mastery, and explain
the connection between
instructional activities and the
purpose for learning within
each instructional period
during a school day.

Stakeholder for the Study and Stakeholder Performance Goal
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders will contribute to the achievement of the overall
organizational goal of 80% of its students who are not currently meeting system-wide
benchmarks for proficiency in reading and math attaining a Student Growth Percentile score of
65 or higher, it is important to evaluate where the teachers are currently with regard to their
performance goal. Therefore, the stakeholders of focus for this study will be all full-time
classroom teachers at the school that participate regularly in formal faculty collaboration for
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

17
17
student learning. The stakeholders’ goal is that each teacher will regularly participate in and
implement changes to instructional practice based on professional learning and collaborative
problem-solving focused on student learning with other teachers at the local school site.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the organization’s performance related to the larger
problem of practice relating to student achievement gaps in K-12 schools within the United
States. The analysis will focus on the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and
organizational issues. While a complete study would focus on all stakeholders, for practical
purposes the stakeholders to be focused on in this analysis are all full-time classroom teachers at
the school that participate regularly in formal faculty collaboration for student learning.
As such, the following questions will guide this study:
1. What is the stakeholder knowledge and motivation related to the regular participation of
teachers in professional learning and collaborative problem-solving focused on student
learning, and the resulting implementation of changes to instructional practice?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that helps to clarify
organizational goals and identify the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences, will
be adapted to the evaluation model and implemented as the conceptual framework. The
methodological framework is a qualitative study. Assumed knowledge, motivation, and
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

18
18
organizational influences on St. Stellar School that impact St. Stellar School’s organizational
goal achievement will be generated based on personal knowledge and related literature. These
influences will be assessed by using observations, document analysis, interviews, literature
review, and content analysis. Research-based solutions will be recommended and evaluated in a
comprehensive manner.
Definitions
• DCS – the Department of Catholic Schools of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. St. Stellar
School is one of 270 schools affiliated with DCS, which is an umbrella, non-governing
organization that supports Catholic elementary and secondary schools in the Los Angeles,
Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties.
• Instructional leadership – the cumulative set of roles, responsibilities, expectations, and
actions focused on fostering and supporting desired levels of competency in classroom
instructional practice, typically within a K-12 educational setting
Organization of the Study
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about principal leadership and
student achievement. The organization’s mission, goals and stakeholders and the framework for
the study were introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of current literature surrounding the
scope of the study. Topics of principal leadership, instructional leadership, professional learning,
and school culture will be addressed. Chapter Three details the knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences to be examined as well as methodology when it comes to choice of
participants, data collection and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

19
19
analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and literature, for closing the perceived
gaps as well as recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

20
20
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
To establish an appropriate framework for the scope of the study, the following section is
a review of research relevant to the questions posed by the study. The first section focuses on a
generalized overview of factors influencing student achievement in K-12 schools. The second
segment addresses the construct of principal leadership relative to student achievement in K-12
schools, as well as outlining the relevant literature conceptualizing instructional and
transformational leadership. The chapter ends with an analysis of teamwork from the lens of
educational research literature utilizing the gap analysis dimensions of knowledge, motivation,
and organization.
Factors and Policy/Structural Responses Influencing Student Achievement in K-12 Schools
District-level. As a result of governance structures in the vast majority of public K-12
schools, a number of factors linked to student achievement reside district-level contexts. Specific
responsibilities and behaviors, when addressed by district leaders, have a “profound, positive
impact” on student achievement (Waters and Marzano, 2007). These behaviors include
accountability, providing appropriate levels of building autonomy, and defining and structuring
organizational cultural settings to support improvements in student learning (Hough, 2014;
Waters and Marzano, 2007; Taylor, 2010). Conversely, current practices of principal evaluation,
which is a common task of districts and district leaders, do not have a significant relationship to
student achievement (Kimball and Pantsch, 2008; McMahon, Peters, & Schumacher, 2014).
Suburban district leaders and urban district leaders utilize differing, but overlapping, leadership
dimensions to impact student achievement (Thompson and France, 2015).
School-level. In addition to district-level contexts, local school factors and policies exert
meaningful levels of influence on student achievement. Schools account, on average, for 20
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

21
21
percent of the variance in student achievement; in cases of highly effective schools, their impact
almost entirely overcomes the effects of student background (Marzano, 2003). Although student
demographics are strongly related to student outcomes in reading and math at the state level,
individual achievement levels are less predicted by demographics than teacher quality variables
(Darling-Hammond, 2000). Licensure of teachers is a predictor of student achievement when
examining certification vs. non-certification (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Goldhaber & Brewer,
1999). Numerous policy responses, including tracking, integration, and class size reduction, have
been implemented as a means of school-level factor manipulation (Hallinan, 2003; Bosworth,
2014; Jepsen & Rivkin, 2009; Diamond, 2006).
Organizational factors unique to nonpublic K-12 schools. Nonpublic schools,
including faith-based schools, face specific challenges in maximizing student achievement as a
result of critical points of difference when compared to their public counterparts. Principals in
Catholic schools, for example, are challenged to emphasize and foster Catholic identity in order
to meet the need for ensuring school vitality (Hobbie, Convey, and Schuttloffel, 2010).
Principals in these schools are also challenged to fulfill responsibilities related to management of
financial resources. A potential tension exists between the pursuit of academic outcomes and
religious identity in faith-based, non-public schools. Furthermore, in nonpublic schools, high
levels of autonomy at the local school level make the development of management systems at the
local site largely unpredictable and inconsistent. Regardless, factors like SES, race, and ethnicity
have a similar effect on the availability of courses and student achievement in faith-based
schools and public schools (Carbonaro and Covay, 2010). Because faith-based and nonpublic
schools are schools of choice, some student-level factors may tip the scales in favor of those
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

22
22
schools; however, some evidence points to the fact Catholic schools particularly serve under-
achieving students rather than over-achieving students (Sander, 2001; Chubb, 2005).
There are also significant implications due to the unique governance structure of most
Catholic K-12 schools in the United States. The presence of school boards and the interactions of
various community stakeholders on school board actions directly relating to critical
organizational outputs is substantial, and in some cases is more pronounced than similar effects
in other nonpublic and public schools and school systems (Hofman, Hofman & Guldemond,
2010; Haney, 2013). Many improvement initiatives are catalyzed at the local school level, and
therefore variances in prioritizing particular improvement initiatives are substantial across
schools; what constitutes high levels of academic achievement or worthwhile endeavors to
increase academic achievement vary wildly in practice (Sabatino, Huchting, Dell’Olio, 2013). In
light of contextual factors that directly impact the effectiveness and viability of Catholic schools
in urban, suburban, and rural areas, clear indicators and models for leadership and governance of
Catholic schools are truly vital (Goldschmidt & Walsh, 2013; Ozar & Weitzel-O’Neill, 2013).
The extent to which these models and indicators are replicated and used as a framework for
Catholic K-12 schools serves to highlight the idiosyncrasies that characterize the organizational
context of this particular study.
Individual Leadership and Student Achievement in K-12 Schools
Instructional leadership. Contemporary research defines instructional leadership as a
construct that encompasses dispositions and practices broader than accountability and
management. Specifically, instructional leadership demands of a principal the continued
engagement in professional learning (Bredeson, 2013). Quint, Akey, Rappaport and Willner
(2007) further expand the idea of principal-centered professional learning as being inclusive of
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

23
23
high quality instruction-related professional development, citing that such professional learning
on the part of the principal as a necessary condition for ongoing teacher professional learning
and, most importantly, increased student outcome. Their study of 49 elementary schools in three
districts serving large proportions of economically and educationally disadvantaged students
revealed that principal-centered professional development led to an increase in both the
frequency and quality of teacher professional development and teacher instructional quality
(Quint, Akey, Rappaport & Willner, 2007). Most importantly, they observed that increased
teacher instructional quality had the strongest relationship with students’ performance in
measures of reading achievement–far outpacing teacher experience, principal experience, and
even socioeconomic status (Quint, Akey, Rappaport, & Willner, 2007). Therefore, the formation
of a principal as instructional leader is truly an important pillar of effective schools, and the
research suggests that the principal has an “indirect, but nonetheless explicit” effect on student
learning (Fullan, 2014).
Integrated leadership. Furthermore, the insight and experiences of both first-year
principals, as seen in O’Doherty and Ovando (2013), and experienced, high performing
principals, exemplified in Printy, Marks and Bowers (2009), suggest that such professional
learning should encompass “soft” skills, such as fostering relationships and the ability to build
relational trust. However, the impact of those skills are certainly not soft; in fact, Bryk and
Schneider (2002) demonstrated statistically significant gains in students’ reading and math
scores due to positive changes in the relational trust of principals and teachers. It is then
imperative for the principal to draw upon that continuous and broad professional learning to
align administrative and organizational structures, procedures and processes, ensuring that the
dispositions fostered through continuous professional learning are put into practice to catalyze
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

24
24
and fuel instructional change (Printy, Marks and Bowers, 2009; Robinson, 2010). Marks and
Printy (2003) use Bass’s (1985) definition of transformational leadership to provide a context for
those “soft” skills, and in their study of 24 elementary, middle and high schools, they find that
such transformational leadership is a necessary but insufficient condition for instructional
leadership; rather, it is what they called “integrated leadership”–the presence of both high levels
of instructional leadership and transformational leadership–that had a substantial effect on
student achievement. Their research revealed that the effect size of integrated leadership was .56
– more than double that of prior student achievement (.26) and vastly outpacing that of
socioeconomic status (a paltry .03) – establishing a particularly compelling case for the principal
as more than being a source of educational expertise (Marks and Printy, 2003). To decouple the
social capital skills of instructional leadership from the content and process skills would truly
mean a limitation of the impact of instructional leadership on school quality.
Collaboration and collective capacity building. A further dimension of instructional
leadership affirmed repeatedly by the research is the emphasis on collaboration and collective
capacity building and practice as a necessary condition for school transformation compared to
individualistic approaches for school and system transformation. Inherent in this emphasis are
two considerations: a focus on the actions of individuals and of the organization, best illustrated
by Ogawa and Bossert’s (1995) assertion that “leadership is a quality of the organization itself.”
It is that same distinction between positional and relational leadership that Jackson and Marriott
(2012) draw from in conceptualizing what they call the Organizational Leadership Model
(OLM). Their research revealed that the increased collaboration inherent in distributed
instructional leadership (DIL) and OLM at a school had a statistically significant correlation to
the identified outcome variables of school quality (Jackson and Marriott, 2012). A case study
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

25
25
analysis performed by Printy, Marks and Bowers (2009) focused on highlighting the salient
factors of instructional leadership in high-performing schools in Texas affirmed the findings of
Gronn (2002) that the joint efforts of principals and teachers (mirroring that of the practices of
DIL) that catalyze school improvement efforts are greater than the sum of activities and tasks.
O’Doherty and Ovando (2013), as well as Fancera and Bliss (2011), establish key findings that
also align well with the impact of OLM and DIL; the former revealed that first-year principals
consistently identified the need for “intentional” and collective capacity building, while the latter
revealed that within the 53 New Jersey high schools studied, the presence of collective teacher
efficacy, generated by the intentional focus on distributed instructional leadership, was a strong
predictor of school achievement. Collectively, these findings point toward the need to move
away from a mere individualistic focus on instructional leadership and shift to rigorously
implementing collective capacity building.
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
Collaboration focused on student learning is a construct that can also be understood
through the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008). The literature on collaboration
focused on student learning informs a frame of reference that draws connections between
learning and instructional leadership from the lens of knowledge, motivation, and organization.
The insights on collaboration focused on student learning that are produced from the gap analysis
process are useful for improving organizational performance and effectiveness.
Gap analysis provides its users with a process of evaluation focused on organizational
performance by utilizing knowledge, motivation, and organizational dimensions as a basis for
analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008). Additionally, gap analysis can be applied to conduct inquiry into
promising practices, innovation, and organizational needs. For the purposes of this study, gap
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

26
26
analysis is leveraged as both a framework and methodology, while connecting specific K-12
education organizational contexts, instructional leadership, and student achievement to the role
of the teacher as a key agent of change when utilizing faculty collaboration for student learning.
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences
Knowledge and Skills
The purpose of this literature review is to examine the knowledge and skills-related
influences that are relevant to the achievement of the organizational goal of St. Stellar School.
The organizational goal of St. Stellar School is that by July 2018, 80% of its students who are not
currently meeting system-wide benchmarks for proficiency in reading and math attaining a
Student Growth Percentile score of 65 or higher. In order to achieve the system’s overall
organizational goal, the stakeholder goal, which states that by June 2017, each teacher will
regularly participate in and implement changes to instructional practice based on professional
learning and collaborative problem-solving focused on student learning with other teachers at the
local school site, must be attained. This literature review will analyze reviewed literature in terms
of established types of knowledge.
Knowledge Types.
Krathwohl (2002) specifies four distinct types of knowledge: factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge refers to the foundational elements pertinent
to a particular content or domain area, and comprise the building blocks by which the other types
of knowledge are able to expand into higher levels of cognition (Krathwohl, 2002). Conceptual
knowledge involves the recombination of isolated facts into organized, complex schemas that
enable those basic elements to function together, and includes knowledge of classifications,
categories, principles, generalizations, theories, models, and structures (Krathwohl, 2002).
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

27
27
Procedural knowledge shifts the focus from knowing “about” to knowing “how,” and refers to
subject-specific skills, techniques, methods, and the ability to apply appropriate procedures
situationally and contextually (Krathwohl, 2002). Finally, Pintrich (2002) provides a categorical
distinction not present in both the original and revised Bloom’s Taxonomy - metacognitive
knowledge. This particular knowledge type refers to an individual’s knowledge and awareness of
cognition both in general and of their own undertaking (Krathwohl, 2002). Taken together, these
four knowledge types provide a theoretical underpinning for a review of the relevant literature
related to knowledge influences for the relevant stakeholder group and goal.
Knowledge influences.
The following section will examine literature that is relevant to K-12 classroom teachers,
as stakeholders within St. Stellar School, and the stakeholder goal. Conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge influences will be identified that affect the overall achievement of
teachers’ efforts to regularly participate in and implement changes to instructional practice based
on professional learning and collaborative problem-solving focused on student learning with
other teachers at the local school site.
Effective characteristics of faculty collaboration for student learning.
In order to regularly participate in and implement changes to instructional practice based
on professional learning and collaborative problem-solving focused on student learning with
other teachers at the local school site, teachers must know the effective characteristics of student-
focused faculty collaboration. Such student-focused collaboration is characterized by the role of
individuals engaging in this collaboration; Marks and Printy (2003) found that a transformational
leadership approach wherein teachers were empowered and supported as partners in decision-
making led to high-quality pedagogy and high levels of student performance. Decision-making
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

28
28
across multiple stakeholder groups focused on a common goal requires high levels of relational
trust evidenced by high levels of teacher capacity over time, the establishment of group norms,
and an orientation towards change (Youngs & King, 2002; Cranston, 2011; Thompson, Gregg &
Niska, 2004). Alignment between the principal and teachers in these collaborative settings is also
critical, and serves as a strong and supportive precondition for capacity building that leads to
change (King, 2011). These relationship-focused characteristics are indicators of both the quality
of faculty collaboration and the presence of meaningful relationship between the principal as
leader and teacher as followers (Printy, Marks, & Bowers, 2009).
However, faculty collaboration that effectively and specifically impacts student learning
requires the presence of additional unique characteristics. Hallinger’s (2003) conceptualization
of instructional leadership, which includes defining a school’s mission, managing an
instructional program, and promoting a positive school climate, must be embodied in faculty
collaboration in order to foster improved student learning outcomes. The impact of instructional
leadership is critical to ensuring an educational focus in a teacher’s conceptualization of the
importance of instructional leadership; research has shown that instructional leadership has an
effect size nearly four times higher than that of transformational leadership in school settings
(Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008; Shatzer, Caldarella, Hallam & Brown, 2013). Therefore,
teachers need to know that dialogue within faculty collaboration should actively focus on
curriculum, instruction, and assessment (Marks & Printy, 2003; Many & King, 2008). Strategies
that arise as either the focus or result of faculty collaborative dialogue should be aimed at the
improvement of teaching and learning (Heck & Hallinger, 2009). Without a focus on teaching
and learning in faculty collaboration, teachers are more likely to witness confusion as to what
individuals are supposed to be doing (Wells & Feun, 2013). These specific characteristics of
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

29
29
instructional leadership in faculty collaboration provide the necessary context for
transformational leadership, specifically with respect to shared decision-making; the collective
teacher efficacy that results from active collaboration focused on student learning is the
important intervening variable between the work of principals and then student outcomes
(Mulford & Silins, 2003).
Contributing to collaboration focused on student learning.
Central to the process of regularly participating in and implement changes to instructional
practice based on professional learning and collaborative problem-solving are specific skills that
teachers must be able to do in order to ensure both collaboration and a focus on student learning.
In order to embed the characteristics of transformational leadership that lead to improved student
outcomes in faculty collaboration, teachers must be present and participate in the professional
learning that occurs outside of and within faculty collaboration time (Quint, Akey, Rappaport, &
Willner, 2007; King, 2011). Their presence and participation has a dual effect on both teacher
pedagogy and the development of trust critical to highly functioning collaborative teams
(Youngs & King, 2002). Teachers also have the responsibility and capacity to sustain the
articulation of a shared vision for faculty collaboration (Huffman, 2003; Thompson, Gregg, &
Niska, 2004). Clear communication, flexibility in implementation, and intentional groupings of
individuals are among specific mechanisms that teachers can use to make a common purpose
known and utilized (King, 2011; Huffman, 2003; O’Doherty & Ovando, 2013). Taken together,
proficiency in these skills allows a teacher to begin to operate within a culture of collaboration
needed to impact student learning.
Similarly, research has revealed specific principal capabilities that most effectively utilize
faculty collaboration with an educational focus in mind. Principals in K-12 school settings
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

30
30
typically have the levels of autonomy needed to set both the length and structure of non-
instructional time, and so they are primarily responsible and capable for scheduling the time
needed for faculty collaboration (King, 2011; DuFour & Marzano, 2009; Ash & Persall, 2000).
Without sufficient time created by principals, teachers, who by comparison have less agency in
how non-instructional time is allocated, are less likely to meet collaborative goals (Leonard &
Leonard, 1999). Once the time is allocated, principals have the vehicle by which their specific
behaviors can have an impact on student achievement, including monitoring student progress,
providing incentives for learning and teachers, and making rewards contingent (Shatzer,
Caldarella, Hallam & Brown, 2013).
Teachers’ self-reflection in contributing to and implementing changes based on
collaboration.
Teachers should be able to reflect on their efforts in contributing to and implementing
changes to instructional practice based on collaboration focused on student learning. Developing
trust and clear communication was a clear differentiating factor in high-performing schools that
formulated a vision for their collaborative work; participants in Huffman’s (2003) study of
visionary professional learning leadership spoke about their persistence in engaging in actions
geared towards trust development and communication. When taken with King’s (2011) findings
on the need for adaptability when structuring faculty collaboration focused on student learning,
there is a clear need for teachers to orient action towards fostering faculty collaboration for
student learning, assess the efficacy of such efforts, and make modifications as needed based on
critical reflection. Certain processes identified as critical in structuring faculty collaboration
involve a negotiation of knowledge between leaders and followers in those settings that is
inherently reflective, including shared vision, avenues of communication, and shared leadership
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

31
31
(Nelson, Slavit, Perkins, & Hathorn, 2008). An awareness of those feedback loops and the
capacity to respond to such information is key to ultimately sustaining the work done in creating
and sustaining faculty collaboration focused on student learning.
The Knowledge Worksheet (see Table 2) describes in detail the overall organizational
mission and organizational global goal of St. Stellar School. The Knowledge Worksheet also
includes the specific stakeholder goal, which speaks to what teachers will do in order to prepare
their respective schools in meeting St. Stellar School’s organizational global goal. This
worksheet reveals how cognitive principles may be applied to this dissertation problem of
practice, particularly the identification of assumed knowledge/skills of St. Stellar School’s
stakeholder group. Column one, Assumed Knowledge Influences, defines the factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive assumed knowledge influences which are impacting
teachers in the key areas of competency related to participating in and implementing changes to
instructional practice based on professional learning and collaborative problem-solving focused
on student learning with other teachers at the local school site. Column two, Knowledge
Influence Assessment, clearly defines how those impacts will be assessed.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

32
32
Table 2. Knowledge Worksheet
Organizational Mission
St. Stellar School is a Community of Faith in which school and parents join together in the
formation and education of each child to achieve a balance of faith, character, and academic
excellence.

Organizational Global Goal
By July 2018, St. Stellar School will have 80% of its students who are not currently meeting
system-wide benchmarks for proficiency in reading and math attain a Student Growth
Percentile score of 65 or higher.
Stakeholder Goal
By June 2017, each teacher will regularly participate in and implement changes to instructional
practice based on professional learning and collaborative problem-solving focused on student
learning with other teachers at the local school site.

Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type (i.e.,
declarative (factual or
conceptual), procedural,
or metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Teachers should know the
effective characteristics of
faculty collaboration focused on
student learning.
Conceptual Teachers asked to identify the
characteristics of faculty
collaboration focused on
student learning.
Teachers should know how to
contribute to faculty
collaboration focused on student
learning.
Procedural Teachers asked to give
examples of ways to contribute
to faculty collaboration.
Teachers should be able to
reflect on their efforts in
contributing to and utilizing
faculty collaboration to support
student learning in instruction.
Metacognitive Teachers asked to give an
example of a specific action
(or set of actions) taken during
faculty collaboration activities
and discuss its impact on
student learning.

Motivation
For the purposes of the following review, motivation is defined as the construct that
catalyzes individuals towards task completion, as well as establishing a purpose for
accomplishing that particular task. Expectancy-value and self-efficacy are the two motivational
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

33
33
theories that will be discussed in this section.
Expectancy-value theory. Eccles (2006) posits the theory that motivation is a product of
an individual’s expectations for success and the value that the individual attributes to choices of
action that the individual can pursue. The latter facet of this theory, an individual’s perception of
task value, is determined by four related constructs: attainment value, intrinsic value, utility
value, and cost belief (Eccles, 2006). Of particular focus here is the role of utility value
determination, which is constructed based on how well a particular task fits into an individual’s
goals, plans, or basic psychological needs (Eccles, 2006).
Utility value for K-12 teachers. There is increasing pressure on the role of the teacher
to meet the increased demand for student achievement in K-12 schools, and the prioritization of
noninstructional activities and other influencers on classroom instructional practice is a crucial
motivational influence. In order for teachers to prioritize faculty collaboration activities as
meaningful instances for engagement related to student learning, teachers must be able to
establish connection between those activities and positive impacts on student learning (Owen,
2015; Carpenter, 2015; Huggins, Scheurich, Morgan, 2011). Increased value in faculty
collaboration occurs when specific new practices or innovations generated through faculty
collaborative activities can be connected by teachers to their perceptions of improved teaching
practice (Owen, 2015; Carpenter, 2015; Brownell, Adams, Sindelar et al, 2006). However, a
necessary precondition for drawing these connections is to ensure that teachers perceive a
climate that is conducive to such open-ended dialogue, especially if that dialogue embraces
uncertainty when it arises (Snow-Gerono, 2005; Cranston, 2011; Youngs & King, 2002).
Teachers must perceive that they can operate in a climate of trust in order to value and fully
utilize faculty collaboration as an influencing factor towards classroom instructional practice,
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

34
34
and be able to identify and highlight positive connections between that practice and faculty
collaboration.
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as the judgments that individuals hold about their
capacity to learn or perform tasks at specific levels (Pajares, 2009). The formulation of self-
efficacy beliefs comes from interpretation from four sources: social persuasions, vicarious
experience, physiological reactions, and mastery experience (Pajares, 2009).
K-12 teachers’ self-efficacy. Teachers inhabit a critical role in maximizing the utility of
faculty collaboration for student learning. Kurz and Knight (2004) identify the presence of both
personal teaching efficacy and collective teacher efficacy as potential influencing factors on the
utility of such collaboration; although they are moderately related, increasing either factor
involves engaging in each as independent constructs. To further increase collective teacher
efficacy within faculty collaboration, providing informal opportunities for teacher leadership and
purposeful engagement of teachers to look deeply at practice, unwrap its complexity, and
become articulate about the learning process can be worthwhile endeavors (Angelle & Teague,
2014; Lieberman & Pointer Mace, 2009). Allowing for teacher selection of meaningful topics in
faculty collaboration can foster the positive engagement and empowerment needed as a
precondition for teacher self-efficacy (Leavitt, Palius, Babst, et al., 2013). Additionally,
embedding peer observations to recognize strengths, professional accomplishment of colleagues,
and build further ideas and support teacher learning allows for teacher agency in driving the
particular focus of faculty collaborative activities (Owen, 2015).
The Motivational Worksheet (see Table 3) describes in detail the overall organizational
mission and organizational global goal of St. Stellar School. The Motivation Worksheet also
includes the specific stakeholder goal, which speaks to what teachers will do in order to prepare
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

35
35
their respective schools in meeting St. Stellar School’s organizational global goal. Column one
describes the motivational influences that impact teachers’ self-efficacy and utility value in
regularly participating in and implementing changes to instructional practice based on
professional learning and collaborative problem-solving focused on student learning with other
teachers at the local school site. Column two refers describes what method(s) will be used to
assess elementary school teachers’ level of self-efficacy and value attribution relating to the
regularly participating in and implementing changes to instructional practice based on
professional learning and collaborative problem-solving focused on student learning with other
teachers at the local school site.
Table 3. Motivational Worksheet
Organizational Mission
St. Stellar School is a Community of Faith in which school and parents join together in the
formation and education of each child to achieve a balance of faith, character, and academic
excellence.
Organizational Global Goal
By July 2018, St. Stellar School will have 80% of its students who are not currently meeting
system-wide benchmarks for proficiency in reading and math attain a Student Growth
Percentile score of 65 or higher..

Stakeholder Goal
By June 2017, each teacher will regularly participate in and implement changes to instructional
practice based on professional learning and collaborative problem-solving focused on student
learning with other teachers at the local school site.

Assumed Motivation Influences

Motivational Influence Assessment

Teachers should value faculty collaboration for
student learning as a means of positively
impacting student learning.
Interview – Teachers asked to describe
ways in which faculty collaboration has had
an impact on student learning.
Teachers should possess self-efficacy in
contributing to and implementing chances to
instructional practice based on faculty
collaborative activities.
Interview – Teachers asked to recall ways
in which they have participated in
collaboration.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

36
36
Organization Influences
The following section will examine literature that is relevant to classroom teachers, as
stakeholders within St. Stellar School, and the stakeholder goal. Assumed organizational
influences, specifically those relating to cultural models and cultural settings, will be identified
that affect the overall achievement of teachers’ efforts to regularly participate in and implement
changes to instructional practice based on professional learning and collaborative problem-
solving focused on student learning with other teachers at the local school site.
Teacher autonomy. A belief that teacher autonomy overrides a sense of collaboration
among educators in a school exerts difficulty on fostering and leveraging the interpersonal
relationships to create a context for change (Perrow, 1972; Senge, 1990; Kezar, 2001). Even
when teachers attempt to engage in activities and promote organizational arrangements to foster
collaboration, those activities and arrangements can operate both as affordance and constraints
simultaneously (Datnow, Park, & Kennedy-Lewis, 2013). Teacher anxiety, low levels of teacher
efficacy, a lack of examination of assumptions and beliefs, as well as dissonance with the
prevailing identity expectation that teachers are isolated, self-made experts are some of the most
significant manifestations of how a cultural model of teacher autonomy can serve as a barrier to
the stakeholder goal identified (Musanti & Pence, 2010; Winn & Blanton, 2005). A shift to
collective teacher efficacy, understood as the perceptions of teachers in a school that the efforts
of the faculty as a whole will have a positive effect on students, serves as an illustrative contrast
to teacher autonomy (Goddard, Hoy & Hoy, 2000). When teacher autonomy is removed as a
barrier to the identified stakeholder goal, teachers exhibit high levels of ownership of successes
and failures of the school, are stimulated by leaders and coaches to experiment with alternative
methods in a focused, problem-centered manner, and constantly address and enrich their own
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

37
37
grounding (Winn & Blanton, 2005; Meirink, Imants, Meijer, & Verloop, 2010; Ross,
Hogabogam-Gray, & Gray, 2004). Collaboration as a response to teacher autonomy creates a
strong focus on teachers’ learning and inquiry, thereby increasing collective teacher efficacy and
impact on student achievement (Gates & Watkins, 2010; Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004;
Goddard, Hoy & Hoy, 2000).
Change structures. Professional development offered to teachers in order to promote
ongoing learning tends not to engage relevant stakeholders in decision making processes that
build capacity (Hendry, 1996; Moran & Brightman, 2000; Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000; Senge,
1990; Kezar, 2001; Langley, Moen, Nolan, Nolan, Norman & Provost, 2009). For professional
development to facilitate the stakeholder and organizational goals focused on student learning, it
must be conceived and executed as a collaborative enterprise, where a space for learning through
mutual exchange, dialogue, and constant challenge is created (Musanti & Pence, 2010). A focus
on data-driven decision making (DDDM) can provide a framework for understanding
professional development as a collaborative enterprise; when leveraged as an intervention, it can
effectively build capacity among teachers and develop new conceptual and procedural
knowledge both in the classroom and during faculty meetings (Schildkamp, Poortman, &
Handelzalts, 2016; Dunn, Airola, Lo & Garrison, 2013). In these kinds of professional
development approaches, collaboration activities (including looking at student achievement
results, identifying areas for concern, jointly action planning towards improving teaching and
learning) were accompanied by leadership activities, tools, and organizational arrangements,
such as framing DDDM as collective responsibility, norms for teacher collaboration, data
discussion protocols, and teacher groupings (Datnow, Park, & Kennedy-Lewis, 2013). The
teacher plays a key role in this cultural setting, especially when coming up with concrete actions
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

38
38
as a result of the process (Dunn, Airola, Lo & Garrison, 2013). In this particular framework,
discussions about data as a mode of professional development may help form the basis for
teachers to participate in and implement changes to instructional practice based on collaborative
problem-solving focused on student learning.
The Organizational Influencers Worksheet (see Table 4) describes in detail the overall
organizational mission and organizational global goal of St. Stellar School. The Organizational
Influencers Worksheet also includes the specific stakeholder goal, which speaks to what teachers
will do in order to prepare their respective schools in meeting St. Stellar School’s organizational
global goal. This worksheet reveals how organizational models and settings may be applied to
this dissertation problem of practice, particularly the interaction between organizational
influencers and assumed knowledge/skills/motivation of St. Stellar School’s stakeholder group.
Column one, Assumed Organizational Influences, defines the cultural model and cultural setting
influences which are impacting teachers in the key areas of competency related to participating
in and implementing changes to instructional practice based on professional learning and
collaborative problem-solving focused on student learning with other teachers at the local school
site. Column two, Organization Influence Assessment, clearly defines how those influences will
be assessed.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

39
39
Table 4. Organizational Influences Worksheet

The Summary of Sources about Assumed Causes for Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Issues (see Table 5) synthesizes the assumed influencers for stakeholder
knowledge and motivation as an application of cognitive principles to the dissertation problem of
practice, organizational influencers that interact with stakeholder knowledge and motivation
influencers, and critical assertions generated by a background and review of relevant literature.

Organizational Mission
St. Stellar School is a Community of Faith in which school and parents join together in the
formation and education of each child to achieve a balance of faith, character, and academic
excellence.

Organizational Global Goal
By July 2018, St. Stellar School will have 80% of its students who are not currently meeting
system-wide benchmarks for proficiency in reading and math attain a Student Growth
Percentile score of 65 or higher.
Stakeholder Goal (If Applicable)
By June 2017, each teacher will regularly participate in and implement changes to
instructional practice based on professional learning and collaborative problem-solving
focused on student learning with other teachers at the local school site.

Assumed Organizational Influences

Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence
There is an overriding belief in teacher
autonomy among administration and faculty
at the expense of collaboration.
Observation of classrooms to identify
common instructional practices across
classrooms
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
Professional development determined by
principals tends not to focus on the use of
data to inform instruction and equipping
teachers with the skill set or the desire to use
data related to student learning for student
learning.
Interview about skills and competencies
covered in professional development and
their transference to practice
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

40
40
Table 5. Summary of Sources about Assumed Causes for Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Issues

Causes
Sources Knowledge Motivation Organizational
Processes
Learning and
motivation theory
Teachers should
know the effective
characteristics of
faculty collaboration
focused on student
learning.
(Conceptual)

Teachers should
know how to
contribute to faculty
collaboration focused
on student learning.
(Procedural)

Teachers should be
able to reflect on their
efforts in contributing
to and utilizing
faculty collaboration
to support student
learning in
instruction.
(Metacognitive)
Teachers should
value faculty
collaboration for
student learning as a
means of positively
impacting student
learning. (Utility
Value)

Teachers should
possess self-efficacy
in contributing to and
implementing
changes to
instructional practice
based on faculty
collaborative
activities. (Self-
Efficacy)
Teacher autonomy
can override a sense
of collaboration
among educators in a
school, and this belief
exerts a difficulty on
fostering and
leveraging
interpersonal
relationships to create
a context for change.
(Cultural Model)

Professional
development offered
to teachers in order to
promote ongoing
learning tends not to
engage relevant
stakeholders in
decision making
processes that build
capacity. (Cultural
Setting)
Background and
review of the
literature
Instructional
leadership
encompasses
dispositions and
practices broader than
accountability and
management; it must
include professional
learning fostered by
principals and an
emphasis on
collaboration and
collective capacity
building and practice.
Research, policy
responses, and
accountability
structures focused on
increasing student
achievement has
centered on
manipulating school,
state, and district-
level factors.
Catholic schools and
other nonpublic
schools face specific
challenges in
maximizing student
achievement as a
result of critical
points of difference
when compared to
their public
counterparts.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

41
41
Conclusion
The focus on closing achievement gaps for students in K-12 schools necessarily raises
critical points of inquiry as to which entities or stakeholders bear both responsibility and efficacy
required to close those gaps. Governance structures in the vast majority of public K-12 schools
allow for a number of factors that impact student achievement to reside primarily in state-level
and district-level contexts, while contemporary research, policy responses, and accountability
structures also draw focus to school-level factors. Additional nuances arise when considering the
challenges of nonpublic schools and how those idiosyncrasies create multiple barriers to
maximizing student achievement. In both public and nonpublic K-12 schools, stakeholder
conceptualization and actualization of instructional leadership has a significant impact on student
achievement at the local school level.
Effective practices in engaging in and improving instructional practice based on faculty
collaboration focused on student learning provide numerous benefits that can assist in closing
achievement gaps, including high-quality pedagogy and high levels of student performance
(Marks and Printy, 2003). To do so, teachers have a multitude of strategies and concepts to draw
on in order to translate the benefit of collaboration to supporting high levels of student learning.
Therefore, it is important to ascertain and address the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors in relation to principals achieving the goal of regularly participating in and implementing
changes to instructional practice based on professional learning and collaborative problem-
solving focused on student learning with other teachers at the local school site.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

42
42
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
A conceptual framework provides an underlying structure of related concepts, theories,
ideas that inform an understanding of the problem of practice, critical points of inquiry, and the
stance brought to a particular qualitative study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). It is crucial to
establish a conceptual framework in the process of engaging in this study, as the framework
informs the methods for data collection, the instrumentation used, and the analysis process by
which data will be utilized to respond to the research questions posed by this study. This chapter
has presented multiple potential influencers in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organization; the conceptual framework seeks to establish the fact that none of these influences
remain in isolation from each other. The following diagram demonstrates the interchange
between these influencers within the context of the study, as well as providing a micro-level
analysis that grounds this particular study within the larger problem of practice relating to
instructional leadership.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

43
43

Figure 1. Conceptual framework, visualizing potential influencers on stakeholders and
organization that are the focal point of the study.
A number of factors influence student achievement in K-12 schools in the United States,
including district/state, local, and nonpublic school policies and structures. This particular study
isolates nonpublic K-8 schools, and classroom teachers are identified as the stakeholder of focus
in considering student achievement as a desired outcome of schools and systems. The literature
suggests that if faculty collaboration is a significant mechanism in attaining high levels of
student achievement, there are multiple knowledge and motivational influencers that impact
teachers’ ability to participate in and benefit from such faculty collaboration. In addition,
organizational influencers and the ongoing process of faculty collaboration help to shape the
means by which teachers engage in and utilize faculty collaboration to support student learning.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

44
44
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the organization’s performance related to the larger
problem of practice relating to student achievement gaps in K-12 schools within the United
States. The analysis will focus on the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and
organizational issues.
The following questions guided this study:
1. What is the stakeholder knowledge and motivation related to the regular participation of
teachers in professional learning and collaborative problem-solving focused on student
learning, and the resulting implementation of changes to instructional practice?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
This chapter details the research design and methods for data collection and analysis,
beginning with a description of the participating stakeholder group as well as criterion and
rationale for sampling and recruitment. Data collection and instrumentation information will also
be presented, and will highlight the process by which interviews, focus groups, observations, and
document analysis were utilized in order to gather data relevant to the research questions. The
process for data analysis and safeguards to ensure credibility and trustworthiness of both data
collection and analysis will also be introduced. Finally, safeguards and procedures meant to
ensure ethical research involving human subjects will be described in this chapter.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

45
45
Participating Stakeholders
This study centers on elementary K-8 teachers in nonpublic schools as a stakeholder
population of focus. Within elementary schools, teachers possess a crucial role in bringing
expertise, experience, and energy to teams of educators working at the local school level in
ensuring a schoolwide focus on the learning of all students and have the potential to contribute
positively in identifying and implementing solution to problems of practice related to student
learning. Each teacher’s individual expertise, experience, and energy is crucial to facilitating
both collective capacity building and widely dispersed leadership. Their daily role in facilitating
learning for their students is a vital touch point for implementation and monitoring of supports
and structures for student learning.
Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. The school site selected for the study should be able to provide evidence that
there are formalized schoolwide structures wherein teachers and administrators actively
participate and collaborate to align and modify practices, procedures, and policies in order to
inform and support student learning. To determine the presence of these schoolwide structures,
structured observations of faculty meetings and classroom instruction will be utilized as a way to
gather evidence of the presence of formalized schoolwide structures and transference to teacher
practice. Additionally, analysis of relevant documents, including faculty meeting agendas/notes,
lesson plans, and instructional materials, will be conducted as a means of qualitatively assessing
the presence of those structures focused on student learning.
Criterion 2. Interview participants must be either full-time classroom teachers OR
administrators that regularly participate in faculty collaboration focused on student learning at
the school site chosen for the study. Regular participation is defined as the frequency of
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

46
46
collaborative meetings held by the school that have an explicit focus on student learning. For the
purposes of this study, eligible participants must participate in at least one formal collaborative
meeting held by the school per week over the course of the school’s academic year.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The study engaged in purposeful, nonprobability sampling, as it is appropriate for the
research question and the qualitative methodology being applied to the study (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Once the site was selected, the intention was to include all 10 full-time classroom
teachers, the site administrator, and any other administrators involved in curriculum, instruction,
and assessment (e.g. a vice principal). The number of teachers to be included in interviews and
focus groups is based on the average number of full-time classroom teachers in nonpublic
schools in the Western United States (National Catholic Education Association, 2016). Other
than regular engagement in faculty collaboration activities, there is no other exclusionary criteria
for stakeholders at the selected site; this allows for increasing heterogeneity in the sample being
studied to mirror the population as closely as possible (Maxwell, 2013).
Semi-structured interviews were used in the first phase of the study to add a further
dimension of understanding of the stakeholder of focus and the influence of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors relating to faculty collaboration. All site administrators
will be included in the individual interview protocol (typically, there are not enough site
administrators to warrant the use of a focus group), and a minimum of five teachers will be
included in order to reach a point of saturation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Observation Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. Faculty meetings to be observed should take place as part of a regular,
predetermined schedule in order to best capture the phenomena to be observed in a natural
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

47
47
setting. These faculty meetings should have an explicit focus on activities or practices directly
related to student learning, including the use of data related to student learning and action items
that impact either curriculum, instruction, or assessment.
Criterion 2. The teachers to be observed during classroom instruction should be teachers
that regularly participate in faculty collaboration focused on student learning. This criterion
allows relevant data to be surfaced that leads to deeper understanding and more rigorous analysis
of related data gathered from interviews. Specifically, observations of classroom instruction in
the core subject areas of reading, mathematics, social studies, and science with students allows
for data to be gathered on connections between faculty collaboration focused on student learning
and its impact on teacher practice in classroom instruction. The data gathered through
observation of faculty meetings and interviews with teachers will be utilized to determine which
periods of classroom instruction to observe as well as the breadth and depth of observable
instructional practices that will be the observational focus.
Observation Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale
For the purposes of this study, I conducted structured observations of faculty meetings
and classroom instruction. To gain access to these settings, I explicitly requested permission
from all full-time classroom teachers for permission to conduct the structured classroom
observation during the process of acquiring informed consent from participants. I requested
permission to attend faculty collaboration meetings from the administrators of the school site,
and disclosed the observation forms that I will use in the process of gathering data. Observations
were conducted as a means of validating the connections that teachers and administrators express
between faculty collaboration and student learning, as well as observations of phenomena related
to faculty collaboration meetings as identified by teachers and administrators during interviews.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

48
48
Table 6 below lists the eligible interview and observation participants based on the
criteria articulated. A complete list of eligible individuals that opted to participate in the study
can be found in the next chapter.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

49
49
Table 6. Prospective Interview and Observation Prospective Participant Profile
Prospective Participant Relevant Descriptors Settings to be Observed
Principal Full-time administrator, leads
full staff faculty meeting
All staff faculty meetings
Teacher, transitional
Kindergarten
Full-time classroom teacher
(all core subjects), member of
TK-2 grade-level PLC team
All staff faculty meetings,
grade-level PLC team
meeting, classroom
instruction
Teacher, Kindergarten Full-time classroom teacher
(all core subjects), leads TK-2
grade-level PLC team
All staff faculty meetings,
grade-level PLC team
meeting, classroom
instruction
Teacher, 1
st
grade Full-time classroom teacher
(all core subjects), member of
TK-2 grade-level PLC team
All staff faculty meetings,
grade-level PLC team
meeting, classroom
instruction
Teacher, 2
nd
grade Full-time classroom teacher
(all core subjects), member of
TK-2 grade-level PLC team
All staff faculty meetings,
grade-level PLC team
meeting, classroom
instruction
Teacher, 3
rd
grade Full-time classroom teacher
(all core subjects), member of
3-5 grade-level PLC team
All staff faculty meetings,
grade-level PLC team
meeting, classroom
instruction
Teacher, 4
th
grade Full-time classroom teacher
(all core subjects), member of
3-5 grade-level PLC team
All staff faculty meetings,
grade-level PLC team
meeting, classroom
instruction
Teacher, 5
th
grade Full-time classroom teacher
(all core subjects), leads 3-5
grade-level PLC team
All staff faculty meetings,
grade-level PLC team
meeting, classroom
instruction
Teacher, 6
th
grade Full-time classroom teacher
(multiple grade
English/language arts),
member of 6-8 grade-level
PLC team
All staff faculty meetings,
grade-level PLC team
meeting, classroom
instruction
Teacher, 7
th
grade Full-time classroom teacher
(multiple grade
math/science), member of 6-8
grade-level PLC team
All staff faculty meetings,
grade-level PLC team
meeting, classroom
instruction
Teacher, 8
th
grade Full-time classroom teacher
(multiple grade
religion/social studies), leads
6-8 grade-level PLC team
All staff faculty meetings,
grade-level PLC team
meeting, classroom
instruction
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

50
50
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The following sections detail the procedure and process by which data were collected, as
well as an explanation of the instruments used in the data collection process. Interviews,
observations, and document analysis were used to gather data relating to the research questions.
One-on-one, semi-structured interviews were specifically geared to surface stakeholder
perceptions of knowledge and motivational influencers on the organizational goal. Observational
data were used to both triangulate data surfaced through interviews and surface data related to
organizational influencers. Document analysis supported insight into the interaction between
organizational factors and knowledge and motivational influencers, and assist in substantiating
the credibility of interview data. The desire to surface solutions and recommendations relating to
knowledge, motivational, and organizational influencers was also be a focal point of the
formulation of data collection and instrumentation.
Interviews
The first phase of the study involved one-on-one interviews of the individuals included in
the sampling group. The intent of the interviews was to allow participants that are indicative of
the stakeholder group and population to be studied provide critical information on conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive knowledge influencers, as well as gather critical insight on
potential motivational influencers. Interviews are preferred to focus groups in order to allow for
full utilization of a semi-structured protocol to gain depth and richness of response. These formal
interviews were conducted at the physical location of the school site, with the interview subject
given the choice of having the interview be conducted in the participant’s classroom or in
another room on the school site. The interview protocol, found in Appendix A, was semi-
structured in order to ensure that the appropriate range of questions will be covered to align with
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

51
51
the conceptual framework of the study while permitting the emergence of any concepts or trends
not explicitly covered in the line of questioning (Patton, 2002). Furthermore, the flexibility
afforded by a semi-structured interview protocol can help yield detailed and descriptive data
when coupled with appropriately crafted questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews were
recorded using a digital audio recording device, and I recorded additional written notes as needed
to support qualitative analysis of the data gathered. Based on the protocol developed, the intent
was to conduct one interview with each of the individuals in the participant group. If needed, I
retained the option to conduct an additional one-on-one interview with certain members of the
participant group in an unstructured format to gather data on themes emerging from collection of
interview data, observational data, and document analysis.
To surface a broad range of data related to the concepts embedded within this study,
interview participants were asked questions on values, beliefs, and experiences relating to faculty
collaboration. The use of questions to surface values, beliefs, and experiences are intended to
surface illustrative examples that can be interpreted in light of the existing literature on
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors influencing faculty collaboration and student
achievement. Knowledge questions, which surface the factual information of interview subjects
(Patton, 2002), were utilized in order to ensure that conceptualization of core concepts within the
study is consistent across participants. Demographic/background questions were also utilized in
order to potentially surface response trends across or within participant subgroups.
Observations
Observations of three specific activities were conducted. Two one-hour observations of
whole group faculty collaboration were conducted, as well as two additional one-hour
observations of smaller group faculty collaboration. Observational data were gathered via open-
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

52
52
ended field notes, and I acted as an observer-as-participant. Field notes were typed and gathered
using the protocol/template in Appendix B. Maintaining the observer role and minimizing
participation in the actual activities can reduce the potential disruption that I may have
introduced (Bogdan, 2007). The data provided some insight relating to the actual presence of
effective collaboration structures, as well as teachers’ actual participation in faculty
collaboration. Observations of smaller group faculty collaboration will also provide additional
insight into the presence of professional autonomy as an organizational element. Within these
observations, data on the physical setting, participants, activities/interactions, and conversation
was also gathered (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Six classrooms, two from each of the three grade-level bands, were also observed for a
period of 15 minutes or less. These classroom observations were targeted specifically towards
studying teacher facilitation of student learning, and I acted as an observer-as-participant. Data
from classroom observations was gathered using a semi-structured instrument, and interpreted as
a means of gathering an understanding of the connections between whole group/small group
faculty collaboration and classroom instructional practice. To increase the amount of discretion, I
used audio recording with minimal hand-written notes. This is done in an attempt to reduce the
affective filter of classroom teachers whose practice is being observed (Bogdan, 2007).
Triangulation of this observational data with interview data was used to increase the validity of
the data set related to the extent with which faculty collaboration at the site meets the criteria for
effectiveness established by the conceptual framework and relevant research.
Document Analysis
In order to facilitate data collection regarding knowledge and motivation factors
impacting organizational goal attainment, documents and artifacts were gathered as part of the
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

53
53
study. Documents and artifacts can serve as a means of determining attitudes and beliefs of
participants as it relates to the focus of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Faculty meeting
agendas, participant notes, and meeting minutes provided a basis for substantiating interview and
observational data when understanding the impact of stakeholder’s knowledge of effective
collaboration structure criteria. Additionally, document analysis of instructional plans, student
work samples, and curriculum materials generated by teachers was used in conjunction with
observation and interview data to create a deeper understanding of how stakeholder’s
participation in events leading to faculty collaboration impacts student achievement. When
triangulated with observational data, these documents can facilitate the formulation of the depth
and quality of teachers’ ability to operationalize and transfer the knowledge generated through
faculty collaboration.
Data Analysis
For interviews and observations, data analysis began during data collection. I wrote
analytic memos after each interview and each observation. I documented my thoughts, concerns,
and initial conclusions about the data in relation to my conceptual framework and research
questions. Once I left the field, interviews were transcribed and coded. In the first phase of
analysis, I used open coding, looking for empirical codes and applying a priori codes from the
conceptual framework. A second phase of analysis was conducted where empirical and a priori
codes were aggregated into analytic/axial codes. In the third phase of data analysis I identified
pattern codes and themes that emerged in relation to the conceptual framework and study
questions. I analyzed documents and artifacts, such as instructional plans, student work samples,
faculty meeting agendas, participant notes, meeting minutes, and curriculum materials generated
by teachers, for evidence consistent with the concepts in the conceptual framework.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

54
54
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To increase credibility and trustworthiness, I engaged in multiple strategies in the
collection and analysis of data, as well as ensured the implementation of particular structures
when reporting data and findings. The protocols outlined for data collection place a significant
emphasis on rich, descriptive data. Rich descriptions can support the acknowledgment of
researcher bias, as well as increase the credibility and trustworthiness of the data gathered
(Creswell, 2008; Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 2014). Furthermore, the use of multiple protocols
and sources of data allows for triangulation. The process of triangulation helps increase the
credibility of the data and justifies the resultant themes that arise from its analysis (Creswell,
2008. I also utilized strategies of respondent validation and member checking by sharing
preliminary data and analysis with participants in the context of a follow-up interview or focus
group. These processes help engage both the reader and the researcher in acknowledging the
inherent reflexivity of qualitative research (Creswell, 2008; Maxwell, 2013).
In reporting data and findings, the subsequent sections incorporated two safeguards to
increase credibility and trustworthiness. Analysis of findings will be interpreted in light of my
bias where applicable, and expounding on that bias includes further articulation of my
relationship to the organization, assumptions, and bias as articulated in the Ethics section below.
Additionally, any negative or discrepant information that runs counter to the themes, including
extreme cases, can and will be utilized in order to provide a more holistic perspective of the
study (Creswell, 2008; Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 2014).
Ethics
In order to conduct ethical research involving human subjects and conform to established
principles and guidelines for ethical research, a number of safeguards and procedures were put in
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

55
55
place for this study. Prior to any engagement with the organization to be studied and its
stakeholders, I submitted an application for review of the planned study to the Institutional
Review Board of the University of Southern California. Once this review process had occurred
and the study had been approved, I disseminated a written consent form to study participants that
clearly communicates the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of their participation, and
right to discontinue participation in the study at any time. In addition to the aforementioned
elements recommended by Glesne (2011), study participants were informed that the data
gathered as part of the study will not be used for formal or informal evaluations of job
performance on the part of any participant. This is a necessary safeguard to implement, as my
proximity to the site being studied and position in the organizational hierarchy could lead to
some harm to the participants if the research data is used for other purposes (Rubin & Rubin,
2012).
Before the interviews began, I reviewed the study, the rights of the participants, and the
procedure of the interview, per the recommendations of Krueger & Casey (2009). After allowing
each participant to ask questions, I allowed for participants to complete and certify the written
consent form or opt out of the interview. At the conclusion of the interviews, I reiterated the
purpose of the study and the rights of participants, as well as expressed gratitude for
participation.
Prior to proceeding with the study, I disclosed my relationship to the organization, as well
as any underlying assumptions or biases that may have an impact on the study. The school site to
be studied is affiliated with the umbrella organization within which I occupy a mid-level
leadership role. Although I do not directly supervise the leadership of the school site to be
studied, I engage in regular collaboration and ongoing work to define, articulate, and act upon a
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

56
56
number of structures, systems, and processes within which the school site to be studied is
compelled to act within. I also engaged in providing leadership and instructional coaching to the
site over a period of six months in 2014 as part of a structured intervention led and driven by my
organization.
In addition to direct connections to the school site to be studied, the focus on faculty
collaboration, instructional leadership, collective teacher efficacy, and professional learning
communities is codified in my primary job description and manifested in day-to-day job duties of
individual support and capacity building through coaching and professional development. I also
have been engaged in developing leadership formation programs with a local university, and this
program incorporates many of the elements of this study’s conceptual framework. In order to
preserve the integrity of the study, it was important to disclose the extent to which I share a
similar set of experiences in working in a similarly structured organization and have fulfilled
many of the professional responsibilities of the stakeholders that will be participating in the
study.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

57
57
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Overview of Purpose and Questions
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the organization’s performance related to the
larger problem of practice relating to student achievement gaps in K-12 schools within the
United States. The analysis will focus on the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and
organizational issues.
The following questions were used to guide this study:
1. What is the stakeholder knowledge and motivation related to the regular participation of
teachers in professional learning and collaborative problem-solving focused on student
learning, and the resulting implementation of changes to instructional practice?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
To address the research questions, data collection efforts comprised the use of semi-
structured participant interviews with teachers and administrators that met participation criteria;
observations of faculty meetings, grade-level meetings, and classroom instruction; and document
analysis of faculty meeting and grade-level meeting notes and agendas. This chapter will present
the results and findings based on data analysis relative to the data collection techniques.
Subsequent sections will articulate the study findings as it relates to the first two questions, and
Chapter Five will address findings related to the third question.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

58
58
Participating Stakeholders
The participants in this study were the principal and teachers at St. Stellar School, a
nonpublic elementary K-8 school. Interview participants were required to have regularly
participated in weekly formal faculty collaborative activities focused on student learning at the
school site. Based on this criteria, ten teachers and one administrator were eligible to participate.
After an invitation to participate and volunteer forms were disseminated, eight teachers and an
administrator opted to participate, and interviews were conducted with seven teachers and the
administrator. The following table lists the interview and observation participants with relevant
descriptors.
Table 7. Interview and Observation Participant Group Summary
Participant
Name*
Relevant Descriptors Settings Observed
Antonia Full-time administrator, leads full staff
faculty meeting
All staff faculty meetings
Peter Full-time classroom teacher (all core
subjects), member of TK-2 grade-level PLC
team
All staff faculty meetings,
grade-level PLC team meeting
Ashley Full-time classroom teacher (all core
subjects), member of TK-2 grade-level PLC
team
All staff faculty meetings,
grade-level PLC team meeting,
classroom instruction
Marcos Full-time classroom teacher (all core
subjects), member of 3-5 grade-level PLC
team
All staff faculty meetings,
grade-level PLC team meeting
Cesc Full-time classroom teacher (all core
subjects), member of 3-5 grade-level PLC
team
All staff faculty meetings,
grade-level PLC team meeting,
classroom instruction
Victor Full-time classroom teacher (all core
subjects), leads 3-5 grade-level PLC team
All staff faculty meetings,
grade-level PLC team meeting
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

59
59
Eden Full-time classroom teacher (multiple grade
English/language arts), member of 6-8
grade-level PLC team
All staff faculty meetings,
grade-level PLC team meeting
Daniela Full-time classroom teacher (multiple grade
religion/social studies), leads 6-8 grade-level
PLC team
All staff faculty meetings,
grade-level PLC team meeting
* all names are pseudonyms
Findings
The first research question guiding this study explores the stakeholder knowledge and
motivation related to the regular participation of teachers in professional learning and
collaborative problem-solving focused on student learning, and the resulting implementation of
changes to instructional practice.
Research Question One: Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences
Knowledge, understood as either conceptual, procedural, or metacognitive knowledge
influences, were assessed as part of this study. Conceptual knowledge involves the
recombination of isolated facts into organized, complex schemas that enable those basic
elements to function together, and includes knowledge of classifications, categories, principles,
generalizations, theories, models, and structures (Krathwohl, 2002). Procedural knowledge shifts
the focus from knowing “about” to knowing “how,” and refers to subject-specific skills,
techniques, methods, and the ability to apply appropriate procedures situationally and
contextually (Krathwohl, 2002). Metacognitive knowledge refers to an individual’s knowledge
and awareness of cognition both in general and of their own undertaking (Krathwohl, 2002).
Within a framework that conceptualized knowledge within these three dimensions and
explored assumed knowledge influences, the following sections describe the themes that
emerged from collection and analysis of data related to these influences. Interview, observation,
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

60
60
and document analysis data revealed three salient themes. First, teachers demonstrated sufficient
levels of conceptual and procedural knowledge relating to collective and individual
accountability, including the logistical structures and participative behaviors that facilitate
effective faculty collaboration. Second, although teachers establish connections between faculty
collaboration and individual practice, teachers lack self-direction and self-agency behaviors in
faculty collaboration. Finally, teachers demonstrated sufficient levels of conceptual and
procedural knowledge relating to the use of data as part of effective faculty collaboration.
Collective accountability. A common thread that ran along teachers’ descriptions of
faculty collaboration structure was the presence of an identified focus for collaborative activities.
In most cases, the identified focus for collaboration was front-loaded for teachers and made
explicit through directives or tasks. When asked about the structure of a typical faculty meeting,
Cesc shared the following:
Faculty meetings we have a prayer...then there's an objective of what the meeting is
about. But before that, obviously, we have it's like bulletin of what we're going to do
during the meeting, so either we're going to talk about STAR data, or we're going to talk
about formative assessments, or we're going to talk about an ACRE result.
Ashley differentiates whole faculty meetings and grade-level meetings, which involve a separate
mechanism for grouping teachers and an alternate venue for engaging in faculty collaborative
activities.
Our grade level meetings happen during our PE time, so it's about 45 minutes. Antonia
usually gives us the topic of conversation, so we can kind of do a little research before
she gives it to. When we come together we are basically sharing resources, discussing
what the topic of conversation is.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

61
61
The responses seem to indicate that a primary mode of an understanding of the focus for
collaborative activities is by determining the tasks to be completed during that time. Embedding
a focus through the tasks that teachers are responsible for completing during the collaborative
time promotes a shared understanding of the collaborative focus; that is, a teacher’s capacity of
understanding the how of collaboration is a means to ascertaining the what and why.
Understanding the identified focus of collaborative tasks through task determination is
reinforced by the frequency with which teachers spoke of documentation processes as an
indicator of faculty collaboration. Multiple teachers spoke to the use of note-taking as a means of
reinforcing the focus and providing structure to faculty collaboration. An analysis of templates of
faculty meetings and participant-generated faculty meeting notes revealed significant alignment
between the content generated by participants and templates that predefined the focus and
structure of faculty collaboration. Victor, who has a formalized leadership role in grade-level
meetings, shared the following about engaging with the focus of faculty collaboration:
We have an agenda prior to coming to the meeting so that everyone can be prepared.
That's one of the advantages that we have, that we already have the agenda prior to
coming to the meeting, so we're coming prepared. … Depending on the agenda, we work
on the agenda, someone takes notes on what we talk about, if we're talking about
curriculum, if we're talking about the accreditation, whatever it is that we're talking
about, someone is always taking notes on that.
Although the note-taking process is a task that is handled by a designated teacher, it reinforces a
sense of accountability and preparation when paired with the use of an agenda that formalizes the
focus of collaborative activities. The consistency and attributed importance of note-taking in
faculty collaboration is seemingly prioritized over topic-specific tasks, e.g. generating shared
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

62
62
assessments for curriculum or determining appropriate artifacts that need to be compiled for
accreditation review protocols.
Teachers understand the purpose of these and other characteristics of faculty
collaboration to be a means of ensuring accountability. Eden, a new teacher to both the school
and to the profession, linked the use of active documentation of faculty collaboration to this
belief in and desire for individual accountability.
Whether it's having discussions with each other, or with us, we do a lot of our stuff online
and so it's collaborating by putting together a Google Doc, creating edits, and anything
like that. … Everyone has a task and a responsibility to take care of, and if you miss that
opportunity then you would have to come back and do it again at some other time. But
everyone is accountable, and we hold each other accountable that way.
Accountability for desired results within faculty collaboration happens both horizontally and
vertically within St. Stellar School, and the use of documentation procedures serves as a common
vehicle. Easton (2015) asserts that the use of accountability, whether formally structured through
meeting practices or informally reinforced through an emphasis on communicating the
collaboration process, facilitates success within professional learning communities similar to
those implemented by St. Stellar School.
When asked about the path that led to effective faculty collaboration at St. Stellar School,
Antonia, who is the school’s principal, shared the following:
First here it started off with structure. I think that had you asked me this two years ago, I
would tell you they're on their Google Doc. They're filling out the sheets that I'm asking
them to fill out. They're working together. It was a way for me to just check that there's
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

63
63
some type of form that they're filling out and that they're understanding and going
through it together.
In both contexts provided, accountability seems to be defined as achieving the articulated focus
of faculty collaboration. There is notable variance in terms of how that accountability fosters
collaboration insofar as group dynamics. For Eden, the structures referenced primarily ensure
external, peer accountability; for Antonia, the structures referenced primarily ensure collective
task attainment rather than individual task attainment.
That sense of accountability is further reinforced in grade-level meetings. The grade-level
meetings occur as a sort of subset of the whole group faculty meetings, and in those grade-level
meetings, the teachers identify the presence of a leadership function. Ashley describes what that
role looks like and its function in terms of accountability:
Each grade level has its leader, per se. ... It's the teacher who, I guess, is most veteran. It's
not that they have to do more work than any of the other teachers. It's just more of a sense
that if, for example, Antonia needs to pass on information it'll go through that person
first, or like I said if we start straying off topic usually they're the ones responsible who'll
bring us back into what our topic of conversation is supposed to be.
The assertion of the grade-level leadership function in this statement is two-fold. First, the grade-
level leader is a messenger on behalf of the school’s principal. (Later sections will focus on the
role of the principal in embedding content and focus of faculty collaboration.) Second, the grade-
level leader serves as a reinforcing mechanism for the identified focus of the faculty
collaboration. Victor, who is Ashley’s grade level team leader, adds the following:
I am the leader of the level group, so what I do is… I start talking about what we're going
to do, someone takes notes, we address the topic that we're talking about. If we are
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

64
64
talking about the technology we are going to be using next year, finding different apps
that are going to be helpful for students next school year. We look at these apps, and we
create an action plan. I am in charge of leading these conversations, and someone else is
taking notes on this and submitting them to our administrator.
When combined with Ashley’s description of the function of the grade-level leader, it is not clear
as to whether the responsibility of the grade-level leader as broader than ensuring compliance to
the task or identified focus of faculty collaboration. There is an element of dissonance in this
narrow conceptualization of the grade-level leader; it could be reasonably expected that the
leader, chosen because of his or her “veteran” status, has the capacity and responsibility to imbue
those conversations with that expertise. Hallinger (2003) offers a broader understanding of what
“expertise” in leading collaboration could look like, particularly in terms of defining the mission
and purpose of faculty collaboration and ensuring a positive climate for collaborative activities.
Unfortunately, such a conceptualization of that role does not seem evident.
Individual accountability. When an identified focus for faculty collaboration is
established and multiple structures enable attainment of and accountability toward that focus, the
stakes for individual preparation and participation in collaboration are increased. For Ashley, this
is one of the most salient characteristics of effective faculty collaboration.
I think effective faculty collaboration happens when everyone does their part. It's
extremely difficult if, for example, one person hasn’t done all their research prior to
coming to the meeting because we do get our agendas before we get the topic of
conversation for our grade levels meeting. ...if people are coming prepared, and they
know what they're going to be talking about rather than people who haven't done the
preparation for it.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

65
65
Ashley alludes to this expectation of work being done on the part of individual teachers as a
precursor to effective participative behaviors within faculty collaborative activities. Whether the
prerequisite work is simply a matter of gathering materials or conducting “research,” there is a
belief that a direct line can be drawn from the quality of preparation for collaboration to the
quality of individual teacher behaviors within collaboration.
Many teachers reiterated the negative impact of a lack of individual preparation for
faculty collaboration as a difficulty they’ve experienced in engaging in faculty collaboration. In
certain cases, the lack of individual preparation leads to teacher resistance:
I felt like there's more resistance during grade-level meetings... sometimes that might be a
time for them to if they forgot to make copies of something, like they forgot to do a
certain activity that's due. … "Oh, I have to do this, oh, I have to do that." I can see the
resistance in that, that they weren't prepared for something beforehand, so yeah, that
would be the resistance.
Eden also added that “when any one person doesn’t step up to the plate, it can really slow down
the process, or make things difficult or challenging.” A critical distinction to make here is that
the presence of undesired behaviors in faculty collaboration seems to be attributed not to the
focus of faculty collaboration or the tasks within faculty collaborative activities. Therefore, a
breakdown in an individual’s accountability to the rest of the grade-level group has a significant
impact on the group’s capacity to achieve the identified focus of the faculty collaborative
activity.
Varied impacts of collaboration on individual practice. Effective faculty collaboration
that has a significant and positive impact on student learning requires teachers to make
connections between faculty collaboration and individual practice, especially practice related to
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

66
66
curriculum, instruction, and assessment (Marks & Printy, 2003; Many & Ling, 2008). Cesc
describes one particular way in which the evaluation of a technology-based tool for student
learning occurs in faculty collaboration:
We talk about the pros and cons about it and we see, is this effective in our classroom? If
we decide it's effective, first, we have to introduce it to the students. If it's a specific tool,
then we kind of have to give them a rundown of what it is and how we're going to
implement it and see if it's effective for them. … So we gather data for that, then we
come back … and then we want to see, "Oh, does it work? does it not work?”
The process that Cesc articulates involves 1) providing a space for teachers to reflect on
classroom practice considerations; 2) a commitment to some sort of individual action in
classroom practice; 3) data gathering based on that individual action in classroom practice; and
4) analysis of that data within faculty collaboration. It is crucial to note that this process is
indicative of a data-driven decision making framework that effectively builds capacity among
teachers and develops new conceptual and procedural knowledge (Schildkamp, Poortman, &
Handelzalts, 2016; Dunn, Airola, Lo & Garrison, 2013). As teachers participate in that circular
process of collective inquiry and individual implementation, classroom instructional practice is
refined across individual teachers. When asked to share about the benefits of engaging in faculty
collaboration, Marcos stated:
I feel like just sharing what we do in the classroom, sharing what we do and then from
There. … Now, being my third year I'm able to give more input and say this is
what I've tried, and this is what I've noticed. That way I can let Cesc know, "Hey. Don't
be scared to do this with them. They can do it." Or he'll tell me what he's done, and he'll
tell me, "Don't be scared to do this with the kids."
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

67
67
By providing a collaborative context for engaging in improvements to individual teacher
classroom practice, teachers are able to increase the scale and extent to which they are able to
implement different strategies and assess their efficacy in a way that may potentially be more
powerful than doing so in isolation. When the collaborative context is coupled with the reflective
process for evaluating and implementing changes to classroom practice that Cesc describes, it
reinforces an orientation towards results as a means of operationalizing “efficacy.”
A sustained focus on classroom practice also allows for teachers to ascertain alignment
between the structure of effective faculty collaboration and effective classroom practice. Cesc
describes the varying methods of engagement offered to teachers within faculty collaboration:
Antonia usually introduces the topic. She talks about what we're going to do, then she
allows us, actually, to split up in our grade-level groups within the meeting. So in that
meeting each group is assigned a task and, after we're done completing the task, we come
back together as a whole group, and then we discuss the task or what we accomplished
together. So kind of like the classroom environment, the teacher models, and then gives
the students a chance to work together, and then we have to come back together as one.
Cesc’s description of varying methods of engagement interprets the gradual release of
responsibility model for scaffolding instruction that is in use at St. Stellar School (Duke &
Pearson, 2002). By providing this particular description in response to a question on what
constitutes effective faculty collaboration, he is affirming the desirability of this particular model
in advancing both student (pedagogy) and adult learning (andragogy). Document analysis of
teacher lesson plans revealed significant alignment between activities planned for student
learning and activities observed in faculty collaboration, including multiple exposures to targeted
content and peer-to-peer discussion.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

68
68
There is a significant distinction to be made in terms of talking about and collaborating
on effective instructional practice in faculty collaboration activities versus modeling effective
instructional practice in faculty collaboration activities. By reconceptualizing faculty
collaboration as a means of fostering learning amongst teachers rather than simply compliance to
task attainment, engaging in faculty collaboration provides the potential to implicitly reinforce
strategies for fostering learning in classroom settings.
Faculty collaboration has also facilitated the implementation of emerging instructional
practices. St. Stellar School utilizes an “intervention” structure that is informed by a data analysis
and instructional planning process that occurs partially within grade-level meetings. One
observation in Ashley’s classroom provides a vignette of how intervention-informed classroom
instruction is implemented. In this particular vignette, Ashley instructs students working in
groups around the room to clean up materials, and circulates through the room checking for
compliance while giving instructions to student groups as to their next “station” for classroom
learning activities. After providing the go-ahead for students to transition to their respective
stations, Ashley identifies a small group of 5 students to join her at a table near the back of the
room for a targeted small group lesson on describing the characteristics of different genres.
This particular vignette of intervention-informed classroom instruction involves a couple
of key practices that were referenced in participant interviews: the use of explicit procedures for
student routines and transitions within classroom learning centers, targeted small-group
instruction, and the use of technology and digital apps for learners to engage in specific academic
content. Variance within those practices is informed by discussions in grade-level meetings, as
described by Marcos:
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

69
69
We discuss what do you do in interventions? How often do you do intervention?
Questions like that really help out because here I thought I only have time to do one
intervention for math once a week, one intervention for reading once a week. But when
we get together, like for Victor, she would say she does reading interventions twice a
week and then math twice a week. She would cut down social studies and science. That
stuff helps out a lot, because then I'm like, "Okay. I can do that too, cut it down." That
way we're all on the same pace.
Marcos suggests that discussions within faculty collaboration strike a balance between autonomy
and coherence; there is evidence of a shared commitment to specific instructional practices (e.g.
intervention) with variability in terms of implementation specifics (e.g. subject area focus,
instructional time allocation). Discussions are catalyzed by posing the presence of gaps in
individual classroom practice or by sharing examples of promising or implemented practices.
During a grade level meeting, I observed the grades 2-5 teachers engaging in a discussion on a
number of technology tools for vocabulary acquisition, including Flocabulary and Quizlet. In
addition to sharing the tools’ features, each teacher shared potential use cases, shared exemplars,
and discussed how relevant it was to upcoming instructional plans.
Characterized in that particular exchange is the focus on a particular instructional strategy
or resource and the explicit connection to potential implementation in individual classroom
practice. Other observed discussions along this theme exhibited similar explicit connections
between resources and strategies to relevant and timely considerations of individual classroom
practice.
Faculty collaboration is also characterized by a focus on student success. Teachers
broadly operationalized “success” and “growth,” pointing to both quantitative and qualitative
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

70
70
metrics, but were consistent in terms of delineating that focus as a marker of effective faculty
collaboration at the school:
I think it's because we all have the same intentions. We all want our kids to grow and
succeed. I feel like, because we know that of each other, we step it up and we really want
to challenge our kids. ... I feel like every teacher knows each child individually. Because
we've had them year after year, we're able to voice out our opinions about how they were,
how much they've grown, what they can work on the next year. There's a relatedness,
there's a lot of connection. Everyone's just really determined to see each kid succeed.
When asked the same question, Victor described faculty collaboration as proof of the presence of
a “community of learning because everything [they] do, [they] do it for the students.” Both
teachers are making significantly notable attributions as to the rationale for both collaboration in
and of itself and the focus of the work done in faculty collaboration to something greater than the
tasks and the act of collaboration in and of itself.
Self-direction and self-agency behaviors. Teacher actions in faculty collaboration
exhibited sufficient levels of procedural knowledge relating to exercising self-direction and self-
agency in utilizing faculty collaboration to impact instructional practice. Potential instructional
practice with students is weighed against teacher appraisal of potential impact in the classroom.
When asked if engaging in professional development and training impacts tasks and focus in
faculty collaboration, Peter shares the following:
Does that impact what we do? Somewhat. Not fully, I think. I think we know what works
best for our faculty, and we just continue to implement. We do take it. I feel like we are
aware of it, and if it's something we feel is effective, we will implement it. I definitely
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

71
71
consider it if it's appropriate for my classroom, because I feel like, as a faculty, we're all
very willing to learn and willing to grow.
This and other comments seem to suggest that there is a space between the work that is done in
faculty collaboration and the implementation of instructional strategies in the classroom. In that
space, teachers exercise autonomy in terms of weighing in the anticipated efficacy and feasibility
of a particular instructional practice. Some of the cognitive work that is involved in that appraisal
process happens in faculty collaboration itself (notably, through the orientation towards student
success articulated by Victor and the process for evaluating particular instructional strategies
Cesc described earlier), but some of it seems to occur individually.
However, there is a substantial amount of the focus and tasks for faculty collaboration
that are programmatic and not necessarily determined by the teachers themselves. Leavitt, Palius,
Babst, et. al (2013) argue that allowing for teacher selection of meaningful topics in faculty
collaboration can foster positive engagement and empowerment that is needed as a precondition
for teacher self-efficacy. Antonia, the school’s principal, describes how tasks are informed by the
cycle of the school year:
When we're closer to STAR testing, before and after, they're collaborating a lot with
intervention. ... For example, right after each STAR testing, they take all their suggested
skills after they do their grouping and they discuss, "How else can we help these
students?" … Another thing too is curriculum mapping towards this end of the school
year. We always start curriculum mapping around May and June, so that by August time,
we'll have a full curriculum map once we start the school year.
Timing the focus and collaboration of tasks to the school year can increase the relevance of
faculty collaboration activities for teachers, but no teacher was able to express the rationale for
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

72
72
faculty collaboration tasks and activities within that mindset. Furthermore, what is missing from
the principal’s description of the determination of focus for faculty collaboration is a feedback
loop from the teachers to the administrator (or from one grade-level group to another). There is
certainly the potential to create a mechanism whereby the collaborative problem-solving work of
teachers then informs the overarching focus of faculty collaboration.
Data use processes as collaboration. A number of teachers at St. Stellar School
remarked on how the use of data in collaboration was significant evidence of the move towards
effective faculty collaboration. Ashley shared this about how faculty collaboration has impacted
student achievement:
I think that in comparing this year to my first year I've seen a lot more talk about data and
seeing how we can use data to formulate instruction, and I think that's great because we
do use what we've analyzed to differentiate instruction for our students, so I think that's
been a really great big part of it because they are learning at their level, learning the skills
that they need to be more focused on.
The use of data in collaboration offers teachers a way to inform the process of identifying
classroom instructional strategies that best meet the needs of diverse groups of learners. Data is
used in faculty collaboration to collectively determine the levels of learners and the appropriate
skills of focus. It also serves a means of assessing the efficacy of collectively determined and
implemented strategies. Dunn, Airola, Lo & Garrison (2013) identify collective determination of
concrete actions as a result of a data analysis process to be a key element in utilizing data to
support faculty collaboration.
Everyone can cooperate, they are on board. When we disaggregate STAR test data with
each other to see who is on watch, above average, average, and below average, so we all
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

73
73
work together creating folders so that we can visualize that, so we can help ... And
creating different ideas on how we can help students.
Just as note-taking and the use of agendas provides a logistical structure to reinforce focus and
task attainment in faculty collaboration, the use of data folders serve as a logistical structure that
reinforces the intended uses of data within faculty collaboration to support student learning and
instructional planning.
Research Question Two: Motivation Findings
The first research question guiding this study also explored the interaction between
organizational culture and context and stakeholder knowledge and motivation. Influences on
motivation, defined as the construct that catalyzes individuals towards task completion and
establishing a purpose for accomplishing the task, were assessed and analyzed as part of this
study. Eccles (2006) posits the theory that motivation is a product of an individual’s expectations
for success and the value that the individual attributes to choices of action that the individual can
pursue. Additionally, Pajares (2009) asserts that the extent to which an individual possesses self-
efficacy - defined as the judgments that individuals hold about their capacity to learn or perform
tasks at specific levels - significantly influences motivation.
Within a framework that conceptualized motivation within these two dimensions and
explored assumed motivation influences, the following describes the themes that emerged from
collection and analysis of data related to these influences. Interview, observation, and document
analysis data revealed two themes. First, teachers are highly motivated to engage in faculty
collaboration because they can link faculty collaborative activities to positive changes in student
learning, teacher practice, and instructional planning. Second, teachers of varying experience
levels are able to identify and execute their “role” in faculty collaborative activities.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

74
74
Task value. Data gathered on motivation influences regarding teacher participation in
faculty collaboration activities for student learning suggests high levels of task value influencing
active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Teachers are able to identify and articulate the
impact of the identified focus, specific tasks, and collective routines on student learning. For
example, Ashley shares the following on how structuring interventions and engaging in
collective analysis and use of data has impacted the growth of students:
I think it's impacting student learning especially with my own observations. I think that
I've seen a lot of growth in students. I have students who even though they're in second
grade they're reading at a fifth grade level, so I know how I can challenge them. I can see
that they're engaged. They're not getting bored because they're just reading second grade
material. But I also see those students who are struggling a little bit slowly being able to
kind of pick up on any skills that they might have missed.
Cesc is more reluctant to establish a direct correlation between faculty collaboration and
improved student outcomes, but describes how the potential impact of collective instructional
planning in faculty collaboration can provide opportunities for improved student outcomes:
I think you see a growth in ... their test scores or any formative assessments. I mean, I
can't really correlate that's faculty collaboration, but I mean what I can see is that
collaboration does give a chance for students to address any misconceptions because the
other students can address that, and then I can address it. Because then in smaller groups
and once they collaborate, I can address their needs easier in smaller groups.
In these and other interview responses, teachers expressed great value in the work being done in
faculty collaboration. It is feasible to consider that the resulting actions of teachers in supporting
student learning in the classroom could have happened absent of faculty collaborative work, but
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

75
75
teacher responses indicate that the choices being made in how to best support student learning in
the classroom are a direct result of the collective work being done in faculty collaboration
activities.
Attempting to move the needle on student learning without an explicit focus on teacher
practices would be a deficient approach; therefore, the capacity of teachers to attribute the value
of faculty collaboration on positive changes in teacher practice is vital. In certain cases,
identifying the parallels between effectively structuring faculty collaboration to foster adult
learning and effectively structuring classroom instruction imbues a sense of value in engaging in
faculty collaboration. When asked to identify the benefits of faculty collaboration on student
achievement, Cesc shares this:
Since we collaborate, I think that implements into our teaching style. I think that it
creates more of a student-led classroom, instead of a teacher-led classroom. Instead of
teacher lecturing all day, the students are more engaged in group activities that are
effective because you have to create group activities that keep them engaged, just like in
faculty meetings.
Cesc’s implicit assertion is that the shift from “student-led” to “teacher-led” is analogous to high
levels of teacher engagement and agency within faculty collaboration. Angelle and Teague
(2014) and Lieberman and Pointer Mace (2009) argue that valuable faculty collaboration
activities include opportunities to purposefully engage teachers in critical analysis of practice and
opportunities to unwrap its complexity. As teachers see the benefit and impact of particular
methods in which faculty collaboration is structured in their own work, they are then motivated
to make similar changes to the way they structure learning for students in their individual
classrooms.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

76
76
Teachers at St. Stellar believe that high levels of engagement are a precursor to optimal
levels of student success. Although there is not enough evidence to suggest a common
conceptualization of what constitutes engagement amongst teachers, the acting hypothesis
amongst teachers on the importance of student engagement is that their own participation in
engaging faculty collaborative activities motivates them to then make changes to instructional
practice in pursuit of similar levels of engagement, thereby increasing learning. In one interview,
Eden is asked how the creation of “community” in faculty collaboration impacts student learning
and student achievement. She responds with the following:
I think it helps with, first of all, students being respectful in the classroom, because they
know the teachers that they're dealing with and they know that they need to be respectful
to each other, as well. And having that respect and that openness and understanding of
this is the way things work here, then the students come to the classroom with a whole
nother mindset that allows them to take in more.
There is a compelling argument being offered here by Eden as to how teachers see high levels of
value in faculty collaboration vis-a-vis its impact on student engagement. The act of engaging in
faculty collaboration establishes a culture - “the way things work here” - that influences student
mindset that increases the possible levels of learning (“allows them to take in more”). She
specifically identifies respect, openness, and understanding as some of the key qualities that
translate from faculty collaboration to student learning in the classroom. Those qualities foster an
alignment of mindset that is a strong and supportive precondition for increased capacity among
both student and adult learners (King, 2011).
Collectively, identifying the impact and value of faculty collaboration in these areas of
student learning, instructional practice improvement, and student engagement reinforces high
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

77
77
levels of task attainment as another way in which teachers value faculty collaboration. Eden
shares that, in her opinion, faculty collaboration is a valuable use of time:
I think because of all the things we're able to accomplish, and not just for ourselves as a
team as a faculty, but our overall goal is for the students. And based on how I've seen our
school grow throughout this year, and how I feel like I've grown with the faculty as well,
I feel like that is the reason.
The orientation towards student success occurs frequently within discussions of the attributed
value of faculty collaboration activities. Multiple responses from teachers reaffirm that many of
the other benefits that increase motivation to engage in faculty collaboration can be ultimately
framed within the extent to which it supports student success.
Self-efficacy. A notable theme that emerged in an exploration of the roles and desired
behaviors of teachers engaging in faculty collaboration was the extent to which the articulation
of the possible ways to engage in faculty collaboration impacted the self-efficacy of teachers.
The resulting levels of self-efficacy then influenced the active choice, persistence, and mental
effort of teachers in engaging in faculty collaboration. Peter shared the following about his
thoughts on what effective faculty collaboration looks like:
Peter: Just a lot of discussion, I think, and productivity. Everyone has their own job.
Everyone knows each other's strengths, so we work towards the strengths of everybody.
For example, I know (REDACTED), she's not good with tech, so it's either me or
(REDACTED) who's usually typing things out or researching things. She has so much
experience, so that's her strength. Basically, she's had tons of experience with students, so
she … contributes that part to our faculty meetings.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

78
78
Although individual teacher “roles” are variable, it does present a challenge to teachers that are
newer to the school. In later comments, Peter shares the following regarding his understanding of
grade level meetings and faculty meetings:
I feel like the grade level meetings are less productive than the faculty meetings, just
because we have (REDACTED), who's still new to the school, so she doesn't ... We take
some time, five or ten minutes, to explain what's going on before we dive into the actual
work. We only have 40 minutes, so it whittles it down to about half an hour. It limits
even more, versus other grade levels. Everyone already knows what's happening, so they
just get right into the work.
Since teachers place high value on task attainment within faculty collaboration, bridging
understanding in terms of the focus and tasks to be completed during faculty collaboration can
inhibit task attainment and motivation (both individually and collectively). However, Peter draws
a critical distinction between personal strengths (understood as areas of related expertise to
teacher practice) and the specific behaviors that are part and parcel of effective faculty
collaboration at St. Stellar School. That distinction suggests that self-efficacy within that core set
of behaviors can promote or inhibit task attainment quality.
Self-efficacy is also a byproduct of the quality of individual preparation for collaboration
mentioned earlier. Eden’s response to a question about her role in faculty collaboration is
indicative of the association many teachers draw between the quality of the individual
preparation work done and their own capacity to contribute to faculty collaboration:
I think it's pretty equal to the rest of the faculty, in terms of making sure that I come with
whatever I need, turning in those documents on time. A lot of times it'll be things like
keeping lists of ... like the most recent thing we're doing is creating an inventory for our
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

79
79
books. And things like that where it's, if we do not turn our things in on time, it'll bring
the process backwards or slow it down. And so, if we are all contributing to that, then I
feel like that's ... we kind of meet in the middle. And so that we're all at an equal level
keeping each other accountable, and I feel like I contribute to that and I'm a part of that,
as well.
As a teacher new to the school, Eden’s response demonstrates an understanding of her individual
role in faculty collaboration formulated through direct experience of positive and negative
experiences within faculty collaboration. Her assertion that she is able to contribute to fostering
peer accountability is particularly noteworthy given her status as a “new” teacher at the school,
and reveals a sense of empowerment that comes from this clear conceptualization of her role in
faculty collaboration.
Synthesis of Knowledge and Motivation Findings
The analysis of findings gathered through interviews, observations, and document
analysis validated the presence of teacher conceptual knowledge of effective characteristics of
faculty collaboration focused on student learning as a key knowledge asset relating to the
stakeholder performance goal. The collected evidence suggests that teachers possessed many of
the critical conceptual knowledge assets central to the stakeholder performance goal, including a
focus on student success, collective work done to support curriculum, instruction, and
assessment through improving teaching and learning, and an awareness of the logistical
structures that reinforce the focus and collective work. Document analysis of meeting notes,
participant-completed spreadsheets, and data folders used showcased high levels of teacher
fluency in both expressing the purpose and characteristics of effective faculty collaboration and
operationalizing those characteristics into observable practices.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

80
80
In addition, the collected evidence suggests that teachers possessed significant levels of
procedural knowledge with regards to contributing to collaboration focused on student learning.
The most significant procedural knowledge influence that emerged was the capacity of teachers
to contribute to faculty collaboration focused on student learning through relevant individual
classroom instructional practice and modify individual classroom instructional practice as a
result of faculty collaboration. This particular professional practice loop powerfully legitimizes
the focus on student success, especially when considering there is a strong emphasis on surfacing
evidence as to the impact of faculty collaboration on student learning.
The underlying current of high levels of structure within faculty collaboration has the
additional effect of highlighting some salient gaps with regards to teacher knowledge and skills.
Since teachers conceptualize and practice faculty collaboration with high levels of structure and
protocol, there is little room for teacher self-agency in terms of determining the focus and tasks
of faculty collaboration. A trend that surfaced across interview responses was the sense that
faculty collaboration is programmed so intensely that even when teachers engage in reflection on
collaboration, it is frequently done within a predetermined scope of analysis, typically defined by
externally-determined focus areas. It is a gap that is important to address as it can potentially
mitigate the prospect of diminishing returns on both student and adult learning that so-called
“contrived collaboration” can lead to.
By establishing clear criteria for “successful” faculty collaboration and enforcing rigid
structures and protocols for meeting those goals, an analysis of the data reveals that teachers
were highly motivated to participate in and contribute to faculty collaboration for student
learning. Observed participant behaviors, including the frequency of optimal levels of task and
discussion engagement within faculty collaboration activities, substantiated participant interview
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

81
81
responses that expressed perceptions of relevance of faculty collaboration and attribution of
expectancy-task value to those activities.
The question as to whether a causal connection can be determined from the specific
faculty collaboration on increases in student achievement remains open. Ideally, the impacts of
faculty collaboration on student learning can and should be triangulated with an analysis of
student performance data, including standardized testing that aligns with the organizational
performance goal and pre/post-assessments of targeted learning goals from classroom
instruction. Although teachers frequently described positive impacts of faculty collaboration on
student learning (and in some cases, referencing standardized testing), the findings articulated
here fall short of isolating faculty collaborative activities as being significantly influential on
moving the needle on student achievement.
The second research question guiding this study explores the interaction between
organizational culture and context and stakeholder knowledge and motivation.
Research Question Two: Organizational Culture and Context
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) propose two constructs about organizational culture –
cultural models or the observable beliefs and values shared by individuals in groups, and cultural
settings, or the settings and activities in which performance occurs. Thus, both resources and
processes and cultural models and settings can align throughout the organization’s structure to
achieve the mission and goals.
Within a framework that conceptualized organizational culture within those two
constructs and explored the interaction between assumed organizational influences and
stakeholder knowledge and motivation, the following sections describe the themes that emerged
from collection and analysis of data related to these influences. Interview, observation, and
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

82
82
document analysis data revealed three themes. First, the role of an administrator in enabling
teachers to engage in faculty collaboration for student learning is significant. Second, specific
organizational structures, such as scheduling and time allocation, can either foster or negate the
impact of faculty collaboration on student learning. Third, the use of a grade level meeting
structure fosters alignment across classrooms and broadens teachers focus to look at the impact
of their efforts on the school as a whole.
The role of the administrator. The results from data collection suggest that the
administrator’s role in enabling teachers to engage in faculty collaboration is significant. As
mentioned earlier, teachers spoke to the presence of an identified focus, specific tasks, and
logistical structures to reinforce focus and task attainment within faculty collaboration. In the
vast majority of cases, including inquiry related to faculty meetings, it was evident that the focus,
tasks, and structures were primarily driven by the administrator. Ashley shares the extent to
which Antonia, the principal, defines those critical areas of effective faculty collaboration:
If we have to take notes we'll take notes on Google Doc or we'll be like, "Okay, you take
notes today," or someone takes notes. Then we go through the topic of discussion that
Antonia sets up for us. Then there's faculty meetings, which is all TK through eight
teachers, and Antonia on Friday afternoon. It's more structured than the grade level
meetings because there's usually multiple topics to talk about, and Antonia leads it.
The reach of the administrator in directly influencing and structuring faculty collaboration
extends to the roles that individuals fill within the roles that teachers possess within related
activities. Cesc describes how the role of the grade-level leader is fulfilled and articulated by the
administrator:
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

83
83
Antonia assigns three grade level, I would say, chairs, I guess you can call them, so you
have the kindergarten teacher, the fifth-grade teacher, and the eighth-grade teacher. …
They're basically in, I would say, in charge of the meeting, so they're creating
accountability in that sense. They have to make sure that everyone's on task, that they're
ready, that they're prepared.
The interview excerpts referenced here indicate that there is a transmission of values and beliefs
that impact teacher knowledge and skills originating from the administrator herself. It is an
extension of the gap identified earlier in this chapter about the lack of a feedback loop from
teachers that is indicative of an area of growth in terms of teacher autonomy and self-agency in
faculty collaboration; when teachers engage in faculty collaboration, it is an extension of
intentional action on the part of the administrator to embed a focus and direction for the
collective work of teachers.
The administrator herself occupies a unique perch and perspective with regards to the
broader goals of faculty collaboration. Antonia shares the following about how her
conceptualization of the role of an administrator influences the means by which she influences
faculty collaboration:
Yes. I'm able to see I guess the bigger picture of things. It's not just when the
kindergarten teacher looks at the growth of their specific kids. Even though we're
collaborative and we want to see the whole thing, I see the different perspectives in terms
of the parents, in terms of the kids, in terms of the teachers. I see the bigger picture of
things also.
That said, the data is inconclusive as to how the so-determined idiosyncrasies of the role of the
administrator in faculty collaboration influences the content and tasks of faculty collaboration.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

84
84
Victor shares this example of the level of involvement the administrator can play in achieving
the focus of administrator-determined faculty collaboration:
We had a very important meeting where our principal had us work in groups, and see the
different aspects of Common Core explained to us, that there are standards for literature,
and standards for informational text, and that there are 10 standards for each one of those
domains. And she was very effective in teaching us that aspect, as well.
In this particular example, the description of the administrator’s role expresses a belief that just
as a teacher may exhibit high levels of control and agency as to the focus and methods by which
students learn in individual classrooms, the administrator exhibits high levels of control and
agency by which teachers engage in learning relevant to their job responsibilities as classroom
teachers. Also of note is the fact the local school site administrator in a parochial school like St.
Stellar is typically the primary driver and determinant of curriculum, instruction, and assessment
processes; even though the school is affiliated with a larger educational organization, governance
models dictate that the school site administrator is the de facto chief academic officer for their
school site. Irrespective of perceptions of expertise, the administrator plays a critical role in
determining the means by which teachers achieve the stated goals and complete the determined
tasks embedded within faculty collaboration.
The administrator plays a critical role in shaping the character of how accountability is
understood and reinforced within faculty collaboration activities. In particular, the administrator
can be particularly important in addressing resistance to faculty collaboration. Antonia shares her
particular strategy as an administrator in addressing resistance:
Resistance happens when they're not so sure of why things are being implemented. If you
give them the facts and you're very transparent with them, usually they understand. If not,
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

85
85
I take them in separately one on one to discuss. More so, how can I help you with this
process? It's more of, "This is what's going to happen. This is where we're moving
towards. How can I help you so that you can be a better person with this
implementation?”
Despite the potential lack of motivation that may result on the part of teachers when presented
with this particular role and function of the administrator, there is a unique value that is
attributed by teachers to the role of the administrator in fostering effective faculty collaboration.
As a grade level team leader, Victor recognizes this about the importance of the administrator’s
role in faculty collaboration:
As long as teachers are willing to collaborate with their peers, we can attack the area
where we are lacking. The collaboration in our school has impacted student learning, and
it shows. It's not just because I am saying it, but there is data that proves that. Like I
mentioned, when there is a great leader who works with you, in all aspects of the school
community, it really engages the teachers to jump on the wagon and do the same thing.
Attributing faculty collaboration to student successes seemingly mitigates the lack of agency that
teachers have in determining the focus and tasks of faculty collaboration. What Antonia shares
about her strategy in dealing with resistance reveals her theory of how and why resistance to
faculty collaboration occurs amongst teachers – namely, that it comes from a lack of perceived
value or rationale for those processes – and that the role of the administrator is to ensure
adequate communication of that rationale or value while creating structures to directly support
attainment of that rationale or value. Victor’s statements seem to bear out the positive impact on
teacher affect vis a vís administrator-articulated rationale for faculty collaboration. The capacity
to deal with resistance through communication strategies and the empowerment of stakeholders
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

86
86
is indicative of a transformational leadership approach that leads to high-quality pedagogy and
high levels of student performance (Marks and Printy, 2003).
Scheduling and time structures. Although the principal at St. Stellar school has the
capacity and the intention to shape structures to facilitate a focus on faculty collaboration
activities and prioritize them for impact on student learning, interview responses revealed the
impact of scheduling and time structures on the effectiveness of faculty collaboration. Withuout
sufficient scheduling and time structures, teachers are less likely to meet collaborative goals
(Leonard & Leonard, 1999). The grade-level meeting, in particular, is negatively impacted by
scheduling and time constraints. Antonia expresses the difficulties she perceives in establishing
effective grade-level collaboration:
In the beginning, it was hard to get into the routine of things, but I think that just
changing up the groups a little bit. Maybe having our new math teacher work with other
teachers because he's great with math and he can give them ideas. I think different
groupings would be good, but again, that's time because it's hard to designate scheduling
a time unless I have eighth grade with TK for P.E. Everyone is meeting with the same
people all the time. Even though we do have whole group meetings on Fridays, we don't
get to touch upon a lot of the grade level meetings that they've already had.
At St. Stellar School, the teachers are able to meet in grade-level meetings because students in
multiple grade levels attend physical education (P.E.) classes together, thereby creating release
time for multiple teachers simultaneously. Antonia acknowledges that while that strategy has
been successful, it has reached a limitation in terms of being able to create increasingly
purposeful groupings of teachers especially when those groupings don’t lend themselves to the
rigid grade-level team configurations.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

87
87
Collaboration also loses some of its impact because of the varied responsibilities teachers
have at St Stellar School. Antonia shares the following with regards to potential areas of growth
for faculty collaboration:
I would love for them to read and see each other's lesson plans. I think that would be
great and to get ideas off of each other. … is doing this great social studies unit that I
think would be also wonderful for fifth grade, but there's not a lot of time for that. That's
what they've asked, for more time. Tutor after school and student council after school or
yearbook. They're doing things above and beyond. I wish I could designate a certain time
for them.
Peter provides a different angle to how perceived improvements to faculty collaboration are
challenging given the broad responsibilities of teachers, this time citing the breadth of the
content they are required to teach:
I would love for us to spend a week just peer observing, then talking about what we see
in the classroom. We literally do not have any time for that. I think Miss Alberto had us
do it once last trimester, but that was it. I was like, "Oh, I love to see you more." We just
don't have the time, because we're teaching everything.
It is important to understand that the organizational context establishes much more gravity to
these interview responses. In particular, the limited staffing of the school and the use of self-
contained, multiple subject classroom configurations increases the burden on teachers to the
extent that it decreases the amount of time available for faculty collaboration. With limited time
for collaboration comes a limit to the breadth and impact of faculty collaborative activities.
Multi-grade/whole-school focus. Despite the limitations inherent in structuring specific
formal collaboration activities for predetermined grade-level teams, those weekly grade level
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

88
88
meetings have powerfully shaped the capacity of teachers to broaden their scope of impact and
awareness past their own classrooms. Cesc shared the following about why he felt faculty
collaboration is a valuable use of time:
We have one person per grade, so we don't really get to talk with the other fourth ...
there's no other fourth-grade teacher here, so we have to collaborate in the sense that we
have to say, "Oh, this is what they're doing in the fifth grade. This is what they're doing in
third grade." We can also work together to see how we can help them, we can challenge
our students and fulfill their needs. We can say, "Oh, they're doing this in the fourth, fifth
grade, so let me help them with this." I think it all works together as one group.
The benefit of a multi-grade structure and focus extends to non-instructional needs. Eden
provides a unique perspective on how having a multi-grade level focus has bridged knowledge
gaps as a teacher new to the school:
Especially with junior high, a lot of the collaboration has to do with making sure the
transitions between all three grades are smooth. This is my first year teaching here, so a
lot of the beginning meetings that we would have for grade levels would be catching us
up on what events we would have coming up, because there was always something
happening every week.
Utilizing faculty collaboration as a space to create and engage in a focus that extends across
multiple grade-levels helps mitigate two barriers implicit in the aforementioned responses: first,
that the small size of the school and having only one teacher per-grade level creates a missed
opportunity for increasingly relevant and effective collaborative activities, and second, that the
broad responsibilities of teachers create an arguably intense work environment that could impact
knowledge and motivation towards engaging in faculty collaboration for student learning. The
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

89
89
considerations of school size, instructional staff configuration, and broad teacher responsibilities
are typical of parochial, non-public schools like St. Stellar School (Goldschmidt & Walsh, 2013;
Ozar & Weitzel-O’Neill, 2013). Thus, the multiple-grade level focus utilized as a means of
purposeful grouping illumines a potentially beneficial practice for similarly situated schools.
The broader, multi-classroom and grade level focus created by the grade-level meeting
structure opens up possibility for meaningful collaboration outside of the grade-level meeting
structure. A particular observation vignette from a faculty meeting showed the richness of those
discussions within faculty collaboration. Antonia, the principal, framed the discussion around
closing achievement gaps in grammar. Teachers in multiple grade levels, from 3
rd
to 8
th
, shared
the impact of grammar mastery gaps in multiple subject areas while weaving in examples of
instructional strategies and cross-curricular instructional planning. The exchange, although
facilitated by the principal, was characterized by both an openness to sharing examples of
practice and collective processing of how to best apply those ideas in different grade-level and
subject area contexts.
In this particular exchange between teachers, there was evidence of a common focus and
an interchange of relevant classroom practices around that focus. Despite some of the
aforementioned barriers posed by scheduling and time structures, as well as by teacher job
responsibilities, teacher actions seem to indicate an organizational culture that places significant
importance of contributing to the practice of teachers in other classrooms and grade levels.
The presence of this particular characteristic of the organizational culture present at St.
Stellar is best encapsulated by how Victor describes the context and end result of faculty
collaboration:
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

90
90
We are a community of learning, and this is very fundamental to the school community,
to the school life. As long as teachers are willing to collaborate with their peers, we can
attack the area where we are lacking. The collaboration in our school has impacted
student learning, and it shows. It's not just because I am saying it, but there is data that
proves that. We're a very close-knit community here, and we all work together for one
common goal, which is improving student learning.
The notion of a “community of learning” serves a dual purpose as it relates to faculty
collaboration. First, it describes an optimal organizational cultural model and setting that
positively impacts teacher knowledge and motivation, including a belief in the need to
collaborate with peers to impact student learning so that joint efforts are more impactful than the
sum total of activities and tasks done (Gronn, 2002). Second, it prescribes particular knowledge
and motivation influencers as being part and parcel of using faculty collaboration to impact
student learning, including an orientation towards student success and a disposition to utilizing
data. Both work in tandem to reinforce a broader conceptualization amongst teachers as to the
scope of their individual and collective work.
Synthesis of Organization Findings
The three major themes relating to organizational cultural models and settings each
interact with stakeholder knowledge and motivation to a significant extent. In some cases, the
presence of these organizational influences, particularly the role of the administrator, play a
critical role in the positive presence of stakeholder knowledge and motivation influences; in
other cases, organizational influencers can inhibit the effectiveness of the positive presence of
stakeholder knowledge and motivation assets. In the case of the former, the structures articulated
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

91
91
and reinforced by the administrator directly facilitated high levels of conceptual and procedural
knowledge amongst teachers relating to participation in faculty collaboration.
The latter provides a salient case as to the significant role organizational culture plays in
ensuring that stakeholder knowledge and motivation influences are maximized to facilitate
achievement of the organizational goal (Clark and Estes, 2008). Here, the limitations of
scheduling and time structures that inhibit adequate amounts of time to be allocated to faculty
collaborative activities may be an explanatory factor as to the lack of conclusiveness vis a vis the
direct impact of those activities on increased student achievement. Again, without the use of
quantitative student achievement data to triangulate such findings, the correlation between
organizational factors, faculty collaboration, and increased student achievement is speculative at
best.
The assumed organizational influences of teacher autonomy and professional
development’s impact on faculty collaboration were not validated based on the findings
articulated herein. Explicit questions in interviews regarding the connection between
professional development and faculty collaboration typically yielded responses that could not be
sufficiently interpreted in light of the themes arising from the literature review, and observations
of faculty meetings and grade-level meetings also did not bear out meaningful insight as it relates
to that assumed organizational influencer. Teacher autonomy surfaced as a particular facet of a
procedural knowledge asset rather than an organizational influencer on knowledge and skills; it
presented as a particular characteristic of the way teachers utilized faculty collaboration as a
means of implementing changes to instructional practice. This was in contrast to the assumed
organizational cultural model influence that articulated the possibility that a belief in teacher
autonomy could inhibit faculty collaboration activities.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

92
92
Summary

In this chapter, the assumed influences outlined in previous chapters were explored as
they related to the findings from qualitative inquiry conducted through the use of interviews,
observations, and document analysis. Findings related to research questions one and two were
discussed. In response to the third research question, the next chapter will offer
recommendations for organizational practice drawn from findings relating to stakeholder
knowledge, stakeholder motivation, and organizational influences. Context-specific strategies
will be offered to facilitate achievement of the stakeholder goal of each teacher regularly
participating in and implement changes to instructional practice based on professional learning
and collaborative problem-solving focused on student learning with other teachers at the local
school site.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

93
93
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
The third research question guiding this study explores recommendations for
organizational practice in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources. In
this chapter, recommendations are framed within an acknowledgement of validated knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influencers and uses principles of learning, motivation, and
organizational theory to articulate recommendations for practice. With those recommendations
articulated, subsequent sections utilize the New World Kirkpatrick Model as the basis for an
organization-specific implementation and evaluation plan that bridges implementation and
evaluation at multiple levels to foster both stakeholder and organizational goal attainment
(Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016). Finally, limitations and delimitations of the findings of the
study will be acknowledged and utilized to offer recommendations for future research.
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. Declarative, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge
influences relating to teacher participation in faculty collaboration for student learning were
assessed as part of this study. Each influence was developed based on a review of relevant
literature and then assessed and validated based on interviews, observations, and document
analysis. Table 8 represents the complete list of assumed knowledge influences, whether or not
each influence was validated, and recommendations for validated influences based on theoretical
principles.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

94
94
Table 8. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence: Cause, Need,
or Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers should know
the effective
characteristics of faculty
collaboration focused on
student learning. (D)
Y Y Creating schemata helps
learners to organize
declarative knowledge in a
domain (Schraw, Veldt, &
Olafson, 2009)
Provide job training where
teachers learn key concepts,
terminology, and look-fors
related to effective faculty
collaboration;

Integrate case studies to
apply concepts,
terminology and look-fors
Teachers should know
how to contribute to
faculty collaboration
focused on student
learning. (P)
Y Y Procedural knowledge
increases when declarative
knowledge required to
perform the skill is
available or known. (Clark
et al., 2008).

Modeling to-be-learned
strategies or
behaviors improves self-
efficacy, learning,
and performance (Denler,
Wolters, &
Benzon, 2009).
Provide job aid that
articulates specific
behaviors that constitute
effective faculty
collaboration;

Engage teachers in role-
play using faculty
collaboration scenarios.
Teachers should be able
to reflect on their efforts
in contributing to and
utilizing faculty
collaboration to support
student learning in
instruction. (M)
Y Y Self-regulatory strategies,
including goal setting,
enhance learning and
performance (APA, 2015:
Dembo & Eaton, 2000;
Denler, et al., 2009).
Performance levels
increase and completion
times decrease with
increased self-regulation
skills (Clark & Estes,
2008).

Modeled behavior is more
likely to be adopted if the
model is credible, similar
(e.g., gender, culturally
appropriate), and the
behavior has functional
value (Denler et al., 2009).
Provide cognitive coaching
for teachers following
faculty collaboration
activities;

Engage in focus groups and
debriefing activities to
allow teachers to reflect on
faculty collaboration
activities

Utilize outcomes of
coaching, groups and
activities to determine key
concepts, terminology,
look-fors, and role-play
scenarios
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

95
95

Declarative knowledge solutions. The data gathered from this study indicates that it is
essential for teachers at St. Stellar School to possess declarative knowledge as it relates to
effective characteristics of faculty collaboration focused on student learning, particularly as it
relates to collective and individual accountability within faculty collaboration. Schraw, Veldt,
and Olafson (2009) assert that creating schemata helps learners to organize declarative
knowledge in a domain. In line with this assertion, providing job training where teachers learn
key concepts, terminology, and look-fors related to effective faculty collaboration would support
meeting the challenges of this assumed knowledge influence. Subsequently, utilizing the
foundational knowledge provided by job training would enable participants to, in the second
phase of the job training, apply that knowledge to relevant case studies and activities in order to
operationalize those concepts, terminologies, and look fors. These two sets of supports working
in concert would allow teachers to create and develop schemata.
A salient factor in determining solutions in varying contexts relates to the assertion that
the characteristics of effective faculty collaboration vary significantly. For Hallinger (2003),
some of those characteristics are driven by factors external to faculty collaboration activities,
such as the definition of school mission and promotion of a positive school climate. Solutions
must then orient teachers to differentiate between those characteristics external to faculty
collaboration activities and those internal or embedded in faculty collaboration activities. For
example, high levels of relational trust, establishing group norms, and an orientation towards
change are all directly observable characteristics of effective faculty collaboration (Youngs &
King, 2002; Cranston, 2011; Thompson, Gregg & Niska, 2004); those and other characteristics
can form the centerpiece of solutions regarding this particular knowledge influence.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

96
96
Procedural knowledge solutions. Procedural knowledge influencers were also a focal
point in this study. An analysis of the data gathered within the study validates the finding that
teachers should know how to contribute to faculty collaboration focused on student learning.
This is particularly evident as it relates to the need for teacher procedural knowledge regarding
accountability, the use of data within faculty collaboration, establishing connections to classroom
instruction, and implementing changes to classroom instruction based on faculty collaboration.
Procedural knowledge increases when declarative knowledge required to perform the skill is
available or known (Clark et al., 2008). A recommendation is to provide a job aid that articulates
specific behaviors that constitute effective faculty collaboration could be a feasible solution. This
job aid would articulate step-by-step directions for procedural knowledge sets, including data
analysis protocols, establishing and maintaining a focus on student learning, and an improvement
cycle for determining, implementing and monitoring changes to classroom instruction.
Additionally, modeling to-be-learned strategies or behaviors improves self-efficacy, learning,
and performance (Denler, Wolters, & Benzon, 2009). Engaging teachers in role-play using
faculty collaboration scenarios may serve as an appropriate application of this learning principle.
The body of literature regarding the procedural knowledge required to contribute to
faculty collaboration focused on student learning collectively substantiates the importance of
presence and participation of teachers. Participation in professional learning within and outside
of faculty collaboration helps to embed the characteristics of effective faculty collaboration
(Quint, Akey, Rappaport, & Willner, 2007; King, 2011); engaging teachers in role-play
reinforces this theoretical construct. King (2011) and Huffman (2003) also articulate replicable
behaviors to instill a sense of common purpose that is central to effective faculty collaboration,
including clear communication, flexibility in implementation, and intentional groupings of
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

97
97
individuals. Job aids and relevant role-play scenarios provide the potential to clearly articulate
and apply those replicable behaviors.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions. This study’s findings relating to the need for
teacher self-direction and agency in faculty collaboration validated how essential it is for
teachers to be able to engage in metacognitive reflection on their efforts in contributing to and
utilizing faculty collaboration to support student learning in instruction. Self-regulatory
strategies, including goal setting, enhance learning and performance (APA, 2015; Dembo &
Eaton, 2000; Denler et. al, 2009). Providing cognitive coaching for teachers following faculty
collaboration activities would be a practical application of this learning principle. Cognitive
coaching utilizes a three-phase cycle – preconference, observation, and postconference – that
engages teachers in reflection that increases efficacy of collaborative practice (Garmston, Linder,
and Whitaker, 1993). The postconference element of the cognitive coaching cycle, administered
by the administrator, can foster the capacity of teachers to utilize self-regulatory strategies that
reveal rationale between their performance in faculty collaboration in order to set relevant goals
for performance.
Secondarily, Clark and Estes (2008) argue that performance levels increase and
completion times decrease with increased self-regulation skills. In addition to utilizing repeated
cognitive coaching cycles to implement this principle, teachers could engage in focus groups and
collaborative debriefing activities to allow teachers to reflect on faculty collaboration activities.
Modeled behavior is also more likely to be adopted if the model is credible, similar, and the
behavior has functional value (Denler et al., 2009). The outcomes of coaching, groups, and
activities could then determine key concepts, terminology, look-fors and role-play.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

98
98
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. As part of this study, motivation influences were assessed and validated
based on the most frequently mentioned motivation influences to achieving the stakeholders’
goal during interviews, observations, and document analysis and supported by the literature
review and the review of motivation theory. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that there are three
indicators of motivation in task performance – choice, persistence and mental effort. Choice is
going beyond intention to start something. Persistence is continuing to pursue a goal in the face
of distractions, and mental effort is seeking and applying new knowledge to solve a novel
program or perform a new task. The assumed causes appear to suggest that choice and mental
effort on the part of teachers are adversely affected within the realm of faculty collaborative
activities. Table 9 lists the influences assessed, designates whether each influence was validated,
and shows the recommendations for these influences based on theoretical principles.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

99
99
Table 9. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers should value
faculty collaboration
for student learning as a
means of positively
impacting student
learning.
Y Y Rationales that include
a discussion of the
importance and utility
value of the work or
learning can help
learners develop
positive values (Eccles,
2006; Pintrich, 2003.)

Feedback as well as
actual success on
challenging tasks
positively influences
people’s perceptions of
competence (Borgogni
et al., 2011).
Provide a space for reflection
on faculty collaboration and
analysis of instructional plans,
student work, and varied
assessment data where
feedback on faculty
collaboration tasks is provided.
Teachers should
possess self-efficacy in
contributing to and
implementing changes
to instructional practice
based on faculty
collaborative activities.
Y Y High self-efficacy can
positively influence
motivation (Pajares,
2006).

Feedback and modeling
increases self-efficacy
(Pajares, 2006).
Provide training where
effective faculty collaboration
is modeled and scaffolded, with
opportunities to practice
collaboration skills and norms
in low-risk settings.

Value. Interview responses, specifically those focused on the connection between faculty
collaboration and student learning, demonstrated how essential it was for teachers to value
faculty collaboration for student learning as a means of positively impacting student learning.
Eccles (2006) and Pintrich (2003) argue that rationales that include a discussion of the
importance and utility value of the work or learning can help learners develop positive values.
Additionally, feedback as well as actual success on challenging tasks positively influences
people’s perceptions of competence (Borgogni et al., 2011). A recommendation in response to
this motivation influence would be to provide opportunities for reflection on faculty
collaboration and analysis of instructional plans, student work, and varied assessment data where
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

100
100
feedback on faculty collaboration tasks is provided. Reflection could be done during faculty
collaboration activities as a formal set of processes embedded by administrators, or could take
the form of surveys or learning journals completed by teachers.
Increasing utility value for a particular task or set of tasks is a byproduct of individual
capacity to reflect on an individual’s goals, plans, or basic psychological needs (Eccles, 2006).
Positive prioritization of faculty collaborative activities comes as a result of establishing
connections between those activities and positive impacts on student learning (Owen, 2015;
Carpenter, 2015; Huggins, Scheurich, Morgan, 2011). The recommendation articulated above
would allow for individuals to collectively reflect on action and receive the necessary feedback
to develop and increase utility value for faculty collaboration activities, as well as establish
faculty collaboration vis-à-vis student learning as the primary focus of collective reflection and
feedback.
Self-efficacy. An analysis of the data relating to the roles of teachers in faculty
collaboration validated the need for teachers to possess self-efficacy in contributing to and
implementing changes to instructional practices based on faculty collaborative activities. High
self-efficacy can positively influence motivation (Pajares, 2006). Feedback and modeling also
increases self-efficacy (Pajares, 2006). To incorporate these principles of self-efficacy in
response to this motivation influence, job training wherein effective faculty collaboration is
modeled and scaffolded, with opportunities to practice collaboration skills and norms in low-risk
settings may be ideal. An administrator could structure these job training activities as part of
faculty collaboration itself, or utilize time allocated for professional development or teacher in-
service activities as a way to create opportunities to engage in low-risk skill practice and build
teacher self-efficacy and collective teacher efficacy.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

101
101
Collective teacher efficacy is a salient idea in the body of research related to this
recommendation, and ideally job training that models and scaffolds effective faculty
collaboration while providing low-risk opportunities for practice can build both self-efficacy in
faculty collaboration and collective teacher efficacy. Angelle and Teague (2014) as well as
Lieberman and Pointer Mace (2009) suggest that purposeful engagement of teachers to look
deeply at practice, unwrap its complexity, and become articulate about the learning process can
be worthwhile endeavors. By framing faculty collaboration activities as a manifestation of the
learning process within a different context, those three engaging actions can significantly impact
teacher self-efficacy in faculty collaboration.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. Finally, organization influences relating to the interaction of cultural
models and cultural settings on stakeholder knowledge and motivation were assumed and
assessed in this study. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that organization and stakeholder goals
are often not achieved due to a lack of resources, most often time and money, and stakeholder
goals that are not aligned with the organization’s mission and goals. Gallimore and Goldenberg
(2001) propose two constructs about culture – cultural models or the observable beliefs and
values shared by individuals in groups, and cultural settings, or the settings and activities in
which performance occurs. Thus, both resources and processes and cultural models and settings
must align throughout the organization’s structure to achieve the mission and goals. The
organization influences in Table 10 represent the complete list of assumed organization
influences and whether the influence is validated based on the most frequently mentioned
organization influences to achieving the stakeholders’ goal during interviews, observations, and
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

102
102
document analysis and supported by the literature review and the review of organization and
culture theory.
Table 10. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle
and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
There is an overriding belief in teacher
autonomy among administration and faculty
at the expense of collaboration.
N N

Professional development determined by
principals tends not to focus on the use of
data to inform instruction and equipping
teachers with the skill set or the desire to use
data related to student learning.
N N

Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World Kirkpatrick Model forms the basis of this
implementation and evaluation plan. This model suggests that evaluation must begin with the
goals of an organization and then progressively examine cascading goals and metrics in order to
easily identify and align “leading indicators” that bridge recommended solutions to
organizational goals. The “reverse order” offered by the model allows for a sequence of three
other actions: a) the development of solution outcomes that focus on assessing work behaviors,
b) the identification of indicators that learning occurred during implementation, and c) the
emergence of indicators that organizational members are satisfied with implementation
strategies. Designing the implementation and evaluation plan in this manner forces connections
between the immediate solutions and the larger goal and solicits proximal “buy in” to ensure
success (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016).
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

103
103
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The purpose of St Stellar School is to foster a community of faith formation and learning
for every child that achieves a balance of faith, character, and academic excellence arising out of
a partnership between the school and parents. Fostering a community of faith formation and
learning in particular is dependent on the capacity and extent to which teachers are able to
regularly participate in and implement changes to instructional practice based on professional
learning and collaborative problem-solving focused on student learning. This study examined the
knowledge and skills, motivational, and organizational issues relating to the organization’s
performance goal relating to student learning and teacher practice. The proposed solution - a
comprehensive training program, a system of reinforcing and rewarding drivers, and a balanced,
multimodal assessment plan - should facilitate an increase in the quality and frequency of critical
behaviors that lead to attainment of the stakeholder goal.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 11 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics and methods for both external and internal outcomes for St. Stellar School. If
the internal outcomes are met as expected as a result of the training and organizational support
for teachers regularly participating in faculty collaborative activities for student learning, then
the external outcomes should also be realized.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

104
104
Table 11. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Increased levels of
student achievement
and growth for
students
percent of students proficient in
reading and math standards;
comparative growth percentile rank
Conduct diagnostic/benchmark testing in
reading and math 3-4x a year; engage in
structured analysis of test results

percent of students mastering daily
objectives in formative assessments
Administer daily formative assessments during
classroom instruction; utilize formative
assessment tracking tools to identify trends in
mastery/non-mastery

alignment between standardized
testing data, formative assessment
data, and report cards
Utilize grade-level and faculty meetings in order
to review formative assessment data, diagnostic
assessment data, and report cards
2. Improved culture
for collaboration
number of minutes per week allocated
to collaboration activities
review of master schedule, yearly schedule and
individual teacher schedules

presence of norms, structures, activities
relating to high-impact
collaboration
review of faculty/parent/administrator meeting
agendas and minutes

volume and quality of outputs relating
to focus areas for collaboration
review of faculty/parent/administrator meeting
minutes and comparative analysis with
classroom lesson plans, student instructional
artifacts, individual parent-teacher interactions
3. Increased
enrollment and
operational vitality
student enrollment use of an enrollment management plan to
monitor enrollment leads, student addition and
attrition trends

per-pupil cost and expenditure review of preliminary budget, adjusted budget,
and end-of-year financial reports to determine
per-pupil cost and expenditure

operating surplus and deficit use of profit and loss statements, cash flow
statements, and end-of-year financial reports to
determine operating surplus and deficit
Internal Outcomes
4. Increased alignment
of high-leverage
instructional strategies
across classrooms
presence of specific instructional
strategies and their use in the
classroom
classroom observations using school-developed
walkthrough forms; review and analysis of data
trends using data compiled from walkthrough
forms and lesson plans
5. Enhanced sense of
urgency relating to
engaging in
collaboration amongst
teachers
teacher-expressed beliefs and
opinions about faculty
collaboration, response to gaps in
student learning, and high-yield
strategies that impact and support
student learning
informal conversations with teachers about
schoolwide structures that inform and support
student learning; interviews and surveys of
teachers aligned to desired metrics
6. Increased focus on
student learning and
growth as the primary
orienting outcome
teacher-expressed beliefs and
opinions about purpose and intent
behind schoolwide initiatives and
individual teacher actions
interviews and surveys of teachers aligned to
desired metrics

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

105
105
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus are the teachers that regularly participate
in faculty collaboration activities for student learning. The first critical behavior is that teachers
must engage in reflective classroom instructional practice within a shared space. The second
critical behavior is that they must establish connections between the focus of faculty
collaboration and classroom practice. The third critical behavior is that they must adhere to
established norms for faculty collaboration and utilize normative behaviors to contribute to
faculty collaboration activities. The specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of these
outcome behaviors appears in Table 12.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

106
106
Table 12. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Teachers

Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Engage in reflective
classroom instructional
practice within a shared
space.
Percent of teachers actively
engaged in faculty collaboration
Observation of faculty
collaboration activities by
administrators
Weekly, during
faculty
collaboration
activities.

Quality of teacher
response/contribution to faculty
collaboration
Observation of faculty
collaboration activities by
administrators
Weekly, during
faculty
collaboration
activities.
2. Establish connections
between the focus of
faculty collaboration and
classroom practice.
Alignment between the formal
focus of faculty collaboration
activities and teacher
response/contribution to faculty
collaboration
Observation of faculty
collaboration activities by
administrators; review of
faculty meeting minutes;
teacher surveys
Weekly, during
faculty
collaboration
activities
Quarterly analysis
of faculty meeting
minutes and teacher
surveys

Extent of in-classroom
implementation fidelity to
collective commitments made
during faculty collaboration
Observation of classroom
instruction; analysis and
examination of lesson
plans and student work
samples; teacher
interviews
Weekly analysis of
classroom
instruction
As-needed analysis
and examination of
lesson plans and
student work
samples
Monthly teacher
interviews
3. Adhere to established
norms for faculty
collaboration and utilize
normative behaviors to
contribute to faculty
collaboration activities.
Quality of teacher
response/contribution to faculty
collaboration
Observation of faculty
collaboration activities by
administrators
Weekly, during
faculty
collaboration
activities.

Alignment between teacher
response/contribution to faculty
collaboration norms
Observation of faculty
collaboration activities by
administrators
Weekly, during
faculty
collaboration
activities.

Required drivers. Teachers require the support of administrators, other stakeholders,
and the organization to reinforce skills and competencies learned in training as well as
embedding and shaping critical behaviors that impact their participation in faculty collaboration
activities. Rewards should be established for the achievement of performance goals to enhance
the organizational support of teachers. Table 13 shows the recommended drivers to support
critical behaviors of teachers.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

107
107
Table 13. Recommended Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors for Teachers
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing

Create professional learning communities and
establish a schedule for faculty collaboration
Yearly, with checks for
effectiveness each trimester
1, 2, 3
Reschedule co-curricular activities and other
teacher responsibilities to prioritize time for faculty
collaboration
Yearly 1
Ensure equal engagement and participation of
various stakeholder groups
Each trimester, at a minimum;
monthly checks within
collaborative activities
3
Encouraging

Validate teacher preparation and input within
faculty collaborative settings
Each meeting 1, 2, 3
Utilize teacher-generated artifacts from
collaboration as exemplars in job training
Each trimester, at a minimum;
increased frequency when
appropriate
1, 2
Rewarding

Provide timely feedback on classroom instructional
improvements made as a result of faculty
collaboration
Weekly, as part of follow up to
faculty collaboration activities
2, 3
Monitoring

Ensure the use of a faculty meeting agenda and
notes tracking sheet, including a space for
recording collective commitments
Weekly, as part of planning and
execution of faculty collaborative
activities
1, 2, 3
Create and implement protocols for data collection
as a result of faculty collaborative focus areas
Yearly; with checks for
effectiveness each trimester
1, 2, 3

Organizational support. Organizational structures and mental models play a role in
supporting stakeholders’ critical behaviors. The use of job training activities that explicitly
utilize collaborative modes of instruction help create a vantage point for teachers to begin to
establish connections between the focus of faculty collaboration and classroom practice. By
developing norms for collaborative activities, the organization can reinforce adherence to
established norms and catalyze the necessary process that operationalizes collaborative norms
into concrete actions and behaviors. Finally, the purposeful grouping of teachers and
administrators within job training activities by organizational leaders allows for “the right
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

108
108
individuals” in “the right seats.” When individuals in a collaborative setting are aware of the
purpose by which they engage in that collaborative work and the rationale that informs the
composition of the group, it opens the door for reflective practice and a shared space for inquiry.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following completion of the recommended solutions, the stakeholders
will be able to:
1. Articulate and distinguish the effective characteristics of faculty collaboration focused on
student learning, (D)
2. Engage in the behaviors related to faculty collaboration focused on student learning, (P)
3. Align instructional practice to the focus and outcome of faculty collaboration, (P)
4. Reflect on their efforts in contributing to and utilizing faculty collaboration to support
student learning in instruction, (M)
5. Indicate confidence that they can contribute to faculty collaborative activities,
(Confidence)
6. Indicate confidence that they can implement changes to instructional practice based on
faculty collaborative activities, (Confidence)
7. Value the importance and relevance of faculty collaboration as a means of positively
impacting student learning, (Value)
8. Value the importance of relevance of maximizing faculty collaborative activities to
support student learning. (Value)
Program. To facilitate attainment of the learning goals articulated, a professional
development program will be implemented that focuses on the use of faculty collaboration as a
means of significantly impacting student learning. The learners, teachers, will engage in various
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

109
109
modules of instruction based on the concept and structures of professional learning communities,
the roles teachers and leaders play in professional learning communities, the development of
norms to facilitate collective commitments and a shared space for decision-making, and
establishing and maintaining student learning through classroom instruction as the primary focus
of faculty collaboration.
Components of learning. Demonstrating declarative knowledge is often necessary as a
precursor to applying the knowledge to solve problems. Thus, it is important to evaluate
learning for both declarative and procedural knowledge being taught. It is also important that
learners value the training as a prerequisite to using their newly learned knowledge and skills on
the job. However, they must also be confident that they can succeed in applying their knowledge
and skills and be committed to using them on the job. As such, Table 14 lists the evaluation
methods and timing for these components of learning.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

110
110
Table 14. Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Multiple choice items on interactive formative
assessment activities.
During professional development
workshops (pre-assessment and
embedded practice).
Open responses to video scenarios. During professional development
workshops (embedded practice)
Open responses to facilitator provided prompts (e.g.
exit tickets)
During professional development
workshops (as a culminating activity)
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Case study analysis of faculty collaboration
scenarios/videos
During professional development
workshops (embedded practice)
Administrator or peer observation of individual
application of skills in future faculty collaboration
activities.
After professional development
workshops, during faculty
collaborative activities.
Administrator or peer observation of individual
application of skills in classroom instruction.
After professional development
workshops, during classroom
instruction.
Responses and feedback from teachers during
professional development workshops.
During professional development
workshops.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Discussion content amongst teachers when asked to
reflect on impact of professional development on
personal practice.
During professional development
workshops. After professional
development workshops.
Pre-assessment of teacher beliefs and values relating
to faculty collaboration
Prior to professional development
workshops
Discussion of the value of faculty collaboration on
student learning
After professional development
workshops
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Survey on self-perceived capacity to engage in
faculty collaboration activities
Before, during, and after professional
development workshops
Survey on self-perceived capacity to implement
instructional practice based on faculty collaboration
Before, during, and after professional
development workshops
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions after practice and feedback During professional development
workshops
Interviews with grade-level teachers After professional development
workshops
Written notes of group reflection/discussion on
implemented instructional changes based on faculty
collaboration
After professional development
workshops

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

111
111
Level 1: Reactions
Ongoing feedback from participants during and after training programs that evaluates
whether participants are engaged, satisfied with what they are learning, and able to find
relevance in training content is critical to implementation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). By
evaluating participants’ reaction to the program, trainers have access to immediate feedback, that
allows for adjustments to ensure that the program succeeds in leading to on-the-job application
of what is being taught. Table 15 lists the methods or tools used to evaluate all three components
of Level 1 Reaction: engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction.
Table 15. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Observation of participant behaviors during
professional development workshops
Ongoing, during professional
development workshops.
Completion of end of workshop exit
tickets/formative assessments
Immediately after the professional
development workshops.
Quality analysis of open-ended responses to
facilitator-posed questions
After professional development
workshops.
Observation of teacher behaviors in faculty
collaboration activities
Ongoing, during faculty collaboration
activities.
Relevance
Teacher surveys and exit tickets from workshops Immediately after the professional
development workshops.
Content analysis of faculty collaboration activities Ongoing, after professional
development workshops.
Customer Satisfaction
Teacher surveys and exit tickets from workshops Immediately after the professional
development workshops.
Content analysis of faculty collaboration activities Ongoing, after professional
development workshops.
Observation of participant behaviors during
professional development workshops
Ongoing, during professional
development workshops.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

112
112
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. At the conclusion of the training
sessions, participants will be asked to complete a number of forms in order to self-assess
knowledge and motivation influencers impacted by the training itself. The forms can be
delivered digitally or on paper. As participants complete the evaluation forms, the professional
development workshop facilitators will also complete their assessment of participant behaviors
and competencies. For Level 1, assessment will focus on participant reactions and impacts on
knowledge and motivation influencers as a result of the training. Level 2 will utilize observations
of workshop facilitators during workshops as well as in faculty collaborative activities
immediately following the workshop.
Appendix D contains a sample of the items contained on the Level 1 and Level 2
assessment instruments.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. After two months of
implementation, the leadership team will administer a survey containing scaled items from both
the participant’s perspective and a leadership team member’s observer perspective. The Blended
Evaluation contained in Appendix E measures participant reaction to training modules (Level 1),
participant-indicated demonstration of learning goals (Level 2), observer-gathered evidence of
presence of critical behaviors linked to learning goals (Level 3), and observer-gathered evidence
of collective commitments as data relating to internal outcomes (Level 4).
Data Analysis and Reporting
After the assessment instruments immediately following program implementation have
been administered, members of the leadership team of the school will collect and review artifacts
relating to the items on the instruments. The review process will be structured in a way that
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

113
113
allows leadership team members to identify “noticings” - factual statements that refer to trends in
the data gathered - and “wonderings” - speculative assertions that promote deeper analysis.
These “noticings” and “wonderings” will be compiled by the leadership team and then
aggregated into a summary document which will also contain quantitative response trends for
self-assessment items and qualitative high frequency phrases and keywords in open-ended
response items.
Following the compilation of the summary document, the leadership team will facilitate a
similar review process of participant-generated assessment data with the participants themselves
to allow them to surface their “noticings” and “wonderings.” Once the “noticings” and
“wonderings” of the participants’ analysis of their assessment data have been compiled, the
summary document listing the leadership team’s “noticings” and “wonderings” as well as
qualitative and quantitative response trends will be distributed to the participants. The
“noticings” and “wonderings” from both groups will be compared and contrasted, and all
stakeholders present (leadership and teachers) will have the opportunity to utilize the noticings,
wonderings, and response trends to determine potential course corrections in training and
implementation as well as modifications to later, delayed assessment.
After the delayed assessment has been administered, the leadership team will compile the
findings and compile descriptive analysis (mean/median/mode/frequency) of the items and
criterion included in the delayed assessment. Similar to the other assessment instrument, the
leadership team will surface “noticings” and “wonderings” based on the descriptive analysis
statistics, then facilitate a process by which participants themselves will also utilize the
descriptive statistics to surface “noticings” and “wonderings.” The “noticings” and “wonderings”
from both groups will be compared and contrasted, and all stakeholders present (leadership and
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

114
114
teachers) will have the opportunity to utilize the noticings, wonderings, and response trends to
determine potential course corrections in training and implementation.
Appendix F contains a sample of an instrument that would be used for reporting and
analysis of assessment data.
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model provides a framework for the recommendations for
organizational practice resulting from the data gathered in this study and a review of the relevant
literature. By integrating intervention planning, implementation strategies, and evaluation
mechanisms into a coherent process, it is expected that the gaps in both stakeholder and
organizational performance will close over a reasonable period of time. The tight integration of
implementation and evaluation offered by the New World Kirkpatrick Model helps shorten the
feedback loop between intervention and research, and facilitates optimal allocation of
organizational resources towards the achievement of its purpose.
Limitations and Delimitations
As part of the conceptual framework for the study, a correlation between faculty
collaboration activities and a significant and positive impact on student achievement was
constructed through a review of relevant literature. This assumed correlation was embedded into
interview questions and the analytic frame used for interpreting data from interviews,
observations, and document analysis. However, the research design did not test for whether
stakeholder-perceived impacts of faculty collaboration were triangulated with other data.
Regardless of the high frequency with which participants identified a positive correlation
between faculty collaboration and a significant impact on student learning, this study is
inconclusive on its own on the extent of faculty collaboration on student learning.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

115
115
Through the use of the Kirkpatrick New World Model, the recommendations for practice
were developed within a relatively narrow frame that could potentially limit its applicability to
only the organization studied here. The organizational context of St Stellar School may limit its
applicability to similarly situated schools in terms of student population size and staffing. This is
particularly evident with respect to organizational findings relating to how teacher
responsibilities have an impact on stakeholder knowledge and motivation towards faculty
collaboration. That said, this particular case study may help to operationalize certain facets of
established standards for effective schools, including the National Standards and Benchmarks for
Effective Catholic Elementary and Secondary Schools (Ozar and Weitzel-O’Neill, 2012). This
study’s findings may illustrate some of the fundamental structures that foster attainment of
organizational goals aligned with those standards and benchmarks, including benchmarks 7.7
and 8.5 which explicitly refer to faculty collaboration.
Finally, the study was conducted over the course of a three month period of data
collection. Because of the abbreviated nature of the study, the research design did not account for
any long term effects or variance in stakeholder knowledge or motivation over the course of one
or more school years. Although the purpose of the study did not seek to make these
accommodations, it is important to weigh such a caveat against the fact that the cascading goals
framework used as part of the design of the study includes considerations towards three-to-five
year organizational goals. A more robust study would include data collection strategies that
monitors variance in data trends over an extended time frame.
Recommendations for Future Research
A recommendation for future research lies in identifying the extent to which data use
processes specifically impact stakeholder knowledge and motivation, as well as comparing data
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

116
116
use processes and their impact on student learning. The use of data was one of the key findings
relating to stakeholder knowledge, and future research could be useful in gaining insight as to
comparing the extent of its impact against the impact of other influencers on stakeholder
knowledge and motivation. It could provide insight for practitioners as to how to prioritize
certain strategies toward implementing faculty collaboration that impacts student learning.
Since the role of the administrator as an organizational influencer on stakeholder
knowledge and motivation proved to be significant, a multi-site study on the administrator’s role
in fostering increased levels of stakeholder knowledge and motivation could reveal valuable
knowledge as to the specific dispositions and processes administrators can embody that help or
hinder the effectiveness of faculty collaboration that impacts student learning. Because this study
was limited to looking at teachers at one school as the stakeholder of focus, there are gaps in
understanding the specific dispositions and processes that the administrator possessed that
particularly impacted faculty collaboration for student learning in a significant and positive way.
Furthermore, a multi-site study can test the transferability of dispositions and processes of an
administrator that have a significant and positive effect, especially if there is meaningful variance
in the sites studied.
Another recommendation for future research could involve an examination into the
limitations of the use of formalized structures and processes on faculty collaboration, especially
over an extended period of time. The limitations on this study’s findings with respect to the
abbreviated time frame of the study may be particularly apparent as it relates to high levels of
formalized structure and rigidity in processes related to faculty collaboration for student learning.
Quinn and Kim (2016) suggest that high fidelity for teachers inexperienced with initiatives or
interventions is effective, but recommend that more adaptive approaches are best for teachers
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

117
117
once they have greater experience and confidence with the initiative or intervention. Future
research could examine whether maintaining a high fidelity and heavily structured approach to
faculty collaboration has an impact on its effectiveness towards improving student learning,
especially if the study is done over a sustained time frame.
Conclusion
In evaluating the organization’s performance related to the large problem of practice
relating to student achievement gaps in K-12 schools within the United States, this study
revealed the presence of critical knowledge and motivational influencers that significantly
impact teacher participation and efficacy in engaging in faculty collaboration that supports
increased student achievement. The findings articulated in this study also illustrate the extent to
which organizational culture, expressed in cultural models and settings, interact with knowledge
and motivation influencers and impact stakeholder goal achievement. Although the
recommendations for practice are derived from an analysis of validated influences and framed
with respect to the specific organization studied, there is a great deal of potential applicability of
those recommended practices when accounting for similarities or differences in organizational
context. By focusing on providing targeted support to build stakeholder knowledge and
motivation in critical areas and aligning organizational structures to reinforce and drive desired
behaviors, schools can utilize faculty collaboration as a vehicle to close achievement gaps across
groups of students and drastically alter the narrative of student learning and growth for all.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

118
118
References
107th Congress (January 8, 2002). Public Law107-110—No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,
2002. Washington, DC: Library of Congress
ACT. (2016). The condition of college and career readiness 2016 – national. Retrieved from
http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/CCCR_National_2016.pdf
Angelle, P., & M. Teague, G. (2014). Teacher leadership and collective efficacy: Teacher
perceptions in three US school districts. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(6),
738-753.
Archdiocese of Los Angeles. (2013). Our spirit, growth, and future: an expanded vision for Los
Angeles Archdiocesan Catholic schools and the common good. Retrieved from
http://www.lacatholicschools.org/about-us/vision-for-the-future/
Ash, R. C., & Persall, J. M. (2000). The principal as chief learning officer: Developing teacher
leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 84(616), 15-22.
Barshay, J. (2014). How much did students really gain on Common Core tests in New York?
Retrieved from http://educationbythenumbers.org/content/new-yorks-largest-cities-well-
behind-new-york-city_1777/.
Betebenner, D. W. A technical overview of the student growth percentile methodology:
Student growth percentiles and percentile growth projections/trajectories. Dover, NH:
National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Borman, K., Murphy, S. P., LoSasso, J., & Schlanger, L. (2013). Preliminary Findings from an
Efficacy Study of a Distributed Leadership Model of School Organization. Society for
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

119
119
Research on Educational Effectiveness.
Boychuk, B. (2015). In California, school choice is sorely lacking. The Sacramento Bee.
Retrieved from http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/ben-boychuk/article7954752.html
Boylan, M. (2016). Deepening system leadership Teachers leading from below. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 44(1), 57-72.
Brahler, C. J. (2004). Can Professional Development Programs Help Close the Achievement
Gap?. ERS Spectrum, 22(3).
Brownell, M. T., Adams, A., Sindelar, P., Waldron, N., & Vanhover, S. (2006). Learning from
collaboration: The role of teacher qualities. Exceptional Children, 72(2), 169–185.
Carpenter, D. (2015). School Culture and Leadership of Professional Learning Communities.
International Journal of Educational Management, 29(5), 682–694.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Cranston, J. (2011). Relational trust: The glue that binds a professional learning community.
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 57(1), 59-72.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Datnow, A., Park, V., & Kennedy-Lewis, B. (2013). Affordances and constraints in the context
of teacher collaboration for the purpose of data use. Journal of Educational
Administration, 51(3), 341-362.
Department of Catholic Schools. (n.d.). Mission statement of the Department of Catholic
Schools. Retrieved from
http://www.lacatholicschools.org/about-us/department-of-catholic-schools/
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

120
120
Desimone, L. M., & Long, D. (2010). Teacher effects and the achievement gap: Do teacher and
teaching quality influence the achievement gap between Black and White and high-and
low-SES students in the early grades. Teachers College Record, 112(12), 3024-3073.
Desimone, L., Smith, T. M., & Phillips, K. (2013). Linking student achievement growth to
professional development participation and changes in instruction: A longitudinal study
of elementary students and teachers in Title I schools. Teachers College Record, 115(5),
1-46.
DuFour, R., & Fullan, M. (2013). Cultures built to last: Making PLCs systemic.
DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. J. (2009). High-leverage strategies for principal leadership.
Educational Leadership, 66(5), 62-68.
Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (2009). Getting started: Reculturing schools to become professional
learning communities. Solution Tree Press.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Erickson, G., Brandes, G. M., Mitchell, I., & Mitchell, J. (2005). Collaborative teacher learning:
Findings from two professional development projects. Teaching and teacher
education, 21(7), 787-798.
Fisher, D. (2001). Trust the process: Increasing student achievement via professional
development and process accountability. NASSP bulletin, 85(629), 67-71.
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. John Wiley & Sons.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1991). What’s worth fighting for: Working together for your
school. Toronto, Ontario Public Teachers Association.
Gardner, D. P. (1983). A nation at risk.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

121
121
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Goldschmidt, E. P., & Walsh, M. E. (2013). Urban catholic elementary schools: What are the
governance models? Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 17(1), 111.
Gregson, J. A., & Sturko, P. A. (2007). Teachers as adult learners: Re-conceptualizing
professional development. Journal of adult education, 36(1), 1.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The leadership quarterly, 13(4),
423-451.
Haladyna, T. M. (2006). Perils of standardized achievement testing. Educational Horizons, 30-
43.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and
transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-352.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2013). The Power of Professional Capital: With an Investment in
Collaboration, Teachers Become Nation Builders. Journal of Staff Development, 34(3),
36-39.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of meta-analyses in education.
Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to
school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 46(3), 659-689.
Hilliard, A. G. (2000). Excellence in education versus high-stakes standardized testing. Journal
of Teacher Education, 51(4), 293-304.
Ho, A. D., Lewis, D. M., & MacGregor Farris, J. L. (2009). The Dependence of Growth- Model
Results on Proficiency Cut Scores. Educational Measurement: Issues and
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

122
122
Practice, 28(4), 15-26.
Hofman, R. H., Hofman, W. H. A., & Guldemond, H. (2002). School governance, culture, and
student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 5(3), 249-272.
Holloway, J. H. (2006). Connecting professional development to student learning gains. Science
educator, 15(1), 37.
Huffman, J. (2003). The role of shared values and vision in creating professional learning
communities. NASSP Bulletin, 87(637), 21-34.
Huggins, K. S., Scheurich, J. J., & Morgan, J. (2011). Professional learning communities as a
leadership strategy to drive math success in an urban high school serving diverse, low-
income students: A case study. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk
(JESPAR), 16(2), 67–88. http://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2011.560525
Hunzicker, J. (2012). Professional development and job-embedded collaboration: how teachers
learn to exercise leadership. Professional development in education, 38(2), 267-289.
Jackson, K. M., & Marriott, C. (2012). The interaction of principal and teacher instructional
influence as a measure of leadership as an organizational quality. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 230-258.
Johnson, C. C., Kahle, J. B., & Fargo, J. D. (2007). A study of the effect of sustained, whole-
school professional development on student achievement in science. Journal of research
in science teaching, 44(6), 775-786.
Kennedy, E. (2010). Improving Literacy Achievement in a High- Poverty School: Empowering
Classroom Teachers Through Professional Development. Reading Research
Quarterly, 45(4), 384-387.
King, F. (2011). The role of leadership in developing and sustaining teachers' professional
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

123
123
learning. Management in Education, 25(4), 149-155.
Kingsbury Center. (2010). California linking study: a study of the alignment of the NWEA RIT
scale with the California Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program. Retrieved
from
https://www.nwea.org/content/uploads/2010/05/CA%20Linking%20Study%20March%2
02010.pdf
Klecker, B. M. (2006). The gender gap in NAEP fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade reading
scores across years. Reading Improvement, 43(1), 50.
Klentschy, M. P. (2005). Designing professional development opportunities for teachers that
foster collaboration, capacity building and reflective practice. Science educator, 14(1), 1.
Kurz, T. B., & Knight, S. L. (2004). An exploration of the relationship among teacher efficacy,
collective teacher efficacy, and goal consensus. Learning Environments Research, 7(2),
111-128.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Lacour, M., & Tissington, L. D. (2011). The effects of poverty on academic
achievement. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(7), 522-527.
Leavitt, D. R., Palius, M. F., Babst, R. D., Donegan, R., Lampkin, J. L., Smith, M., & Whitford,
P. A. (2013). Teachers create a professional learning community to be a place of their
own. Mid-Atlantic Education Review, 1(1)
Lee, J. (2004). Multiple facets of inequity in racial and ethnic achievement gaps. Peabody
Journal of Education, 79(2), 51-73.
Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

124
124
achievement. Educational administration quarterly, 44(4), 529-561.
Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research:
How leadership influences student learning.
Leonard, L. J., & Leonard, P. E. (1999). Reculturing for collaboration and leadership. The
Journal of Educational Research, 92(4), 237-242.
Lieberman, A., & Pointer Mace, D. H. (2009). The role of 'accomplished teachers' in
professional learning communities: Uncovering practice and enabling
leadership. Teachers and Teaching, 15(4), 459.
Many, T., & King, D. (2008). Districts speak with one voice: clarity and coherence come from
professional learning communities. Journal of Staff Development, 29(3), 28.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. ASCD.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, P. (2007). Can Catholic schools be saved? Education Next, Spring 2007, 7, 2.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Miller, A. (2013). Principal turnover and student achievement. Economics of Education Review,
36, 60-72.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

125
125
Moon, N. S., & Singh, A. A. (2015). In Their Own Voices: Adolescent African American Males’
Experiences of the Achievement Gap. Journal of School Counseling, 13(16).
Mulford, B., & Silins, H. (2003). Leadership for organisational learning and improved student
outcomes—What do we know?. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(2), 175-195.
Musanti, S. I., & Pence, L. (2010). Collaboration and teacher development: Unpacking
resistance, constructing knowledge, and navigating identities. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 37(1), 73-89.
Nelson, T., Slavit, D., Perkins, M., & Hathorn, T. (2008). A culture of collaborative inquiry:
Learning to develop and support professional learning communities. The Teachers
College Record, 110(6), 1269-1303.
National Catholic Education Association. (2016). United States Catholic elementary and
secondary schools 2015-2016: The annual statistical report on schools,
enrollment, and staffing.
Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V., & Berliner, D. C. (2006). High-stakes testing and student
achievement: Does accountability pressure increase student learning?. education policy
analysis archives, 14, 1.
O’Doherty, A., & Ovando, M. (2013). Leading learning: First-year principals’ reflections
on instructional leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 23(3), 533-561.
Owen, S. M. (2015). Teacher professional learning communities in innovative contexts: “ah hah
moments”, “passion” and “making a difference” for student learning. Professional
Development in Education, 41(1), 57–74. http://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.960688
Owen, S. (2016). Professional learning communities: Building skills, reinvigorating the passion,
and nurturing teacher wellbeing and "flourishing" within significantly innovative
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

126
126
schooling contexts. Educational Review, 68(4), 403-419.
Ozar, L., & Weitzel-O'Neill, P. (2013). National catholic school standards: Focus on governance
and leadership. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 17(1), 157.
Palardy, G. (2015). Classroom-based inequalities and achievement gaps in first grade: The role
of classroom context and access to qualified and effective teachers. Teachers College
Record, 117(2), n2.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing.
Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219-225.
Polly, D., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Examining how learner-centered professional development
influences teachers’ espoused and enacted practices. The Journal of Educational
Research, 104(2), 120-130.
Printy, S. M., Marks, H. M., & Bowers, A. J. (2009). Integrated leadership: How
principals and teachers share transformational and instructional influence. Journal
of School Leadership, 19(5), 504-532.
Quint, J. C., Akey, T. M., Rappaport, S., & Willner, C. J. (2007). Instructional
leadership, teaching quality and student achievement suggestive evidence from
three urban school districts. ().MDRC. 16 East 34th Street 19th Floor, New York, NY
10016-4326.
Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

127
127
outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational
Administration Quarterly.
Reardon, S. F. (2013). The widening income achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 70(8),
10-16.
Renaissance Learning. (2015). Pathway to proficiency: linking the STAR Reading and STAR
Math scales with performance levels on the ACT Aspire. Retrieved from
http://doc.renlearn.com/KMNet/R004589211GM49F3.pdf
Ross, C., Herrmann, M., & Angus, M. H. (2015). Measuring principals’ effectiveness:
Results from New Jersey’s principal evaluation pilot (REL 2015–089).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional
Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Sabatino, A., Huchting, K., & Dell'Olio, F. (2013). The 200-day calendar initiative in the
Arrchdiocese of Los Angeles: Three schools' decision to break the mold. Catholic
Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 16(2), 388.
Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future
student academic achievement.
School Leaders Network. (2014). Churn: the high cost of principal turnover. Retrieved from
http://connectleadsucceed.org/sites/default/files/principal_turnover_cost.pdf
Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). The influence of principal leadership on classroom
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

128
128
instruction and student learning: A study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 626-663.
Servage, L. (2008). Critical and transformative practices in professional learning
communities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 63-77.
Snow-Gerono, J. L. (2005). Professional development in a culture of inquiry: PDS teachers
identify the benefits of professional learning communities. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21(3), 241–256.
Shatzer, R. H., Caldarella, P., Hallam, P. R., & Brown, B. L. (2013). Comparing the effects of
instructional and transformational leadership on student achievement Implications for
practice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1741143213502192.
Stecher, B., and Kirby, S. N. (2004). Introduction. In B. Stecher & S. N. Kirby, Organizational
improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other sectors (pp. 1–7).
Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
The nation's report card: Trends in academic progress 2012. NCES 2013-456 (2013). National
Center for Education Statistics. , P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Retrieved
from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1
413417448?accountid=14749
Thompson, S. C., Gregg, L., & Niska, J. M. (2004). Professional learning communities,
leadership, and student learning. RMLE Online, 28(1), 1-15.
Vanneman, A., Hamilton, L., Anderson, J. B., & Rahman, T. (2009). Achievement gaps: How
black and white students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the
national assessment of educational progress. statistical analysis report. NCES 2009-
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

129
129
455 National Center for Education Statistics. , P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398.
Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/6
1869705?accountid=14749
Wallace, M. R. (2009). Making sense of the links: Professional development, teacher practices,
and student achievement. Teachers College Record, 111(2), 573-596.
Webster, B., & Fisher, D. (2003). School-level environment and student outcomes in
Mathematics. Learning Environments Research, 6(2), 309-326.
Weiss, M. J., & May, H. (2012). A policy analysis of the federal growth model pilot program's
measures of school performance: The Florida case. Education, 7(1), 44-73.
Wells, C. M., & Feun, L. (2013). Educational change and professional learning communities: A
study of two districts. Journal of Educational Change, 14(2), 233-257.
Wynn, S. R., Carboni, L. W., & Patall, E. A. (2007). Beginning teachers’ perceptions
of mentoring, climate, and leadership: Promoting retention through a learning
communities perspective. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 6(3), 209−229.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W. Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the
Evidence on How Teacher Professional Development Affects Student Achievement.
Issues & Answers. REL 2007-No. 033. Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest
(NJ1).
Youngs, P., & King, M. B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build
school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 643-670.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

130
130
APPENDIX A
Interview Protocol (Teachers)
1. Briefly introduce yourself, your role(s) here at the school, and how long you’ve been at this
school.

2. What kinds of collaboration do you engage in with other teachers? (K)

3. How impactful do you think faculty collaboration is in impacting and changing student
achievement? (K, M)
- Can you provide an example of a way in which faculty collaboration has impacted or changed
student achievement?

4. Are there other initiatives or practices that are also impacting or changing student
achievement? If so, what are they? How are they similar/different from faculty collaboration?
(K, O)

5. Describe how a typical faculty meeting or grade level PLC meeting goes.

6. What do you think effective faculty collaboration looks/feels like? (K)
-> Can you share an example of when you’ve been a part of effective faculty collaboration?
-> Overall, do you feel there is effective faculty collaboration at this school? Why or why not?

7. How do you personally participate in and contribute to faculty collaboration? (K,M)

8. Let’s say a new strategy, approach, or idea is introduced in a professional development or
training that you attend as a school. How does it influence what you do in faculty collaboration?
-> How does it influence what you do in the classroom? (O)

9. What benefits have you seen in engaging in faculty collaboration on student achievement? (M)

10. What difficulties or disadvantages have you seen in engaging in faculty collaboration on
student achievement? (M)

11. Do you feel as though faculty collaboration is a valuable use of time? Why or why not? (M)

12. In what ways do you see the potential for faculty collaboration to improve at this school?
(K/M)

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

131
131
APPENDIX B
Observation Protocol
Environmental Layout Participant Description

Time Field Notes

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

132
132
APPENDIX C
Interview Protocol (Administrators)
1. Briefly introduce yourself, your role(s) here at the school, and how long you’ve been at this
school.

2. What kinds of collaboration do you see teachers engaging in? (K)

3. How impactful do you think faculty collaboration is in impacting and changing student
achievement? (K, M)
- Can you provide an example of a way in which faculty collaboration has impacted or changed
student achievement?

4. Are there other initiatives or practices that are also impacting or changing student
achievement? If so, what are they? How are they similar/different from faculty collaboration?
(K, O)

5. What do you think effective faculty collaboration looks/feels like? (K)
-> Can you share an example of when you’ve been a part of effective faculty collaboration?
-> Overall, do you feel there is effective faculty collaboration at this school? Why or why not?

6. How do you personally participate in and contribute to faculty collaboration? (K,M)
-> In what ways is your role similar to those of teachers? In what ways is your role different?

7. Let’s say a new strategy, approach, or idea is introduced in a professional development or
training that you attend as a school. How do you see teachers respond to that new strategy,
approach, or idea? How does it influence what teachers do in classroom instruction or in
collaboration? (O)

8. What benefits do you think teachers see in engaging in faculty collaboration? (M)

9. What difficulties or disadvantages have teachers expressed in engaging in faculty
collaboration? (M)

10. Do teachers feel as though faculty collaboration is a valuable use of time? Why or why not?
(M)

11. What kinds of improvements or changes to faculty collaboration would teachers propose?
(K/M)

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

133
133
APPENDIX D

Sample Assessment Tool Immediately Following Program Implementation
Declarative Knowledge Item
Articulate and distinguish the
effective characteristics of faculty
collaboration focused on student
learning.
At the conclusion of the professional development
training, participants create a graphic organizer
identifying and distinguishing the different elements of
effective faculty collaboration.
Procedural Knowledge Item
Engage in the behaviors related to
faculty collaboration focused on
student learning.
At the conclusion of a faculty or grade-level meeting,
participants self-assess presence of faculty
collaborative behaviors using a rubric listing specified
behaviors and present/not present criteria.
Align instructional practice to the
focus and outcome of faculty
collaboration.
Administrator compares and contrasts lesson plans
and/or instructional observation notes to faculty
meeting/grade level meeting minutes/notes.
Metacognitive Knowledge Item
Reflect on efforts in contributing to
and utilizing faculty collaboration to
support student learning in
instruction.
At the conclusion of a faculty or grade-level meetings,
participants write key take-aways from how the
meeting activities help support classroom instruction.
Confidence Item
Indicate confidence that they can
contribute to faculty collaborative
activities.
At the conclusion of the professional development
training, participants self-assess their comfort level
with specified behaviors relating to contributing to
faculty collaboration.
Indicate confidence that they can
implement changes to instructional
practice based on faculty
collaborative activities.
At the conclusion of the professional development
training, participants self-assess their comfort level
with how to implement changes to instructional
practices based on faculty collaborative activities.
Value Item
Value the importance and relevance
of faculty collaboration as a means of
positively impacting student learning.
Participants complete survey articulating their
understanding of how faculty collaboration positively
impacts student learning.
COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

134
134
Value the importance of relevance of
maximizing faculty collaborative
activities to support student learning.
Participants complete survey articulating their
understanding of how faculty collaborative activities
relate to student learning.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

135
135
APPENDIX E

Sample Assessment Tool: Delayed for a Period After Program Implementation
Administrator Walk-through Form of Grade-Level Meetings
Scale: Present/Not-Present (w/ additional columns for observed practice as evidence and
observer comments)
L1:
Reaction
Positive Affect: Participant(s) exhibit engaged behaviors (general) with regards to
tasks/activities relating to faculty collaboration activities.
L2:
Learning
Collaborative Behaviors: Participant(s) exhibit specified behaviors relating to
faculty collaboration for student learning.
L3:
Behavior
Critical Behavior 2: Participant(s) make relevant and substantial connections
between the articulated focus of faculty collaboration and his/her own classroom
instructional practice.
L4:
Results
Internal Outcome 3: Participant(s) make collective commitment(s) that are:
• focused on student learning
• utilize instruction as the vehicle for impacting student learning
• align with the articulated focus of faculty collaboration
• informed by a data-analysis and problem-solving process

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

136
136
APPENDIX F

Sample Data Reporting and Analysis Instrument
Survey Items % Present (all
responses/observations)
% Not Present (all
responses/observations)
Participant(s) exhibit engaged
behaviors (general) with
regards to tasks/activities
relating to faculty
collaboration activities.

Participant(s) exhibit
specified behaviors relating to
faculty collaboration for
student learning.

Participant(s) make relevant
and substantial connections
between the articulated focus
of faculty collaboration and
his/her own classroom
instructional practice.

Participant(s) make collective
commitment(s) that are:
• focused on student
learning
• utilize instruction as
the vehicle for
impacting student
learning
• align with the
articulated focus of
faculty collaboration
• informed by a data-
analysis and problem-
solving process

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

137
137
I notice...
(factual noticings, e.g. I notice
65% of participants exhibited
this behavior.)
I wonder…
(speculative assertions, e.g. I
wonder what questions
participants have about the
training.)
We should…
(course corrections, e.g. We
should increase frequency of
feedback to teachers on
collaborative practices.)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The challenge established by the persistence of student achievement gaps across ethnicity groups, socioeconomic strata, parental education, and English language learner status is the collective responsibility of federal, state, and local education agencies both public and nonpublic. This study aims to evaluate the extent to which the practices of collaboration and professional development within a school site impact the growth in achievement and proficiency of its students. The Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model utilized for this study provides a systematic, analytical method that helps to clarify organizational goals and identify the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences. Through a qualitative methodological framework and the use of participant interviews, observations, and document analysis, this study identified the presence of salient knowledge and motivation influences that are critical for teachers to possess in effectively participating in collaboration that impacts instructional practice and student learning. In particular, the need for collective and individual accountability, identification of varied impacts of collaboration on individual practice, use of data to support collaborative activities surfaced as critical knowledge assets. High levels of motivation were attributed to the capacity to establish connections between faculty collaboration and positive change in student learning and instructional practice, as well as teacher capacity to conceptualize individual roles in faculty collaboration. The findings and results of data collection collectively articulate the need for an implementation and evaluation plan that fosters the emergence of critical behaviors among teachers that support their effective participation in faculty collaboration that impacts student learning.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

Application of professional learning outcomes into the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

Influences on principals' leadership practice

PDF

Instructional differentiation and accommodations to support student achievement in SLD and ADHD secondary school populations: an evaluation study

PDF

Approaches to teaching for twenty-first century learners in South Korea: An evaluation study of GSS

PDF

Building data use capacity through school leaders: an evaluation study

PDF

A new era of leadership: preparing leaders for urban schools & the 21st century

PDF

The role of international school teacher leaders in building leadership capacity within their teams

PDF

What is the relationship between self-efficacy of community college mathematics faculty and effective instructional practice?

PDF

School leaders' use of data-driven decision-making for school improvement: a study of promising practices in two California charter schools

PDF

Equitable schooling for African American students: an evaluation study

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

PDF

Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study

PDF

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: teacher factors

PDF

An exploration of leadership capacity building and effective principal practices

PDF

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: School site leadership factors

PDF

Teacher role in reducing the achievement gap: an evaluation study

PDF

Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

PDF

The enactment of equitable mathematics teaching practices: an adapted gap analysis

PDF

Narrowing the achievement gap: a case study of one outperforming urban school making a difference

Asset Metadata

Creator Reyes, John (author)

Core Title Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 11/01/2017

Defense Date 10/17/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag accountability,accountability: data use,capacity building,Clark and Estes,classroom instruction,coherence,collective accountability,collective teacher efficacy,data-driven decision making,faculty collaboration,gap analysis model,individual accountability,KMO,OAI-PMH Harvest,PLC,PLCs,principal leadership,professional learning communities,student learning

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Stowe, Kathy (committee chair), Ozar, Lorraine (committee member), Picus, Lawrence (committee member)

Creator Email johnreye@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-449452

Unique identifier UC11265492

Identifier etd-ReyesJohn-5864.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-449452 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ReyesJohn-5864.pdf

Dmrecord 449452

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Reyes, John

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA