University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Curriculum mapping initiative: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Curriculum mapping initiative: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: CURRICULUM MAPPING

Curriculum Mapping Initiative: An Evaluation Study
by
Amie Carter

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

May 2018

Copyright 2018 Amie Carter

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 1
DEDICATION
To my five brilliant, determined, loyal, vivacious daughters—Aubrey, Brianne, Carly,
Debbie, and Ellie—you inspire me every day to be the best me that I can possibly become.
Throughout my whole life, I have watched you all fighting through your own challenges which
were often more brutal than my own. Your courage is the spark that ignites my own. I have
grown while you have grown. Thank you for loving me for who I am. To my five ambitious,
generous, wise, jocular brothers—Eric, Daniel, Ryan, Gregory, and Spencer—knowing that you
are forever in my corner, has helped me be more tenacious and intrepid all my life. Greg you
wrote me once, “The one most important, most sustaining, and most joyful thing life has to offer
is love.” Truth. Wish you could be here to make risqué jokes at the expense of my inflated sense
of importance. To my parents—for sparking my curiosity and intellect early on, and for instilling
in me the desire to seek knowledge and serve my community. My roots led me here. To my
friends who have endured my reclusive intellectual preoccupations with graciousness. Thank you
for seeing the best in me and sustaining me in the pursuit of this daunting ambition. And lastly,
this achievement is dedicated to my cherished wife Michelle. You’ve gamely endured years of
obsession and sacrifice. Your encouragement to “go big or go home”, have given me strength
when I was racked with self-doubt. You have battled beside me through every step. And it is
you—alone in all this world—who knows what a sacrifice and effort this has been. It is your
accomplishment as much as it is my own. You smile, I smile. And, to my little legacy—Adilyn
Rae (and any others to follow). To you, I say the same thing that I would say to the school in this
study: Don’t be ruled by the wounds of the past or the fears that trap your mind. Be led by your
dreams—and let hope ignite your heart. Forgive. Be kind. And remember, change is simply the
law of life. Fight On!
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My heartfelt thank you to my dissertation chair, Dr. Kathy Stowe, for her support,
guidance, insight, and occasional motivational speech. Thank you for your patience as I worked
through life challenges, self-doubt, and multiple revisions—having you as an accountability
partner is what kept me fighting until the end.
Thank you to the other members of my committee, Dr. Monique Datta who started this
journey with me in my first semester of the program and taught a fellow English major so much
about writing. And to Dr. Holly Ferguson who taught me to engage in self-care, and to
remember that research is like cooking up a stew—it takes simmering time. You have all helped
me delicately pop the puzzle pieces of this dissertation into a complete whole.
Thank you to all the staff of the OCL program. You have not only expanded my
knowledge, but you have also expanded my understanding of myself as a leader.
And finally, thank you to all my colleagues in the OCL Cohort 2. It has been inspiring to
be on this quest with you. I have been humbled to be surrounded by such greatness and will miss
gathering each week with our diverse and intelligent family of scholars.
PALMAM QUI MERUIT FERAT

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 3

Table of Contents
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Introduction 9
Organizational Context and Mission 10
Organizational Performance Status 12
Organizational Goal 14
Related Literature 17
Importance of the Evaluation 20
Description of Stakeholder Groups 22
Purpose of the Project and Questions 23
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 23
Definitions 24
Organization of the Project 25
Chapter Two: Literature Review 26
Factors Influencing Curriculum Mapping Initiative 27
Standards Based Curriculum Maps 28
Professional Learning Communities 30
Teacher Autonomy 31
Theory of Action 32
Data-Driven Decision-Making Model 32
Internal Accountability 33
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework 34
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 35
Knowledge and Skills 36
Knowledge Influencers 37
Factual and Procedural Knowledge influences 39
Metacognitive knowledge influences 41
Motivational Influences 43
Teacher Self-Efficacy Influences 43
Expectancy-value theory 45
Organizational Influences 48
Organizational Culture and Trust 49
Professional Paradigm 49
Professional Development 51
Leadership 52
Summary 55
Chapter Three: Methodology 57
Purpose of the Project 57
Data Collection and Instrumentation 57
Participating Stakeholders 59
Survey Sampling Criterion and Rationale 60
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 4
Focus Group Sampling Criterion and Rationale 62
Focus Group Sampling/Recruitment Strategy and Rationale 62
Data Collection and Instrumentation 64
Focus Group Interviews 65
Data Analysis 66
Credibility and Trustworthiness 67
Validity and Reliability 69
Ethics 70
Limitations and Delimitations 74
Conclusion 75
Chapter Four: Results 77
Overview of Purpose and Questions 77
Participating Stakeholders 77
Findings Related to Research Question One 79
Discussion 86
Findings Related to Research Question Two 86
Knowledge Results 86
Motivation Results 92
Organizational Results 100
Discussion 107
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations 109
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 109
Knowledge Recommendations 109
Motivation Recommendation 113
Organization Recommendations 116
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 121
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 121
Level 3: Behavior 123
Level 2: Learning 126
Level 1: Reaction 129
Summary 133
Limitations and Delimitations 134
Future Research 135
Conclusion 136
References 138
Appendices
Appendix A: Informed Consent/Information Sheet 156
Appendix B: Recruitment Letter 158
Appendix C: Survey Items 160
Appendix D: Interview Protocol 163

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 5
List of Tables
Table 1: Smarter Balanced English Language Arts Assessment Comparisons 13
Table 2: Smarter Balanced English Language Arts Assessment Comparisons 14
Table 3: Stakeholder Goals 16
Table 4: Knowledge Factors Related to Stakeholder Goals 42
Table 5: Motivational Influencers 48
Table 6: Organizational Influences 54
Table 7: Alignment of the Interview Questions to the Research Questions 78
Table 8: Data measurement for perception of the CCSSs curriculum mapping project 80
Table 9: Percentage of teacher ratings of effectiveness of CCSSs curriculum maps 82
Table 10: Data measurement of establishing CCSSs maps 82
Table 11: Data measurements of teacher knowledge 87
Table 12: Data measurements of teacher understanding 90
Table 13: Data measurements of teacher preparation 91
Table 14: Data measurements of teacher self-efficacy 93
Table 15: Data measurements of expectancy value 95
Table 16: Data measurements of autonomy 96
Table 17: Data measurements of teacher involvement 97
Table 18: Data measurements of teacher understanding 97
Table 19: Data measurements of change responses 102
Table 20: Data measurements of new programs 104
Table 21: Data measurements of examples 106
Table 22: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 110
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 6
Table 23: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 114
Table 24: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 117
Table 25: Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 122
Table 26: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Students 123
Table 27: Required Drivers to Support Students’ Critical Behaviors 124
Table 28: Components of Learning for the Program 128
Table 29: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 129
Table 30: Immediately after the training 130

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 7
List of Figures
Figure A: The Gap Analysis Process 58
Figure B: Effectiveness Rating 81
Figure C: Achievement Measurement Tool 133

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 8
Abstract
With the rise of Common Core State Standards, the role of curriculum mapping is increasingly
essential for schools to ensure alignment within the curriculum being taught and what is being
assessed. In this evaluation study, the gap analysis framework was used to analyze the
knowledge, motivation and organizational causes preventing a comprehensive high school from
establishing these curriculum maps to monitor classroom curriculum for alignment to the
standards. A mixed methods analysis was used to form an analysis to illuminate systemic gaps
in implementation of course mapping. Clark and Estes (2008) evaluation strategies through the
Knowledge, Motivation, Organization influences serves as the lens for this study.

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 9
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem
Recently, education has undergone a process of rapid change in student performance
assessment as computer adaptive summative examinations have emerged based on Common
Core State Standards. The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, a public educational
agency supported by 15 states including the state of California, led a shift in 2013 to a
customized online assessment system aligned to the Common Core State Standards (CCSSs). As
a result, schools are looking for research-based methods to ensure that students are being
comprehensively taught the Common Core State Standards (CCSSs). Curriculum mapping,
which involves diagraming a curriculum for alignment and coherence, is one of the more widely
accepted tools that schools use to ensure curricular alignment with these high-stakes exams (Hale
& Dunlap, 2010; Jacobs, 2004; Koppang, 2016). Mapping enables a school system to ensure
that the curriculum being taught matches the objectives and outcomes of the new CCSSs. When
a school’s curriculum is not aligned with the expectations embedded in assessment, the school
fails to prepare students for the rigor of the college and career state assessments, leading to low
school ranking. Schools that chronically underperform in their state ranking after an extended
period of time can be subjected to far more intrusive, top-down treatment including last-resort
turnaround efforts under the Every Student Succeeds Act (Loeb, 2017).
Whole school reforms like curriculum mapping are dependent upon school capacity.
Fullan (1993) contends that large-scale school change initiatives often fail to achieve reform due
to issues of sustainability and implementation. Newmann et al. (2000) defined capacity as
consisting of: teacher skills and dispositions, professional community, program coherence,
technical resources and leadership. Because of the complexities of any new implementation
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 10
within an established system, the factors and conditions which can impact this initiative are
numerous. Complex systems are made up of extensive intricate interactions between
components which must all be considered as an ecosystem. (Rzevski & Skobelv, 2014) The
process of curriculum change requires leadership and teamwork, individual learning, and a
shared vision aligned around strategic planning (Fullan, 1992; Hall & Hord, 2010). To ensure
congruence with the taught curriculum and the assessed curriculum, it is important to examine
the teachers’ knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences in relationship with a
course mapping initiative.
The purpose of this study is to look at the influences that impact staff’s efforts to
establish Common Core aligned curriculum maps at a comprehensive high school, as they work
toward improving the achievement on state CCSS examinations. Causes of this achievement gap
are presented with a review of literature and a framework to explore the knowledge, motivational
and organizational aspects of the initiative (Clark & Estes, 2008). Solutions are also proposed
which will be utilized by the school to achieve their stated goal of curriculum alignment.
Organizational Context and Mission

Ranch High School (pseudonym) is a comprehensive high school located in the North
Bay area of California, currently serving approximately 1,550 students, and drawing from
culturally and economically diverse neighborhoods. Enrollment over the past five years has seen
a continued shift in the school’s demographic composition, including a steady decline in the
school’s white population with a corresponding increase in the number of Hispanic/Latino
students enrolled. Accordingly, RHS currently serves a student population consisting of 45%
White Non-Hispanic and 42% Hispanic/Latino students. A very small number of African
American, Asian, Native American, Filipino and Pacific Island students complete the school’s
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 11
demographic composition. Of the 1,550 students currently enrolled at RHS, approximately 38%
are socioeconomically disadvantaged, a number that has increased by 11% in the past five years.
Per California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), school
demographics, RHS serves 11% English Learners, 11% Students with Disabilities and 21% of
the population are Reclassified Fluent-English-Proficient. The 2017 WASC self-study report
found that 43% of parents report having a college degree, with 24% of these going on to attend
some graduate school, while 5% report they are not high school graduates (Ranch High School
WASC, 2017). RHS has a teaching staff of 87 credentialed teachers from a variety of disciplines.
Sixteen percent of teachers have less than 3 years of teaching experience. The average number of
years of teaching experience of staff members is 11 years. Eighty-five percent of teachers are
white, and only 6.8% are Hispanic. Forty-seven percent of teachers are male, and 53% are
female. The teachers range in age from 24 to 67.
The stated mission of RHS is to provide a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum that
enables students to be successful now and in their future. RHS employs 101 fully-credentialed
teachers across eight departments: English, Math, Science, History, Performing and Visual Arts,
Career Tech, Physical Education and Special Education.
RHS competes for enrollment of students with eight high schools within a ten-mile
radius. Recruitment efforts are high, and schools need to be competitive to draw enrollment.
This makes comparison achievement data important to improve in order for RHS to remain
competitive in a saturated market. Therefore, RHS is actively seeking innovations which will
impact their student success rate on state-wide assessments.

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 12
Organizational Performance Status/Need
In order to fulfill its mission and continue providing services for students within the
region, it is imperative that RHS students demonstrate greater levels of success on the Smarter
Balanced Assessment tests. Failure to do so could result in declining enrollment as families opt
to enroll their students in other competitive high schools. This vulnerability was particularly felt
in 2008 when the district suffered from declining enrollment and a significant number of students
left RHS. This was due in part to RHS’s low Academic Performance Index (API) of 701, as
compared to a nearby competing high school which drew attention in the county for their API of
881. By 2013, the last year of API reporting, transfer trends had stabilized as RHS increased
their API to 733, and the competing high school dropped to 833. However, with a national
environment revisiting the voucher system under the current Secretary of Education, it is vital
that RHS address their underperforming test scores and school-wide achievement data to prevent
a repeat of the student exodus that was experienced in 2008.
Assessment and accountability calculations for California public schools have entered a
period of significant transition, with the elimination of the Academic Performance Index and the
transition from STAR testing to the Smarter Balanced Assessment coupled with the restructuring
of the Federal educational accountability system. Currently, both State and Federal education
departments are working to redesign the metrics for new accountability systems. For 2016, the
California Department of Education released an Accountability Transition Report that features
only SBAC participation rates and graduation rate calculations. However, that metric will only
expand to encompass more high-stakes testing data, and a review of the most recent academic
assessment data reveals several concerning trends for RHS to consider.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 13
Specifically, the Smarter Balanced English Language Arts and Mathematics results
detailed below reveals a performance gap. During the past two assessment cycles, scores
recorded by students at RHS in both ELA and Math were lower than those achieved by other
Sonoma County 11th grade students and by 11th grade students statewide. Furthermore, RHS
students are failing to achieve proficiency at the rates reflected in both the county and state.
Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the achievement gap with the corresponding county and state measures.
Table 1

Smarter Balanced English Language Arts Assessment Comparisons*

Standard
Exceeded
Standard Met Standard
Nearly Met
Standard Not
Met
RHS Students
2014-15 14% 31% 23% 27%
2015-16 13% 35% 28% 24%
Sonoma County
2014-15 25% 35% 23% 18%
2015-16 26% 35% 20% 19%
Statewide
2014-15 23% 33% 24% 20%
2015-16 26% 33% 22% 19%
*RHS achievement data in ELA performance for 11
th
graders in comparison with Sonoma
County and Statewide
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 14
Table 2

Smarter Balanced Mathematics Arts Assessment Comparisons*

Standard
Exceeded
Standard
Met
Standard
Nearly Met
Standard Not
Met
RHS Students
2014-15 4% 15% 28% 53%
2015-16 4% 16% 24% 57%
Sonoma County
2014-15 12% 19% 27% 42%
2015-16 13% 21% 25% 41%
Statewide
2014-15 11% 18% 25% 45%
2015-16 13% 20% 25% 43%
*RHS achievement data in Mathematics performance for 11
th
graders in comparison with
Sonoma County and Statewide

RHS is significantly underperforming both the state and county in academic outcomes.
To address this achievement gap, RHS is pursuing an aggressive school improvement strategy
and working to establish course maps aligned to CCSS. The WASC self-study revealed poor
system alignment with CCSS and a disconnect between what is being taught and what is being
assessed. The need for curricular alignment necessitates the construction of content mapping to
make overt the instructional process at RHS (Sloane & Kelly, 2003).
Organizational Goal

The 2017 WASC self-study was the process for determining the stakeholder goal.
Individual focus groups made of interdisciplinary teacher groups examined achievement data,
conducted interviews, and studied survey data from teachers, parents and students. Through this
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 15
examination effort, it was determined that RHS is lacking in curricular cohesion and alignment
with CCSS. This key finding gave rise to the strategy to implement curriculum maps for all
courses taught at RHS. Additionally, the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP), which
articulates local educational agencies’ actions and expenditures to support pupil outcomes and
overall performance, has listed an overarching goal for this reform. LCAP Goal 1 states: Provide
and support a relevant and rigorous curriculum based on the California Common Core State
Standards to maximize student achievement. The goal is measured through the outcome of the
SBAC assessment, with an achievement goal of 3% growth in one year. Institutional goals are
established through the examination of school achievement data and stakeholder input. They are
crafted by focus groups of teachers, parents and administrators who have examined the
performance data and evaluated school feedback surveys. LCAP feedback surveys given to all
stakeholders indicated that 79% of those responding deemed district curriculum maps as being
“important” or “very important.” The LCAP outlines a plan to use a digital library, such as
Google Drive, to facilitate course planning and support assessment development. Further, the
plan states that all English Language Arts (ELA) and Math teachers will develop and utilize
grade level curriculum maps within a digital library (LCAP goal 1.2, 1.24).
To benchmark the outcome goal, course maps will be collected and analyzed annually to
establish a baseline, with growth expected each year. The LCAP expected Annual Measurable
Outcome (AMO) for this curriculum goal is the performance of continuously enrolled students
who achieve proficiency as measured by the California Assessment of Student Performance and
Progress (CAASPP) exam in 2017-18 will increase 3% from the 2016-17 baseline. Within the
RHS WASC report, specific growth targets have been identified. These targets state that by
2018, RHS will increase the number of students meeting or exceeding standards in ELA and
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 16
Mathematics on CASSP by 5%. Focus groups examined school data and engaged in discussions
to establish achievable system goals. These recommendations were then discussed within
department meetings, and department chairs then reported their priorities back to the WASC
coordinator. The consensus in this self-reflection was that RHS claims to be a standards-based
schools; however, there currently exists no curricular maps or artifacts which illustrate how and
when the school is teaching specific Common Core standards. It is this void which gave rise to
the 2017 WASC goal. (See Table 3)
Table 3
Stakeholder Goals
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, WASC Goal and Organizational Stakeholder
Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of Ranch High School is to provide a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum that
enables students to be successful now and in their future.
LCAP Goal 1:
Provide and support a relevant and rigorous curriculum based on the California Common Core
State Standards to maximize student achievement.
WASC Action Plan Goal 1
In order to increase student success rates, RHS will develop a comprehensive curricular system
that has structures in place, including curriculum maps, to monitor and assess student progress,
and responsively support struggling students to enable all students to achieve at grade-level
standards.

Organizational Performance Goal
By May 2018, 100% of teachers will use a completed Common Core aligned mapping guide to
direct their planning and instruction of their daily lesson plans.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 17

Administration
Quarterly progress meetings
2017-2018 will monitor the
establishment of curriculum
maps. Quarterly rubrics will
be utilized with department
chairs to evaluate and track
departmental progress on
curriculum mapping.
Administrators will monitor
and drive full May 2018
compliance through the
digital library application.
Department Chairs
Each department chair is
responsible to oversee the
project with their department
specific to their content
standards. By May 2018, all
department chairs will
confirm that all courses have
been completed and are
loaded into a digital library,
the digital Common Core
aligned mapping guide.
RHS Staff
By May 2018, all staff will
report, and be observed in
walkthroughs, using a
completed Common Core
aligned mapping guides, to
direct their planning and
instruction of their daily
lesson plans.

While the joint efforts of all stakeholders contribute to the achievement of the mission, it
is important to evaluate where teachers are currently with regard to their performance goals.
Therefore, the stakeholder group for this study is teachers. Twice a year, the goals will be
evaluated for system compliance by the Academic Senate which consists of teacher leaders from
each department. The measures they will utilize to track this goal will consist of the percentage
of RHS courses with curriculum maps aligned to CCSSs warehoused in a digital library.
Additionally, this group will survey staff to report completed CCSS course maps being utilized
to plan instruction. Each department chair is responsible for driving the project within their
department teams. The curriculum mapping process should be easy to monitor by individual
teachers, teaching teams, and the school as transparency is afforded through a digital library.
Related Literature
In 2003, Sloane and Kelly analyzed the current emphasis on high-stakes testing and
ranking within the United States and strongly advised educators to give organizational mapping
systems the highest priority. Kern (2013) emphasized that in a high-stakes testing environment, it
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 18
is critical that there be a clear alignment between curriculum and the measures embedded in the
state assessment system. The need to align classroom work with state standards is a driving
force behind the curriculum mapping process, which has been an educational reform strategy
since 1980. This is when Fenwick English (1980) introduced the process of curriculum mapping
to achieve greater congruence between the written curriculum and the taught curriculum.
Initially, curriculum mapping was viewed as an auditing tool to ensure curriculum was aligned
with the state standards; however, research has shown it to be a tool that promotes school
improvement (Fairris, 2008; Hale & Dunlap, 2010; Lucas, 2005; Mills, 2003).
In the late 1990s Heidi Hayes Jacob published her work, which established mapping as a
process-oriented model (Jacobs, 1997). Curriculum mapping ensures that teaching is both
purposefully structured and logically sequenced, resulting in a system that strives toward
ensuring students are building on what they have previously learned (Hale, 2008). Horizontal
coherence safeguards that learning achievements and progressions are based on what has been
taught to students across the system and on the learning standards that the students are expected
to meet (Udelofen, 2005). Subject-area coherence through course mapping ensures that teachers
system-wide are working toward the same learning standards in similar courses and that students
are receiving the same quality of instruction and rigor regardless of the teacher they are assigned
(Jacobs, 1997; Jacobs, 2006; Jacobs, 2010). Curriculum mapping implementation has been
shown to have a positive effect on both the students' performance and a positive effect on
increased teacher engagement (Jacob, 2004; Koppang, 2016). Without a well-designed
curricular map, students who rely on the school to provide cohesive instruction lose the support
that is vital to successful educational mastery (Boudah, Lenz, Bulgren, Schumaker, & Deshler,
2000). Furthermore, research studies have demonstrated a connection between curriculum
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 19
mapping and increased student academic achievement (Fairris, 2008; Shanks, 2002). A
deliberate institutional plan yields institutional results. Fairris (2008) found that curriculum
mapping can lead to higher student achievement in both Math and English subject areas.
Curriculum maps also yield benefits in consistency in what students are learning (David,
2008; Jacobson, 2010; O'Shea, 2005). Aligned curriculum can codify the expectations for new
staff. It can also help schools become better prepared to attempt targeted innovation, and adopt
new methods or materials (Little, 1987). New teachers also benefit from curriculum maps as
learning resources are passed on in an institutional pathway to help them plan out what to teach
and strategies for how to teach it (Kauffman, Johnson, Kardos, Liu, & Peske, 2002). DuFour
(1998) found that the collaborative development of curriculum mapping helps both students and
teachers learn. Costa and Kallick (1995) call curriculum mapping an opportunity for quality
communication about curricular renewal and institutional improvement. According to Marzano
(2000), teachers who have worked together in course mapping often report substantial
improvements in student achievement, behavior, and attitude. Marzano (2000) also notes that
teachers who course map together have both the organizational skills and resources to attempt
innovations that would ordinarily exhaust the energy, skill, or resources of an individual teacher.
The difficulties associated with introducing curriculum maps to a complex system are
manifold. Teachers are often transitioning from an experience of isolation and high autonomy in
how, what, and when they have taught material with little or no guidance or supervisory
oversight (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001). And, while some teachers may welcome the idea of
having a pacing guide to follow, other teachers may take offense to the control that curriculum
maps exert on their teaching (Certo, 2006; Gunzenhauser, 2012). This resentment can be a
hurdle for the system to overcome.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 20
Complex systems like RHS consist of interlocking components that give rise to mutual
dependency. It is not possible to proceed with any change initiative without partitioning the
myriad aspects of an organization and exploring the links between them (Rzevski. & Skobelv
2014).
Importance of the Evaluation
It is imperative that RHS teachers meet this organizational goal to ensure that efforts in
the classroom are aligned in an effort to yield better results on Common Core-based assessments.
Curriculum maps should provide consistency in what students are learning and be helpful for
both horizontal and vertical alignment in the curriculum (David, 2008; Jacobson, 2010). By
ensuring that RHS is teaching content and skills which are aligned with the CCSSs, the school
expects an increase in students who are meeting the standards. Currently, the system is largely
lacking in curricular guides, and there are high levels of variability in curriculum. Each student’s
exposure to CCSSs is dependent upon the instructor assigned and varies widely across the
academic system. Since the performance goal is one that has only limitedly been achieved for the
organization, the current performance gap is roughly 80%.
If RHS fails to meet this organizational goal, there are risks. The RHS WASC
credentialing is awarded on the contingency that schools enact and fulfill their action plan.
Further credentialing evaluations by WASC will utilize the curriculum mapping goal as an index
of health and growth. Failure to demonstrate a good faith effort to achieve these goals can result
in a reduced endorsement of the school, which would jeopardize RHS students’ ability to
matriculate into 4-year universities. Non-credentialed schools face public embarrassment and
increased workloads to attain good standing with this important educational credentialing board.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 21
Additionally, RHS has already experienced a decreased enrollment, with a drop of over
200 students when performance data declined in 2008. Should academic achievement rates
continue to significantly underperform both the state and county, the potential exists that another
exodus could occur as parents seek out high performing schools in the area. A response of this
nature would be detrimental to the future of the school, as decreased enrollment depletes the
daily student funding needed to maintain the school and support the tenured staff.
Under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) all Local Educational Agencies
(LEAs) are required to prepare a Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). This plan
outlines how the district intends to meet annual goals for all pupils. It defines specific activities
to address state and local priorities identified pursuant to EC Section 52060(d). Failure to meet
LCAP Goal number 1 relating to course maps could result in a revision to the LCAP. Education
Code (EC) Section 52062 states specific actions and strategies which exist to ensure
expenditures are allocated for annual incremental actions to achieve progress. The revised action
strategy would most likely entail resources allocated to the same goal and higher levels of
accountability placed upon teachers who fail to deliver on the outcome of curriculum maps.
Further, any failure to address the lack of CCSS aligned curriculum maps at RHS will
have a negative impact on students, who will continue to underperform their peers on CCSS
aligned high-stakes exams. Lack of mapping guides and clear institutional vertical alignment
coupled with the resulting low test scores will negatively impact the organization’s ability to
achieve its mission to provide a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum that enables students to
be successful now and in their future. RHS desperately needs to act on a goal that has been in
place since 2011 and to fulfill this goal in the service of students and the school.

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 22
Description of Stakeholder Groups
There are multiple groups of stakeholders who contribute to and benefit from the
achievement of RHS institutional performance goals. By virtue of the management role they
play, school administrators report placing high value in a systematic process to ensure that the
curriculum is transparent and aligned to state standards. In a research study conducted with 20
principals on instructional leadership, all 20 identified curricular alignment as important
(Reitzug, West, & Angel, 2008). With the increasing trend toward accountability in the
classroom and the need for professional learning communities to function, the establishment of
these documents is important to administration and the growth of the institution.
The RHS staff is collectively led by a group of 13 elected Department Chairs. These
teacher leaders act as liaisons with the administration and represent the concerns of staff to
administration while simultaneously holding their department members accountable for the
fulfillment of administrative directives and campus goals. These individuals have a considerable
responsibility for scheduling and mapping the process for the achievement of institutional goals,
and they are expected to communicate and support goals within their departments.
However, it is the RHS teaching staff which is the crucial stakeholder group most
engaged in the work of standards-based alignment. They are assigned the task of creating
curriculum maps. Therefore, it is critical to study these teachers and their perspectives of the
knowledge, motivational, and organizational influencers in the context of this study. This is the
participant group that is most critical in the fulfillment of the goal. Teachers are responsible for
the creation of these course maps more than any other stakeholder group.
The organizational performance goal is supported by the administration and department
chairs, and it is teachers’ efforts and understanding that is critical to the achievement of the
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 23
organizational performance goal of 100% compliance with completing CCSS aligned course
maps loaded into a digital library.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to evaluate the knowledge, motivational and organizational
factors which must be explored to achieve the goal of having all staff report using completed
CCSS aligned mapping guides to direct their planning of daily lesson plans by May, 2018. The
analysis will focus on the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences relating to
implementing this organizational goal. While a complete performance evaluation would focus on
all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholders in this analysis are the teaching staff at
RHS. As such, the questions that guide this evaluation study are the following:
1. To what extent is RHS meeting its goal of being compliant with 100% of courses
completing a Common Core Standards aligned course map within a digital library by
May 2018?
2. What are the teachers’ knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences that
promote or inhibit a teacher’s ability to achieve this organizational goal?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
For this study, the Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework will be used. The gap
analysis offers an analytical method to identify performance level gaps within an organization.
Gap analysis identifies a conceptual framework for the existing performance gap by focusing on
variables which contribute to the performance issue. These three factors include: knowledge and
skills, motivation and organizational elements. Knowledge and skills examines the advanced
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 24
professional expertise and understanding required to achieve the desired performance goal.
Motivational factors include beliefs, active choice, persistence, and mental effort essential in
workers to increase performance. Organizational factors explore the work processes, material
resources and value streams which drive an organizational culture to facilitate the achievement
of the performance goal (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011)
Assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational needs impacting the performance
goal at RHS will be generated based on known factors and related literature. These needs will
then be examined by surveys, focus groups and interviews. Subsequently, literature review and
content analysis will be employed to generate research-based recommended solutions for closing
the achievement gap.
Definitions
Curriculum Maps: A well organized and purposefully designed outline, indexes, or diagrams
which detail a course of study linked to learning standards and outcomes. It can include the
many elements entailed in teaching students, including: assessments, readings, assignments,
lessons and instructional techniques. For the purposes of this study, curriculum maps refer to a
teacher or school designed guidance document, not mass-marketed guides commercially
produced.
Learning Progression: A purposeful sequencing of teaching and learning expectations across
grade levels.
Learning Standards: Concise, clearly articulated descriptions of what students should know and
be able to do at each stage in their education.
Professional Learning Communities: A group of educators that meets regularly to work
collaboratively to improve teaching and evaluate students’ academic performance.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 25
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter has provided the reader with
the key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about course mapping guides.
The organization’s mission, goals and stakeholders as well as the initial concepts of gap analysis
were also introduced. Chapter Two will provide a review of current literature surrounding the
scope of the study. Topics of knowledge, organization and motivational supports and policies
will be explored. Chapter Three details the assumed needs for this study, as well as methodology
when it comes to the choosing of participants, data collection and analysis. In Chapter Four, the
data and results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions based on data and
literature for addressing the needs and closing the performance gap, as well as recommendations
for an implementation and evaluation plan for the proposed solutions.

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 26
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter examines the relevant literature regarding curriculum mapping. Although
curriculum maps have been used to guide classroom practices for many years, the recent shift to
CCSS has brought renewed attention to curriculum design processes. These 2010 standards lay
out what students should be able to do at each grade level, without prescribing the content that
needs to be taught. By establishing these learning outcomes, standards are designed to ensure
that all students nationwide have the same skills and rigor in the classroom. Curriculum maps
identify when and what content and resources the instructor will utilize in teaching these skills
(Jacobs, 2000). In the context of the modern standards movement, curriculum mapping has
emerged as a useful tool to achieve greater curriculum alignment and curriculum-focused school
improvements (Burns, 2001).
Course maps can be a powerful vehicle in establishing identified course outcomes,
aligned performance objectives, pedagogy and assessment methods (Hale & Dunlap, 2010).
Curriculum maps are an institutional tool which can enable RHS to gather data on what teachers
are actually working on with their students through the course of the school year. By matching
desired outcomes with evidence of student mastery, RHS can measure and impact educational
effectiveness in real-time rather than waiting until the state examinations (Jacobs, 2000).
Further, course maps will provide an educational reform document essential in organizing and
formalizing the curriculum in a manner that lends itself to collaboration and reflection (Dufour,
1998; Eaker, DuFour, & DuFour, 2002; Hord & Sommers, 2008; Jacobs, 2000). Curriculum
mapping is a fundamental step in building Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), which
have proven effective in sustaining educational expertise within a school community (Cuevas,
Matveev, & Feit, 2009; Dufour, 1998; Eaker et al., 2002; Martin-Kniep, 2008).
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 27
Factors Influencing Curriculum Mapping Initiative
Schools are increasingly under pressure as external accountability measures manufacture
a very public monitoring of school data. Measurements on achievement tests in schools
nationwide are evaluated against established state standards which drive the desirable levels of
student achievement on these exams. These levels are mandated by states and typically go hand
in hand with a system of penalties and/or intervention strategies targeted at disrupting low
performing schools while recognizing successful ones. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
and the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 are both focused on increasing political and fiscal
pressure to increase school performance levels on national assessments. These index
comparisons have fueled public concern over what American students are being taught and what
they know in comparison with their peers both nationally and from around the globe. These
concerns are more than just educational: they are political and fiscal concerns, as public
education constitutes a large portion of state budgets (Dunk & Dickman, 2003).
All schools exist within these accountability measures, which convey with broad brush
strokes the degree of academic success or failure within the school. The broad goals of
standardized testing and educational reform laws are to impact the outcomes by increasing the
expectations for student performance in every school (Dunk & Dickman, 2003). Joseph Burke’s
accountability triangle captures the way schools must balance the pressures of state priorities,
academic concerns, and market forces (2005). These factors cannot be ignored, and institutional
practices must be linked ultimately to the metrics developed. Consumer information in the form
of state exam performance data is ultimately the value of quality in the marketplace. While all
schools are bound to the external accountability systems in place under the Every Student
Succeeds Act, schools can also function as their own accountability system. These in-house
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 28
systems are more immediately responsive to impacting educational outcomes (Abelman, 1998).
Alignment with external accountability measures can be achieved through the establishment of
internal structures like pacing guides (Dufour, 2006). Improving academic accountability
structures within schools will inherently impact outcomes on external accountability systems
(Anderson, Leithwood & Strauss, 2010). The mapping process focuses on beneficial
instructional practices of accountability, while ensuring alignment between state standards and
curriculum.
Standards Based Curriculum Maps
The national debate over whether curriculum is too lenient or not rigorous enough for all
students has led to the establishment of the 2010 Common Core State Standards for Mathematics
and English Language Arts and to the establishment of national standards-based testing. Yet, there
remains an ever-present issue in curriculum in how to best implement these state academic
expectations to achieve the best results on state assessments. Increasingly, schools are choosing to
align curriculum through course mapping. In this age of accountability, curriculum mapping is a
tool that can help schools improve instructional decision making, and simplify the assessing of
standards mastery (Dufour, 2006).
Curriculum mapping was first presented as an improvement process by Fenwick English,
a curriculum theoretician and educational reformer (1990). Initially, curriculum mapping was
simply an outline of the content matter being taught and the amount of time spent teaching it.
However, this view soon evolved into guides which focused on curriculum and instruction with an
increasingly broad scope, largely through the work of Heidi Hayes Jacobs (1997). Dr. Jacobs
embraced the new electronic methods, and she argued that course maps were crucial and essential
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 29
tools of curriculum reform and strategic and learning outcomes (Clough, James, & Witcher, 1996;
Jacobs, 1997; Jacobs, 2006; Jacobs, 2010).
Course mapping is also being used to excavate and understand sequencing within
education, as teachers examine the prior content that students have learned and where the content
they teach fits into future content (Fisher, Grant, Frey, & Johnson, 2007; Jenkins 2008).
Curriculum maps can act as a means to determine what the curriculum is within the system and
also as a tool for monitoring and evolving the curriculum (O'Malley, 1982). Curriculum pacing
and progress assessment are increasingly identified as an effective mechanism for alignment with
academic standards (O'Shea, 2005). Course maps are designed to facilitate teacher collaboration,
alignment, and synthesize instruction within a system. Hoyle, English, and Steffy (1994) argue
that a systematic approach to curriculum development is essential to ensure continuity of
instruction both within a school and among partnering schools. Course maps can also ensure
progressive skill development and avoid unnecessary instructional overlaps. Course maps
prevents gaps, which could minimize boredom and ensure mastery of curriculum (Hoyle et al.,
1994). Curriculum maps can impact consistency between what faculty expect students to learn and
what learning experiences faculty design. The maps make overt what is expected in institutional
learning and clarify what teachers will assess (Cuevas, Matveev & Feit, 2009; Ewell, 1997;
Hatzakis, Lycett & Serrano, 2007; Kopera-Frye, Mahaffy & Svare, 2008; Harden, 2001; Robley,
Whittle & Murdoch-Eaton, 2005).
Curriculum mapping captures the program curricula and what teachers have selected to
teach. This document then enables the faculty to capture an overarching curricular structure that
provides cognitive scaffolding for teaching and learning processes (Cuevas et al., 2009).
Curriculum mapping, when done systematically, can also build staff capacity for continuous
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 30
improvement (Burns, 2001). Curriculum mapping can have positive impacts on teachers' attitudes
and their instructional practices, including favorable attitudes about standards, collaboration, and
assessment (Sztorc, 2009; Wilanski, 2006). Teachers will not be able to legitimately work together
in a highly effective manner until they first clearly establish what students need to learn (Dufour,
2002; Fisher et al., 2007). Curriculum mapping is a crucial first step in improving student
outcomes.
Professional Learning Communities
Collaborative work among all teachers in a school is linked to improving schoolwide
achievement data (Dufour, 1991). Research has identified curricular alignment as essential to
facilitate collaboration and ensure coherence (Reitzug, West, & Angel, 2008). Vygotsky (1978)
emphasized that learning is a social phenomenon which takes place as individuals collectively
construct new knowledge and meaning through activity and social interactions in everyday
contexts. Curriculum mapping lends itself to professional learning and is a vital tool used in the
social learning environment of Professional Learning Communities (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, &
Many, 2006; Eaker, DuFour, & DuFour, 2002; Rettig, McCullough, Santos, & Watson, 2003).
PLCs can take many forms, but all should have the following two goals in common: to clarify
what students should learn and to check that the students have met the learning outcomes. Course
maps are essential in the attainment of these two goals, as they clarify the knowledge students
should learn and the skills they should be learning. (DuFour et al., 2006; Dufour & Eaker, 1998)
Course maps provide the scaffolding for the establishment of common assessments, which can be
written directly into the maps. Common assessments then provide the opportunity to monitor
student progress towards achieving and identified outcomes (Black & William, 1998; Dowd &
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 31
Shieh, 2013; Fisher & Frey, 2009; Golden, 2006). PLCs build upon the work of course maps,
making them an essential component of any collaborative learning initiative.
Teacher Autonomy
While there are many advantages to course maps, they are not without controversy. Some
teachers see pacing guides as a challenge to their professional autonomy in the classroom and
curriculum policies. Winkler (2002) found that veteran teachers often view alignment practices as
connected to a loss of power and professionalism and often felt that their existing beliefs were
being challenged by their implementation. These veteran teachers also reported a loss of efficacy
in their teaching practices under alignment efforts. In contrast, new teachers reported that they
found curriculum maps were aligned with the training that they had received and that they
experienced considerable pedagogical freedom (Fink, 2002). Kauffman (2005) found that two-
thirds of the second-year teachers she interviewed reported that their autonomy was not challenged
by curriculum mapping. Pearson and Moomaw (2005) found little relation between high
curriculum autonomy and high job satisfaction using the Teaching Autonomy Scale.
Curriculum is a construct that can be embedded with social institutional beliefs
(Goodson, 2001). As an arena of ideological confrontation, the curriculum reflects ideological
and professional interests. Dufour (2008) warns that the degree to which teachers believe they
hold full discretion over curricular expectations and their perception of their own autonomy can
impact their ability to fully participate in the communal nature of both collaboration and internal
accountability. Because of this fact, system conflicts can be rooted in the many different
ideologies and interests of each organizational member (Pintrich, 2003). Additionally, power
dynamics with administrators can often cause opposition to initiatives perceived as
accountability measures (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). Mapping guides and curricular
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 32
choices, particularly at the secondary level, exist within a political battlefield reflective of power
struggles beyond the arena of education policy (Schmoker & Marzano, 1999). A school engaged
in curriculum mapping should remain highly cognizant of the issues of autonomy within the
social constructs of the organization.
Theory of Action
Data-Driven Decision-Making Model
The “Data-Driven Decision-Making Model” (DDDMM) is an emerging field of outcome-
based school leadership which uses layers of data to guide organizations and improve
professional development (Streifer, 2002; Thornton & Perreault, 2002). By systematically
assessing programs within an organization, information can be derived for decision-makers to
drive curriculum and institutional goals. For DDDMM to be effective, individual stakeholders in
schools, including teachers, administrators, students, and parents, need data through strong
structural pathways to capture information about what is happening under the surface (Coburn &
Turner, 2011). DDDMM establishes within a community the opportunity to learn through data.
It emphasizes establishing norms, building collaborative relationships, and negotiating meaning
(Wenger, 1998). To put DDDM practices into practice, factors and dimensions that impact the
conditions of the learning environment must be made quantifiable (Rudy & Conrad, 2004).
Organizational structures must shift from casual and nonsystematic systems into organized
systems which generate data designed to give insight into the conditions of the environment
(LaFee, 2002).
Additionally, Jacobs advocates for transparency, arguing that all members of the school
community have an indisputable right to see the roadmap and dashboard for their learning
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 33
journey (2000). Eckstein and Noah (1993) argue that using external examination as a policy
tool, educational authorities can propel school curriculum in the most desired direction. While
there are various and complex factors relating to school success, curriculum maps can enable an
organization and its stakeholders to gain entry into information relating to educational gaps,
repetitions, and curricular alignment with standards (Jacobs, 2000). Further, by matching the
desired outcomes with evidence of student learning, schools can accumulate present data to drive
DDDMM (O’Reilly, 1983). Educational researchers have long derided education as a field in
which practitioners often make decisions based on intuition, instinct, or current fads (Slavin,
2002). Data needs to be actively used to improve instruction in schools, and individual educators
often do not know how to use data in a way that leads to deep changes in instruction and
improved student outcomes (Earl & Katz, 2006; Olah et al., 2010; Petrides & Nodine, 2005). By
building curricular and data expertise at the school site for data-driven decision-making, teachers
can drive the decision-making process (Marsh & Farrell, 2015). Accountability mechanisms
must be put into place which will give an account of student achievement for individuals in
formal authority and training within the school (Jacobs, 2000). DDDMM can build on the work
of course mapping and utilize data to drive decisions based on targeted data with the construct of
maps.
Internal Accountability
Deliberate and focused alignment requires a common set of values and the crafting of
deliberate internal structures and processes within the organization to unify individuals to a set of
common expectations and views (Portelli, 1987). According to Locke’s goal setting theory,
without clear performance goals and feedback, people are not committed nor inclined to give
their best effort. To the degree to which an organization’s individual responsibilities,
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 34
expectations and internal accountabilities are not aligned is the degree to which they will fail to
meet the external accountability measures. (Locke, 2001) The U.S. Department of Education’s
2009 data usage report emphasizes that a school considers themselves to be responsible and
accountable for specific expectations, and accountability measures must be aligned with external
goals. Collective expectations should impact all teachers’ own sense of responsibility (Abelmann
et al., 1998; Stecher, & Kirby, 2004). Individual conceptions of their personal responsibility
within the collective expectations of the organization will impact the actions and the motivations
of teachers (Bandura, 2000). These factors cannot be left to incidental chance within the formal
arrangements and structures within a school.
Accountability must be a strong internal operating principle and aligned tightly with the
external accountability systems to change actions and behaviors. Administration must manage
these expectations through both authoritative supervisory control and professional
accountability (Romzek & Dubnick, 1987). Much like the Toyota Production System, schools
require a formalized system-wide accountability system with established performance measures
which encourage professional accountability (Stecher & Kirby, 2004). According to Dowd
(2005), by crafting an internal “culture of evidence” (p.14), schools can drive and monitor
achievement measures which align with external evaluations. Therefore, the establishment of
clear curricular expectations in the form of course maps is a huge first step through clear
expectations.
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis is a critical first step, as many leaders fail to analyze
the causes of performance gaps, which can cause them to fail to have clear goals, implement the
wrong solutions, or even blame the people who have the problem. Clark and Estes (2008) offer a
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 35
three-fold analytical framework to identify: (1) requisite knowledge and skills, (2) motivation
influences that direct choice, persistence and mental effort, and (3) organizational factors that
inhibit or encourage the achievement of performance goals. For this study, the school district
leadership must examine both the knowledge and motivational influences which are relevant to
the achievement of the organizational goal.
When organizations identify a problem, it is natural to immediately start thinking of
solutions. However, this response often begins shutting off possibilities for getting a deeper
understanding of the problem before finding a relevant solution (Clark & Estes, 2008). This is
often a result of over simplification or rapid decision making to meet impending timelines
(Clark, 2012). The gap analysis framework is a tool to evaluate causes in a systemic and
evidence-based approach. For this study, the researcher will be using personal knowledge,
interviews, relevant literature and theories related to motivation and learning. It is through this
approach that this study was designed and through this lens that data will be analyzed.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
The organizational goal of RHS is to provide a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum
that enables students to be successful now and in their future To achieve this organizational
goal, the 2017 Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) goal states: In order to
increase student success rates, RHS will develop a comprehensive curricular system that has
structures in place, including curriculum maps, to monitor and assess student progress, and
responsively support struggling students to enable all students to achieve at grade-level
standards. Clark and Estes’s conceptual framework will be utilized to understand the
performance issues associated with this goal of establishing curriculum maps. This conceptual
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 36
framework includes examination of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers
impacting the achievement of the organizational goal.
Knowledge and Skills
Prior to any implementation, it is necessary to determine whether a group of individuals
knows how to achieve their performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). The following section will
examine the knowledge-related literature that is relevant to the teachers in achieving their
stakeholder goal. Declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge
affect the overall ability of the teachers to implement curriculum mapping strategies to formalize
institutional expectations in the workplace setting. Individuals need to know “the what” prior to
any action taking place. This knowledge represents a necessary, although not the sole, condition
for changes in behavior (Krathwohl, 2002). Information and personal interpretations will dictate
an individual’s response to curriculum maps in the workplace, and these must be affected to
impact implementation (Anderson, 2001).
To achieve the stakeholder goal, it is necessary to instill the requisite knowledge and
skills needed to perform the task. Anderson and Krathwohl identified an important revision to
Bloom’s Taxonomy by including four different types of knowledge. These four classifications
of knowledge are: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. According to Krathwohl
(2002), factual knowledge refers to essential facts, terminology and details individuals must
know or be familiar with in order to understand a discipline or solve a problem in it. Conceptual
knowledge consists of the interrelationships among the basic elements that exist within a larger
structure (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Both factual and conceptual knowledge are considered
declarative knowledge, which constitutes knowledge about the “what.” The last two types,
procedural and metacognitive, constitute the knowledge of “how to” aspects of knowledge.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 37
Anderson (2001) described procedural knowledge as information or knowledge that helps
students to do something specific within a discipline, subject, or area of study. Metacognitive
knowledge is awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition; it is strategic or reflective
knowledge about solving problems and understanding of the self (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
These four knowledge types form a useful model to lay out the branches of knowledge, and they
are important to understand in order to build an understanding of knowledge influencers in any
organizational initiative. These knowledge influencers are imperative to define, assess, and
examine to facilitate the achievement of the RHS stakeholder goal. (see Table 1)
Knowledge Influencers
According to Bandura (1997), feelings of stress derive from low self-efficacy to manage
environmental demands. This causes an impaired level of functioning in an individual. The
experience of negative emotions in teacher reporting has been shown to be inversely related to
self-efficacy (Kyriacou, 2001; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). Stress from change may be
inevitable, but psychological reactions to stress depend on an individual’s personal knowledge
of resources and strategies (Germer, Siegel, & Fulton, 2005). Perceiving events as overwhelming
becomes the reality for the perceiver (Bandura, 2007). Therefore, it is important to build
procedural knowledge related to course mapping in order to empower individuals and decrease a
negative reaction (Chen et al., 2012). Teachers must possess the skills and strategies that will
prepare them to embrace curriculum mapping in the workplace. Research shows that many
schools lack an understanding of the changes needed to achieve reform (Elmore & Rothman,
1999). Desired behavior often requires an appropriate understanding of terminology, protocols,
and elements within a specific field. Factual and conceptual knowledge are the initial
foundations for learning the steps necessary for getting something done, or the “know-how”
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 38
(Krathwohl, 2002). This capacity, translated into practice, can drive forward the organizational
goal.
Prior to implementation, it is necessary to instill the requisite knowledge and skills
needed to perform the task. According to Anderson and Krathwohl’s 2001 revisions to Bloom’s
Taxonomy, the four classifications of knowledge are: factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge. Krathwohl (2002) identifies factual knowledge as referring to
essential facts, terminology and the details which individuals must know or be familiar with in
order to understand a discipline or to solve a problem within a given field. Conceptual
knowledge consists of the interrelationships among the basic elements that exist within a larger
structure (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Factual and conceptual knowledge are both considered
declarative knowledge, which constitutes knowledge about the “what.” Procedural and
metacognitive knowledge constitute the understanding of “how to” accomplish something.
Anderson (2001) described procedural knowledge as the information or knowledge which enable
an individual to do something specific within a discipline. These knowledge influencers are
imperative to define, assess, and examine to facilitate the achievement of the RHS stakeholder
goal.
The following section examines literature that is relevant to the teachers, as stakeholders
within RHS, and the stakeholder goal. Declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and other
influences will be identified that affect the overall achievement of the teachers’ implementation
of pacing guides. Knowledge represents a necessary, although not a solely sufficient condition,
for changes in behavior. In other words, desired behavior will not occur without appropriate
knowledge.

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 39
Factual and Procedural Knowledge influences.
Factual and conceptual knowledge is the initial foundation for a teachers’ ability to
establish course maps. To understand the intention and context of the course mapping initiative,
teachers should ideally be familiar with the numerous studies that have been conducted about
course map interventions in academic settings (Portelli, 1987). Factual knowledge includes the
terminology, details, and facts that teachers must be familiar with to understand a discipline or
solve a problem in it, while conceptual knowledge deals more with classifications, principles,
generalizations, theories, models, or structures pertinent to a disciplinary area. Procedural
knowledge refers to the necessary steps involved in completing a goal or possessing the
knowledge of techniques or methods within a field (Krathwohl, 2002). A lack of knowledge or
perceived capacity can induce stress; perceiving events as overwhelming becomes the reality for
the perceiver (Bandura, 1977). Therefore, it is important to build strong procedural knowledge
related to course mapping to empower individuals to react positively to this new
initiative. Teachers need to possess the skills and strategies that will prepare them to craft course
maps in the workplace.
Procedural knowledge refers to the “how”, or the necessary steps involved in completing
a goal or the knowledge of techniques or methods within a field (Krathwohl, 2002). It is
important for teachers’ procedural knowledge for them to understand the vertical connectivity of
a school system and how the process of curriculum alignment is intended to improve the formal
instruction that occurs in the school(English, 2000). A shared understanding that curriculum
mapping supports the development of continuous learning and the development of learning
communities among teachers will establish curriculum mapping within the larger context of
institutional reform (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Training teachers on how to craft course maps and
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 40
structure them in a way that supports collaboration and engagement in continuous improvement
is vital to a successful initiative (Jacobs, 1997; Jacobs, 2006; Jacobs, 2010).
Henderson and Gornick (2002) cautioned that curriculum is a complex concept, and it
often requires further explanation. Portelli (1987) drew attention to the existence of more than
120 definitions of curriculum in educational literature. This can lend itself to widespread
confusion ifteachers are not aligned in their understanding of basic terminology. Curriculum
should be viewed as an educational path leading a student to a destination (Henderson &
Gornick, 2002).
Along with a strong understanding of the role of curriculum, it is also important to have
an understanding of how it fits within the larger political context. New curricular standards were
enacted in 2010, which required educational shifts in all curricular content and pedagogy across
the nation. English (2000) asserted that the alignment of the written curriculum, what is taught,
and what is tested has been a longstanding problem. He emphasized that there is nothing fair
about testing if a misalignment of these factors exists in the educational system (English, 2000).
Efforts towards curriculum coordination and articulation are increasingly more common in
schools today. Wiggins and McTigheʼs (1998) work on curriculum by design focuses on
alignment with outcomes through a backward design model. Institutional curriculum mapping
seeks to resolve the dissonance between what is being taught and what is being assessed.
Marzanoʼs (2003) research on the factors of highly successful schools found high importance in
curriculum mapping.
To increase teachers’ conceptual understanding of curriculum maps, teachers need to
understand the theory behind the need to enact unifying educational structures (Elmore, 2006;
Jacobs, 1997; Jacobs, 2006; Jacobs, 2010). Teachers were once expected to design their course
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 41
of study independently and on their own. Teachers who are unaccustomed to course mapping
with others need exposure to the value of requiring a structure in which to record, align, assess,
and communicate the curriculum they teach (Jacobs, 1997). Baert (1998) and Jacobs (1997)
emphasize that course maps offer a stability of structure which can be immediately applied to
classroom instruction. Teachers must understand and also give value to these institutional
structures to espouse curriculum mapping as a critical component of teacher development
(DuFour & Eaker, 1998). This knowledge must be communicated prior to applying curriculum
mapping strategies within the educational setting. Teachers can benefit from spending time
becoming familiar with the terminology, research, and historical context of the initiative and the
role the maps will play within the educational setting (Schmoker & Marzano, 1999).
Metacognitive Knowledge Influences.
Metacognitive knowledge is the awareness of one’s own cognition and particular
cognitive processes. It is strategic or reflective knowledge about how to go about solving
problems; cognitive tasks include contextual and conditional knowledge and knowledge of self
(Krathwohl, 2002). Metacognition is higher order thinking which involves active control over the
cognitive processes engaged in learning (Perner, 1991). Metacognitive knowledge is the
knowledge about cognitive processes, or thinking about thinking (Krathwohl,
2002). Metacognition is a knowledge and awareness that can be used to control cognitive
processes through self-awareness (Krathwohl, 2002). It is valuable for teachers to have
awareness of their own cognition in order to implement course maps strategies within the
workplace (Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007). Self-regulatory strategies enhance both learning
and performance of a learned skill (Dembo & Eaton, 2000). This knowledge and awareness can
be utilized to control and redirect cognitive processes through self-awareness (Lorenz, 2009). To
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 42
achieve the stakeholder goal, teachers need to have an awareness of their own cognition to
implement curriculum mapping within the workplace.
The Knowledge Influence Table (see Table 2) describes the overall organizational
mission and global organizational goal of RHS. The table also includes the specific stakeholder
goal clarifying what the RHS teachers will do to institute course maps. This table reveals how
cognitive principles may be applied to this problem of practice. It identifies the assumed
knowledge/skills of RHS’s stakeholder group and defines the factual, conceptual, procedural,
and metacognitive assumed knowledge influences which may be impacting teachers as they
establish course maps in the general education setting. Column two, Knowledge Influence
Assessment, defines how those impacts will be assessed.
Table 4
Knowledge Factors Related to Stakeholder Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of Ranch High School is to provide a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum
that enables students to be successful now and in their future.

Organizational Performance Goal
WASC Action Plan Goal 1: In order to increase student success rates, RHS will develop a
comprehensive curricular system that has structures in place, including curriculum maps, to
monitor and assess student progress and responsively support struggling students to enable all
students to achieve at grade-level standards.

Assumed Knowledge Influence

Knowledge Influence Assessment
Declarative:
(Conceptual):
Teachers need to have the knowledge of what
a course map is and how it operates within
the larger system.

Teachers are asked why course mapping
would be important to the larger district
educational system (if at all).

Teachers are asked what (if any) correlation
exists between course mapping and high-
stakes assessments.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 43

Procedural:
Teachers need to have the skills to implement
course maps.

Teachers were asked how they conceive of
course maps being utilized within the
classroom.

Metacognition
Teachers need to self-evaluate their
knowledge of implementing CCSSs aligned
curriculum maps.
Teachers were asked to reflect on their
success in utilizing course maps and engage
in self-evaluation.

Motivational Influences
According to Pintrich (2003), motivation refers to what gets individuals moving towards
the completion of a task and gives purpose and direction for accomplishing a particular
task. Motivation is the basic drive for all an individual’s actions, and it is critical to examine
motivation in achieving any performance goal within an organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). An
individual’s perspective of the world is what dictates their motivation and behavior. There are
different forms of motivation, including: self-efficacy, attribution theory, and expectancy-value
theory. Motivational theories are useful to define, assess, and examine in facilitating the
achievement of the RHS stakeholder goal. While there are many motivational factors, self-
efficacy and value are the two motivational factors which will be discussed in this section. (see
Table 2)
Teacher Self-Efficacy Influences
Vital to completing any task is the theory of self-efficacy. Schunk (1995) defines self-
efficacy as referring to the strength of one’s belief about organizing and accomplishing a desired
task. Grounded in Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), self-efficacy has an effect on what activities
one chooses, the effort and persistence one places on accomplishing a task, and the achievement
of the task (Bandura, 2000). Self-efficacy determines the beliefs a person holds regarding his or
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 44
her power to affect situations. These beliefs dictate the actions an individual is willing to take
since beliefs provide the root of all motivation and action (Schunk, 2002). If people do not
believe that their actions can result in the desired outcomes, they will display little motivation in
acting and persevering in the face of adversity (Pajares, 2009).
To successfully implement course maps, teachers need to feel confident in their ability
and self-efficacy to incorporate strategies into their practice. Self-efficacy is the strength of one’s
belief about accomplishing a desired task (Schunk, 1995). It affects what activities one chooses,
and the effort one engages in when accomplishing and achieving any task (Bandura, 2000). Self-
efficacy determines a person’s beliefs regarding his or her power to affect situations, and these
beliefs then dictate the actions an individual is willing to take (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Teachers engaged in achieving the stakeholder goal will require a sense of self-efficacy
related to course mapping. Teachers need to feel confident in their own ability to incorporate
strategies of mapping the curriculum. Teachers will perform better if they possess the belief that
they can influence their own effectiveness through course mapping (Flook, Goldberg, Pinger,
Bonus, & Davidson, 2013). How teachers perceive themselves and their beliefs about motivation
and well-being influence the attainment of desired outcomes. Self-perception and self-efficacy
are critical components in achieving successful course mapping practices (Pajares, 2009). As
Wigfield (2006) noted, high self-efficacy is a predictor of better performance and higher
motivation in the completion of challenging tasks.
The extent to which teachers will implement innovations is dependent upon the teacher’s
perception of the innovation’s importance and difficulty of implementation (Ghaith & Yaghi,
1997). According to Ghaith and Yaghi (1997), teacher efficacy is a strong predictor for persistent
implementation of innovation. If teachers believe that the innovation is similar to their own
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 45
teaching practices or does not require additional work, teachers will be more likely to implement
the innovation (Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997). Conversely, if teachers do not find that the innovation is
congruent with their teaching practices or perceive that it requires additional time and effort to
implement, teachers are less likely to implement (Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997). This is consistent with
Tshcannen-Moran and Hoy’s (2000) findings that teacher efficacy influences teacher resilience
when faced with new professional practices.
The degrees to which a teacher will attempt or persist in innovation depends on the
teacher’s belief in his/her capability (Bandura, 2007). Any implementation is dependent on the
teacher’s perceived capability. As Wigfield (2006) noted, self-efficacy predicts better
performance and high motivation in completion of challenging tasks. Self-efficacy will promote
intrinsic motivation and a pursuit of personal excellence, rather than an external inducement. In
fact, external inducements rarely result in lasting, long-term change (Lam et al., 2010).
Expectancy-value theory
According to expectancy-value theory, behavior is a function of the expectancies one has
and the personal value of the goal toward which one is working. The expectancy-value theory
asserts that the amount of effort that people are willing to expend on a task is proportional to the
degree to which they expect that they will succeed and the value they place on that task (Green,
2002). Within this domain, utility value is determined by how well a task relates to an
individual's goals (Eccles, 2006). Expectancy value theory asserts that people will orient
themselves to the world according to their expectations, their beliefs and their evaluations
(Palmgreen, 1984). Thus, expectancy-value theory implies that personal expectations and values
are critical to impact in order to realize the completion of a task.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 46
Teachers’ perceived utility-value is important to examine in any institutional initiative.
According to the expectancy-value theory, responsive behavior is a function of the expectancies
one has and the value one places on the goal (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). The amount of effort
that an individual is willing to expend on a task is proportional to the degree they value the task
and the confidence they have in the belief that they will succeed (Green, 2002). utility value can
be determined by how well a task relates to an identified goal (Eccles, 2006). Expectancy-value
theory suggests that people’s actions occur in direct correlation to their expectations and the
alignment of any action with their beliefs and values (Palmgreen, 1984). Thus, expectancy-value
theory suggests that personal expectations and values are critical to comprehend, study, and
influence when pursuing any institutional goal.
Abrami et al.’s study (2010) examined factors that limit innovation implementation
including the perceived value of the innovation. To achieve the stated stakeholder goal, a teacher
must value the initiative more than other pursuits due to the high expected attainment value for
that individual (Eccles, 2006). Similarly, teachers who understand the utility value for the
initiative will also demonstrate a sustained interest (Flook et al., 2013). Per Mitchell (1993), a
person’s sustained interest and motivation increases engagement and facilitates strategies to use
deeper processing and retention. This self-interest motivates, then directly impacts capacity
(Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Researchers have even identified a counteractive effect in which a
higher interest in a topic can compensate for or offset lower ability (Renniner, 2000). Since
behavior is a function of expectation, this self-interest must be leveraged in RHS teachers to
effectively attain the stakeholder goal.
Abrami et al.’s 2010 study explored factors that limit innovation implementation; this
included the expected level of success. Attitudinal and informational foundations are established
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 47
arbitrarily or intuitively from selected beliefs informed by a person’s experience. Using these
attitudinal structures, teachers form a negative or positive outlook about the likelihood of success
of any new initiatives. Correlations are made about new initiatives, which are viewed through the
lens of past experiences within the system (Ajzen, 1991). Bentler and Speckart (1979) were early
innovators who studied the effect of past behavior in the context of the theory of reasoned action.
By using structural modeling techniques, they showed a direct path from prior behavior to later
behavior showing that past experiences form an expectancy-value view which can impact
interest and behavior. Individuals will act within the context of their past experiences, and the
success or failures of the past will impact behavior.
Persistent avoidance occurs when teachers make little or no attempts to implement an
innovation. Mumtaz (2006) attributed this avoidance behavior to the organization’s inability to
clearly communicate implementation expectations around innovations and how they correlate to
a vision for educational change. When this occurs, teachers question the rationale and whether
the innovation is a “suitable change” for the organization (Mumtaz, 2006). Teacher commitment
correlates to the extent to which the teacher recognizes and embraces the change/innovation as
worthy and useful for the organization. The more individuals believe in the value of the desired
behavior, the more their willingness to act increases. The organization’s members will learn to
cope with changes that its members consider valid or warranted (Schein, 1999). Individuals will
also reject what is not perceived to be of importance (Hew & Brush, 2007).
The Motivational Influencer Table (see Table 5) describes the motivational influences
that impact teachers’ self-efficacy, attribution, and utility-value related to course mapping.
Column one describes the assumed influencers, and column two refers describes what method(s)
will be used to assess teachers’ level of self-efficacy and the value they place on the course
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 48
mapping practice. This study will explore the teacher’s perceived expectancy of impacting
institutional growth targets and institutional efficiency through course mapping.
Table 5
Motivational Influencers
Organizational Mission
The mission of Ranch High School is to provide a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum
that enables students to be successful now and in their future.

Organizational Performance Goal
WASC Action Plan Goal 1: In order to increase student success rates, RHS will develop a
comprehensive curricular system that has structures in place, including curriculum maps, to
monitor and assess student progress and responsively support struggling students to enable
all students to achieve at grade-level standards.

Assumed Motivation Influences Motivation Influence Assessment

Self-efficacy:
Teachers need to feel confident in their
ability to integrate strategies of course
mapping into their practice.

Written Survey Item:
“I believe I am qualified to use course maps
in my work.”

Interview Survey Item:
“How do you feel about your ability to use
course mapping successfully in the
workplace?”

Expectancy Value:
Teachers need to see utility value in
curriculum maps aligned to Common Core
State Standards as an action which will
influence the attainment of the professional
goals they hold for themselves.
Written Survey Item:
“It is important for me to have curriculum
aligned to Common Core State Standards.”

“I believe it is beneficial in my professional
to use course maps.”

Organizational Influences
Schein (1990) explored how any change to an organization will affect its organizational
culture. The way in which the staff reacts to organizational change will depend upon many factors,
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 49
including: teacher workload, level of professional development, and the culture of trust within the
organization. Therefore, it is important to examine these elements in the implementation of
programs and initiatives.
Organizational Culture and Trust
According to Schein (1990), culture is a common pattern of assumptions, feelings, values,
and behaviors that are shared and accepted by the organization as a whole. This culture creates
both unconscious feelings and perceptions that inform behavior (Schein, 1990). Barth’s (2006)
work asserts that the nature of relationships among the adults within a school has a greater
influence on the character and quality of that school, and on student accomplishment, than
anything else. Trust is an essential aspect of group effectiveness (Reina & Reina, 2006). Trust
matters most in situations of interdependence, in which the interests of one party cannot be
achieved without reliance upon another (Tschannen-Moran, 2004). This relationship of
interdependence is an essential component in the establishment of course maps. When school
professionals trust one another, they feel safe to experiment with new practices (Barth, 2006).
When teachers trust each other, they share more, help each other out, create more possibilities, and
are supportive of each other’s work (Hord & Sommers, 2008). Trust is the glue that holds high
impact schools together and binds teachers to their shared goals (Salazar, 2008). In a learning
organization, trust and relationships influence the actions of each member (Stephenson, 2009).
Hord and Sommers’ (2008) research shows the key component of collegial learning and building
communities is trust.
Professional Paradigm
Collegial and collective collaboration is required in a re-conceptualizing of
professionalism to allow for value in course mapping initiatives (Conley & Cooper, 2013).
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 50
Wise’s (2012) article referred to the teacher workday as the “tyranny of the classroom walls”
which keeps teachers from working as a team. For decades, teachers worked in isolated
classrooms with high demands for autonomy and individualism. The 1980s and 1990s saw an
increase in collaboration through the emergence of professional learning communities (PLCs)
(Dufour, 2006). Helsby (1995) found that teachers see professionalism as constituting two
things: being professional in their conduct, and how they are seen through other people’s eyes.
The concept of professionalism as improving the quality of standards of practice is a criterion
that works in conflict to isolationism (Hargreaves, 2000). Despite modern academic trends,
teacher isolation still occurs; albeit, it is often an isolation of their own choosing (Marzano et al.,
2005). Course mapping is a collaborative venture, and in order for course mapping to thrive, it is
important that teachers at RHS view professionalism not simply as the quality of individual
practice, but rather as “conduct within an occupation” (Sockett, 1993, p. 226).
Kerchner and Caufman (1995) argue that professionalism is not autonomy of an
individual, but the collective protocols and standards of practice. Hargreaves (2000) asserts that
teacher autonomy stopped being sustainable as a professional goal in the 1980s. During this
decade, teacher work started becoming standardized due to the U.S. Department of Education
assessment system and increasing regulations of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which
challenged the concept of autonomy. These increased regulatory measures standardized
assessments and heightened the responsibility of educators within a system to raise student
achievement scores (Conley & Cooper, 2013). Yet, a restricted notion of isolationist
professionalism can still be found within the teaching profession and must be overcome for an
agency to step into the professional decision making required in the collaborative work of course
map construction (Hargreaves, 2000). Re-casting professionalism as embracing professional
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 51
standards and dimensions of improving quality practice is complementary to the work of course
mapping (Hale & Dunlap, 2010). Teachers must embrace a paradigm that allows for a
profession-wide system of practices and established norms to fully engage in the work of
curricular alignment. (Conley & Cooper, 2013)
Professional Development
Teacher’s professional development is a key factor to successful implementation of a course
mapping initiative. Experts (Hale, 2008; Hale & Dunlap, 2010; Jacobs, 1997, 2004; Udelhofen,
2005) and researchers (Beans, 2006; Dutton, 2015; Huffman, 2002; Jolly, 2011; Shanks, 2002;
Shilling, 2011; Wilansky, 2006) identified adequate staff development time and training as a major
factor affecting an institutional commitment to curriculum mapping.
To increase the critical components of efficacy and confidence, organizational conditions must
influence collective efficacy through professional development (Bandura, 1977). Hale (2008) and
Udelhofen (2005) both suggest selecting a knowledgeable and experienced curriculum mapping
consultant to provide training on the process, especially in the prologue and early years of a
mapping initiative. A consultant should work with and help train those involved, so together they
can lead the school-wide mapping initiative (Hale, 2008). Hale and Dunlap (2010) suggested
approximately 8.25 hours of training per month in a calendar year to reach full implementation
and sustainability.
Many studies have revealed that the workloads of teachers influence their acceptance of new
programs and innovations. According to Fullan (2003), for teachers to realize the aims of the
educational system, as well as to implement new initiatives, it necessary to lessen some of the
workload of teachers. Research conducted by Dutton (2015) concluded that “a ‘perfect storm’ of
multiple new initiatives and changes” (p. 75) was negatively impacting the implementation of a
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 52
curriculum mapping initiative at a private school in Chicago. Teachers at the school did not have
enough time and training focused specifically on curriculum mapping, which led the school to
abandon the initiative (Dutton, 2015). To avoid this pitfall, RHS should ensure teachers have
both training and time to implement the course maps.
After professional development sessions, teachers often fail to implement strategies and
initiatives introduced or reviewed during the training (Guskey, 2002). Fallik, Eylon, and
Rosenfeld (2008) found that part of the lack of curriculum integration after professional
development into the workplace often derives from a lack of knowledge and skills. It is
important then, that course map training provides the necessary knowledge and skills to establish
in teachers’ higher levels of self-efficacy. According to social cognitive theory, feelings of stress
from low self-efficacy to manage environmental demands can result in an impaired level of
functioning (Bandura, 1977).
Leadership
Derek Bok, president emeritus of Harvard, pointed out that “faculties are more likely to
resist any determined effort to examine their work and question familiar ways of teaching and
learning” (Tagg, 2012, p. 23). To combat this kneejerk response, Wheeler and Sillanpa (1998)
highlight the benefits of including all individuals involved in an organization playing a part in
collective decisions. This not only increases job satisfaction by involving employees or team
members in what is going on but also helps individuals to develop their own skills. Employees
feel more in control of their own destiny, and the organization is strengthened through a more
pluralistic approach (Kezar, 2000). A collaborative leadership style is one of the most effective,
as it creates higher productivity from group members (Clinton, 1999). Personal involvement
results in more meaningful contributions and positive outcomes as skilled workers share their
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 53
knowledge and ideas for the collective good. Stakeholder input can act as a conduit to elicit
more participant leaders; these are a valuable and essential component in the transformational
leadership theory (Northouse, 2016).
Leadership theories pertaining to the roles and responsibilities of administrators have
changed through the decades. Warren Bennis’s group behavior research (1961) challenged the
traditional management approach by showing that humanistic, democratic-style leaders are better
suited to dealing with the complexity and change that characterize the leadership environment.
Marzano conducted a meta-analysis of 69 studies and found correlations between general
leadership and overall achievement of the school. An increase in leadership behavior is
associated with an increase in student achievement (Marzano et al., 2005). Glickman, Gordon,
and Ross-Gordon (2009) identified three qualities of instructional leaders: (a) provider of daily
assistance to teachers, (b) creator of staff collaboration through groups, and (c) active provider of
meaningful staff development and curriculum development. Booker (2003) found that teachers’
perceptions of school climate are more positive if the principal is perceived as a transformational
rather than a transactional leader. Educational reforms like course mapping may necessitate a
change in leadership style to one that engages the perspectives of others in the decision-making
process (Schmoker & Marzano, 1999).
Louis et al. (2010) concluded that student achievement is positively influenced by both
district and principal leadership. In the Marzano et al. (2005) meta-analysis of 35 years of
research, leadership was found to have a substantial effect on student achievement. Smith and
Andrews (1989) identified the four roles of an educational leader: (a) communicator, (b)
ubiquitous or visibly present, (c) resource provider, and (d) instructional resource. These roles
drive forward new initiatives and impact teachers’ perceptions. A study of over 800 American
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 54
teachers’ perceptions of principals’ leadership qualities and their effect on the teachers revealed
that growth oriented, sincere and authentic interest in integrating collaboration to build a shared
culture can drive continual instructional improvement (Blasé & Blasé, 1999). Course mapping
to develop institutional cohesion requires strong instructional leaders to be the chief architects of
community building (Jacobs, 1997; Jacobs, 2006; Jacobs, 2010). Much of the responsibility for
this environment lies on the shoulders of leaders.
Organizational influences which can impact the RHS performance goal can include:
organizational culture and trust, professional development, and instructional leadership. These
components will be explored in this study. (Table 6)
Table 6

Organizational Influences

Organizational Mission
The mission of Ranch High School is to provide a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum that
enables students to be successful now and in their future.

Organizational Performance Goal
WASC Action Plan Goal 1: In order to increase student success rates, RHS will develop a
comprehensive curricular system that has structures in place, including curriculum maps, to
monitor and assess student progress and responsively support struggling students to enable all
students to achieve at grade-level standards.

Assumed Organizational Influences

Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1:
There is a culture of distrust in the school
which has hindered new programs.

Written Survey Item:
“Teachers in this school trust the
administration.”

The leadership at this school has a very top-
down approach.

Interview Question:
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 55
How would you describe the culture at this
school as it relates to trust with leadership?
Does the current leadership approach help or
hinder new the success of new programs at
this school?
Cultural Model Influence 2:
There is a general resistance in faculty to new
programs, and anything that they perceive as
“extra.”

Written Survey Item:
Designing course maps aligned to Common
Core State Standards is part of my
professional responsibility, and not
something “extra.”

Interview Question:
Do teachers at this school see designing
course maps aligned to Common Core State
Standards as within the scope of their
profession, or do they see it as something
“extra”? Why do you think this is?
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
There is a lack of necessary tools including
examples and templates provided for course
maps aligned to Common Core State
Standards.
Written Survey Item:
There are adequate examples provided for
me in the workplace to follow in designing
course maps which are aligned to Common
Core State Standards.

I am knowledgeable of a process I can
follow to design course maps aligned to
Common Core State Standards.

Summary
This literature review identified organizational and personal factors that impede
successful curriculum mapping implementation, including teachers’ motivation and efficacy and
organizational and resource factors. Research supports curriculum mapping as an educational
reform which formalizes the curriculum in a manner that lends itself to collaboration and
reflection. (Dufour, 1998; Eaker, DuFour, & DuFour, 2002; Hord & Sommers, 2008; Jacobs,
2000). Curriculum mapping is a fundamental institutional step in building Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs) which have proven effective in sustaining educational expertise within a
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 56
school community (Cuevas, Matveev, & Feit, 2009; Dufour, 1998; Eaker, DuFour, & DuFour,
2002; Martin-Kniep, 2008).
Acquiring knowledge and skills to properly engage in course mapping is an important
aspect in any initiative deemed to improve instruction, as knowledge will dictate an individual’s
response to the initiative (Anderson, 2001; Clark & Estes, 2008). Increased knowledge and
awareness increases skills and can influence self-efficacy levels. When individuals feel confident
in their ability to achieve outcomes, they are more likely to apply themselves to a task.
Expectancy-value theory asserts that if people do not believe that their actions can result in the
desired outcomes, they will display little motivation in acting and persevering in the face of
adversity (Pajares, 2009; Schunk, 2002). Motivation encompasses an array of beliefs,
perceptions and values of an individual, and outcomes are enhanced by positive expectancies for
success. (Pajares, 2006; Pintrich, 2003)
Organizational trust is an essential aspect of group effectiveness and is a critical component
of high impact schools. (Barth, 2006; Reina & Reina, 2006; Tschannen-Moran, 2004) A
collaborative leadership style is one of the most effective, as it creates higher productivity from
group members (Clinton, 1999). Educational reforms like course mapping necessitate a focus on
cultural settings and influences, and a shared culture can drive continual instructional improvement
(Blasé & Blasé, 1999; Marzano et al., 2005; Schmoker & Marzano, 1999). Organizational
influences which can impact initiatives are important to examine in any effort to achieve an
institutional outcome (Clark & Estes, 2008).

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 57
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this study was to examine the influences of the performance gap and generate
solutions for implementing curriculum mapping at RHS. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis
framework was used. The gap analysis offers an analytical method to identify desired, actual,
and preferred performance level gaps within an organization. Gap analysis identifies and
validates the causes of performance gaps to formulate recommendations and solutions that will
result in performance improvement and goal achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
The gap analysis uses a systematic process, not relying solely on assumed causes of gaps, to
examine knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that contribute to the organization’s
performance gap and create measures by which to monitor the effectiveness of the recommended
solutions (Rueda, 2011). This study was guided by the following research questions:
1. To what extent is RHS meeting its goal of being compliant with 100% of courses
completing a Common Core Standards aligned course map within a digital library by
May 2018?
2. What are the teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers that
promote or inhibit a teacher’s ability to achieve this organizational goal?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resource?
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The Clark and Estes’ (2008) framework provided an analytical method to explore assumed
causes for the performance gaps. These assumed causes were generated based on personal
knowledge, learning theory, and related literature. Causes were validated through a mixed-
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 58
methods approach, utilizing surveys, document analysis, and semi-structured interviews. Results
and findings were analyzed and research-based solutions recommended. The gap analysis
process is depicted in Figure A.

Figure A. The gap analysis process. Adapted from Clark & Estes, 2008
RHS’s goal is to establish course maps for every course taught at the high school. These
maps should be aligned to Common Core State Standards. This was articulated in both the 2011
and 2017 WASC report as school-wide goals. At the time of data collection, RHS course maps
had been established for only approximately 20% of the courses. Goal achievement levels were
measured by the number of course maps tied to Common Core Standards which had been
uploaded into a digital library. Of 53 curricular courses, only 10 courses have course maps in
Engrade, the digital library, at the time of this study.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 59
The WASC goal to establish course maps has been in existence for over six years, and it
reflects a site based solution to address curriculum alignment in order to impact student
outcomes on state assessments. During the past two assessment cycles, RHS students scored
lower in both ELA and Math than both the of county and state averages for 11th grade students.
There exists an achievement gap with the corresponding county and state measures. In 2015-16
the percentage of RHS students meeting “Standard Exceeded” was 13%, while the state was at
26%. Further, RHS students scored 4% “Standard Exceeded” in Mathematics, compared to 13%
at the state level. In an effort to close this gap, the organizational goal is to have 100% of course
maps linked to Common Core Standards and uploaded in Engrade.
Using a mixed-methods approach, this study employed data gathering and analysis. The
stakeholder’s current performance was assessed by using surveys, focus groups, and document
analysis. Both qualitative and quantitative data provided a robust analysis of the research
question gap analysis (Creswell, 2014). A mixed-method research approach is useful when
examining a complex problem (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). By utilizing both of these data
types, the participants had the opportunity to provide both closed-end responses and open-ended
responses. This data set was analyzed through triangulation, and the collective data was utilized
in conjunction with the Clark and Estes lens to provide a comprehensive view of the findings
(Creswell, 2014). The stakeholder of focus for this study was the teachers at RHS.
Participating Stakeholders
There are a number of stakeholders who contribute to the achievement of institutional
performance goals. These stakeholders include students, teachers, parents and
administration. However, for this study the focus was on the high school teachers. Teachers are
the most critical stakeholders for this study, as they are the individuals who are most involved in
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 60
the labor of crafting curriculum maps aligned to Common Core standards. The specific
population identified was the teaching staff at RHS during the 2017-18 school year. Roughly
two-thirds of this population were also employed at RHS in 2011 when the course mapping goal
was first established for the school. These teachers were likely to be aware that this has been a
long running site goal. Additionally, most members of the school teaching staff were involved in
the 2016-17 WASC self-study and therefore should be aware of both the goal and the reasons for
the curriculum mapping initiative.
To make informed recommendations around the course map initiative, it was necessary to
investigate teacher perceptions and knowledge related to course mapping. All RHS teachers
received a request to participate in the survey. By synthesizing both the qualitative and
quantitative components in this study, the results of the research to be more complete and
comprehensive (Creswell, 2014; Patton, 2002).
Surveys in this study will provide a numeric description of trends, attitudes and opinions
of a population. By using sample results, the researcher can generalize or draw inference from
the responses (Creswell, 2014). The rationale for this approach is examined below.
Survey Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. All of the teachers at the comprehensive high school are eligible to
participate in the survey.
Criterion 2. To be eligible to participate in the survey, teachers must possess a clear
California teaching credential.
Criterion 3. To be eligible to participate in the survey, teachers must teach a class of at
least one student.

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 61
Survey Sampling/Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
Surveys provide an anonymous method to collect data samples, which ensure a more
dependable and accurate feedback with which to draw conclusions and make decisions for future
recommendations (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000). Surveys are a cost effective and
convenient way to reach all teacher respondents and provide results which can be compiled
easily for analysis. The data set was cross-sectional and offered a qualitative way of defining and
investigating the KMO influencers, as it will provide the researcher with pre-structured data
input which will provide a metric data point to be expressed in categorical values (Fowler, 2009).
It will also offer quantitative data trends and themes for analysis.
The researcher sought the participation of all teachers at the high school by recruitment
efforts, consistent reminders and incentives. There are currently 87 members of the teaching
staff, and an 80% participation rate would be ideal, meaning 70 respondents. The margin of
error or confidence interval deviates based on the number of respondents and a confidence level
of 95%, with an 80% response rate would yield a margin of error at 5% (Fowler, 2009). This
yields strong validity that the survey data was reflective of the majority of the population.
Surveys were administered online via Qualtrics through the University of Southern
California. Surveys were conducted anonymously to ensure the responses were candid and, as
much as possible, removed from the political sphere (Fink, 2013). Prior to beginning, the survey
will explain to the participants the purpose of the study and inform them that they may cease
participation at any time. Standardized questioning was utilized with careful focus on question
wording with the use of a Likert scale, which uses a bipolar scaling method to measure either
positive or negative responses to a statement. This precisely designed format focuses the
respondent on relevant areas and offers participants a shared language around familiar specified
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 62
choice (Groves, 2013). Respondents were presented with the clear understanding that survey
answers will remain completely confidential. Anonymity was assured, as the data was scrubbed
of identifiable markers like IP addresses prior to the analysis stage (Creswell, 2014; Fink,
2013).
Focus Group Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. All of the teachers at the comprehensive high school were eligible to
participate in the survey.
Criterion 2. To be eligible to participate in the focus group, teachers must possess a clear
California teaching credential.
Criterion 3. To be eligible to participate in the survey, teachers must teach a class of at
least one student.
Focus Group Sampling/Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
Focus groups offer a venue to greater explore the perspectives of the participants relating
to course maps aligned to Common Core standards. Focus groups provide a less structured
strategy in which the participants will engage in greater meaning making (DiCicco-Bloom &
Crabtree, 2006). Learning about individual experiences and perspectives on the KMO obstacles
to establishing course maps aligned to Common Core standards yields a more in-depth
understanding of the issues (Creswell, 2014). A focus group discussion which follows a semi-
structured questioning format affords the opportunity to explore the depths and nuances of
qualitative data (Cohen et al., 2000). Focus groups can illuminate what factors are influencing
opinions expressed in the data and can capture a broad range of information about the
stakeholder group (Krueger & Casey, 2009). A primary advantage of this format was that it
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 63
allowed participants to build upon the comments of others and gave the facilitator the
opportunity immediately follow up for clarity to drive conclusions (Kitzinger & Barbour, 1999).
The researcher created focus groups of four to six voluntary participants at a time. The
group needed to be large enough to generate rich discussion, but not so large that others are left
out (Weiss, 1994). The selection for these groups was reflective of various departments at the
school (Creswell, 2014; Krueger & Casey, 200; Patton, 2002). The group was homogenous in
that participants were credentialed teachers, but diverse in the fact that participants were not
from the same department or discipline. Inclusion and exclusion criteria was established up-front
and based on the purpose of identifying the KMO obstacles. (Kitzinger & Barbour, 1999)
Participants were volunteers, and a small incentive compensating teachers for their time was
offered.
A skilled and neutral moderator, whose goal was to generate the maximum number of
different ideas and opinions from as many different participants as possible, was employed
(Weiss, 1994). The group was structured around a set of carefully predetermined semi-structured
questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The questions helped guide the focus group to ensure that
the discussion aligns with research questions. Participants were given engagement questions that
introduced the topic, followed by exploration questions which focused on the KMO influencers
to establishing course maps aligned to Common Core standards. The group concluded with an
exit question, which ensured that nothing was missed in the discussion (Kitzinger & Barbour,
1999). To ensure validity and reliability, the focus group responses were triangulated with survey
results. Barriers to attending were reduced by selecting a time conducive to the group and
providing light snacks. The interview took about one and half hours in a non-school
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 64
environment. The focus group was recorded, and a transcriptionist was employed to scrub the
data of all identifying statements. (Krueger & Casey, 2009)
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Utilizing surveys and focus groups, this study seeks to reveal data about how teachers at
RHS perceive their environment and the course mapping initiative. It explored the effect that
KMO influences may have on their practices and perspectives relating to the
initiative. Information gathered in the surveys was used to inform the focus group questions in
order to yield more in-depth, rich data. The analysis of survey data informed the focus group
discussion where the researcher sought to explore in greater depth the connection between the
KMO influences and the teachers’ efficacy and motivation in achieving the goal.
Surveys
The researcher ensured the validity and reliability of survey items by using rephrased
questions to triangulate and validate the self-reporting. The survey was limited in focus, and the
data acts as a lens, which drives the more in-depth focus group questions. To ensure high
reliability and high validity, the researcher focused on descriptive statistics and central
tendencies. This study used care to ensure the questions were not too narrow or wide and that the
questions were vetted to ensure there were not flawed or biased assumptions embedded in the
questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The data was examined by searching for variances that
reveal discrepant evidence and alignment with research already published. The researcher
monitored the survey design and content for bias or subjectivity. (Maxwell, 2013) Clarity and
transparency is crucial to ensure validity in these findings.

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 65
Focus Group Interviews
Following the group survey, a facilitator conducted two small focus group interviews.
They were recorded, transcribed and fully redacted from identifying information. Once this
occurred, all original records were destroyed by the neutral third party. This ensured the
anonymity of participants involved. The selected interviewer was an educational doctoral
candidate at the University of California, Davis. The interviewer has no oversight or relationship
to the participants whatsoever.
When designing a focus group, it is important to craft an environment that is likely to
yield as much information as possible and which aims to meet the objectives of the research. In a
qualitative interview, questions should be open-ended and neutral. (Maxwell, 2013). It was also
important to have the group facilitated by a neutral party to help put respondents at ease and
build up confidence and safety in an effort to generate honest and rich data. These interviews
were conducted at an undisclosed location and at an unrevealed date to avoid the influence of the
researcher impacting the individuals being studied (Maxwell, 2013).
There are many phenomena within workplace contexts which are stressful, and
discussion can generate an emotional response or anxiety when a focus group is not properly
constructed to ensure anonymity and freedom from retaliation. The researcher needed to address
potential fears of negative repercussions during the research process to protect individuals and/or
groups from harm. Current literature clearly indicates that participants affected by the research
must be protected by layers of anonymity and confidentiality (Maxwell, 2013). To address the
psychological risk of participants relating to the workplace, protective protocols and guidelines
included measures for responding to risk as they arise.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 66
I utilized a semi-structured interview protocol, which was the best approach to rich data
collection related to KMO influencers in the course mapping initiative (Patton, 2002). The
questions permitted the emergence of concepts or trends not explicitly explored in the designed
line of questioning (Patton, 2002). However, in reviewing the transcript there was minimal
follow-up questioning. Focus group questions were used to yield more detailed and descriptive
data from participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The semi-structured approach lent itself to the
exploration and probing of issues, as it permitted the emergence of trends not previously
anticipated by the researcher (Patton, 2002). Focus groups were used to further unpack and
explore the statistical information within the data.
Data Analysis
To identify teacher perceptions of mandated course mapping, it was important to include
a qualitative component using the components within the conceptual framework. The qualitative
portion of the study focused on a more in-depth exploration of the perceptions teachers have
around this initiative (Creswell, 2014). After all survey data were collected using Qualtrics, a
distribution report was generated without identifiable information. Descriptive statistical
analysis was conducted to analyze the collected responses. Means and standards deviation were
used to identify average trends in the responses. Additionally, there was limited analysis of the
existing course maps which have been written so far, as artifacts for evidence reflective of the
concepts embedded in the conceptual framework.
Data analysis of the focus group transcripts consisted of coding in the first phase of
analysis using open coding within the conceptual framework (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Using
both empirical codes and axial codes from the conceptual framework, the researcher wrote
analytic memos after careful examination of the transcripts. Drawing upon her personal
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 67
experience as an administrator and former teacher, she documented her thinking and questioning
along with the initial findings about the data in relationship with both the conceptual framework
and the research questions (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). After reviewing transcripts through open
coding, themes emerged and were identified through the creation of a codebook using
highlighting and color coding.
The second phase of analysis entailed the aggregation of prior codes into analytic/axial
codes. The scrubbed transcripts were reviewed and analyzed repeatedly to see if important data
was missed and to determine whether the data was appropriately categorized within the
codebook. The codebook’s emergent themes were tracked in a manner that indicated the
frequency for each code. The codebook was an essential tool to decipher typicality and identify
themes that emerged in answer to the driving research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
researcher then summarily identified the pattern codes and the themes that emerged within the
conceptual framework and the study’s guiding questions.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Surveys were administered through the online Qualtrics program to ensure anonymity of
participants. The qualitative sampling in this study was members of the teaching staff who
choose to volunteer their perspective to create a rich data set in the form of transcripts (Glesne,
2011). This voluntary group was made up of people who have self-selected into the interview
process. While this research utilized resources such as interview guidelines and recordings of
focus groups, it is ultimately the responsibility of the researcher to collect and analyze the data
ethically and to properly answer the research question using disciplined methodology (Creswell,
2013b; Glesne, 2011). Purged transcripts were given to participants for review upon their
request to ensure that their thoughts were accurately captured (Patton, 2002; Weiss, 1994).
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 68
The data set was then carefully reviewed and analyzed. Coding began to be formed
which explicitly addressed the facets of the emergent analysis (Glesne, 2011; Rubin & Rubin,
2012). The focus was on generating the key or basic influencers cited by participants and crafting
a situational map based on coded data to describe the major human, nonhuman, discursive and
other elements within the research situation (Clark, 2005; Krueger & Casey, 2009; Rubin &
Rubin, 2012). The data was reviewed for discrepant evidence and negative cases that are
atypical findings, as these can be helpful in exploring to what extent the researcher's biases may
have impacted the study (Maxwell, 2013; Meriam & Tisdell, 2016).
As an administrator of the school, the researcher holds inherent biases and assumptions
about the course mapping initiative. To counter this bias, she worked with other colleagues
within the educational field to review the transcripts, survey data and the findings of the study to
ensure that they are both credible and trustworthy. The researcher also sought out and explored
information that did not align with expected findings to ensure the focus was not narrowed to
preconceptions. Findings include some elements that were not originally identified in the
assumed influences as a result of disciplined reflection. Theory framework grounded the research
firmly within a dispassionate framework.
Grounded in theory, a question was posed, data was collected, and repeated elements or
concepts were extracted from the data, which led me to surmise general trends about the
phenomenon under study (Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Weiss, 1994). Grounded theory
acknowledges the role of the researcher in the forming of theoretical reconstruction and selective
coding. The researcher worked to capture the emergent core categories in the coding; therefore,
it is critical to clarify the relativist position and ontological and epistemological constructs
(Charmaz, 2000; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). By using grounded theory in this manner, its
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 69
explanatory power is leveraged to make discursive claims in the midst of complexity which are
theoretically comfortable, and which expanded insight into this inquiry (Strauss & Corbin,
1990).
Validity and Reliability
The researcher followed formal research procedures in determining what data to survey
by taking great care to align the questions with the purpose of the study in order to generalize the
respondents’ attitudes and thinking (Creswell, 2013a). Since survey questions and response
choices should be written at a highly readable level, the Flesch-Kincaid formula was used to
ensure readability levels were appropriate (Fink, 2013). This survey was cross-sectional with
data collected only at one point in time (Creswell, 2013a). Using a research method of closed
questions, respondents chose from predefined options which were used to capture what is
known, felt, or believed by the participant (Fink, 2013). The researcher sought to recruit an
appropriate sample size reflective of the larger group (Creswell, 2013a). To ensure confidence in
the sample of a staff population of 87, the goal was to recruit a sample size of at least 70
participants in the online survey (Salkind, 2014). However, only 28 participants took the survey.
This means a standard deviation in the sample population is significant. To achieve a confidence
level of 95%, the confidence interval is ± 14.24%. The confidence interval is an estimated range
of likely values for a population parameter. Although a sample size of 70 was the ideal, the
percentage of participation is enough to identify empirical trends in the larger population.
Survey administration occurred online, and all results were anonymous with no
identifiable information collected. This enhanced the validity of the study, as teachers were
more likely to answer candidly and share their experiences without fear of reprisal. To test for
non-response bias, I compared the number of participants against the number of staff (Creswell,
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 70
2013a). With only 36% participation, it is possible that there is a non-response bias. A non-
response follow-up request was sent urging explicitly the significance of the survey and
including a small gift of an ice cream card for participation (Creswell, 2013a; Peytchev,
2013). Because of limited survey participation, it was important to rely to a greater extent on
the auxiliary data of the anonymous focus groups (Peytchev, 2013). Focus group questions
were designed to better determine the basis for the self-selection bias of that response group
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Quantitative data analysis must demonstrate reliability and consistently measure what it
is intended to measure (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). By organizing data in a systematic way, it
enabled the researcher to make some general statements about awareness, views, and
understanding of the organizational elements surrounding the establishment of standards aligned
course maps. This methodology allows for the triangulation of the data and leverages the focus
groups method.
Using a sequential-exploratory approach, the researcher worked to make sense of the
informants’ perspective through interaction and classification (Creswell, 2013a). When
reporting results, the findings are listed as themes that reflect the descriptions of the participants’
experience gleaned from a mixed methods approach. These themes are labeled and defined with
examples of narratives that illustrate each theme from the transcriptions and surveys (Creswell,
2013a). Results are included in the dissertation, and a summary report will be written and
delivered to the administration of the district.
Ethics
As a qualitative researcher, my aim was to conduct and report research that was both
ethical and credible (Creswell, 2013a). To do this, it was important to make ethical choices
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 71
when conducting this study. Once ethics approval was granted, and the supervising committee
agreed to the merits and feasibility of the proposed research, data collection began. I obtained
permission from the school district and requested any specific policies for research activities that
they might require for my protocols. None were given. I then began recruiting participants
through direct e-mails and letters in teachers’ boxes. Through these letters, I ensured that
participants understood what was being asked of them throughout the research process. The
research had minimal risk as harm or discomfort was not more than everyday life, and all
participants were healthy adults over 18 (Marzano, 2012). Participants were treated with
beneficence, having their decisions respected and being protected from harm (Wiles, 2013).
Informed consent forms were given to all participants at the commencement of the study.
According to Merriam (2009), informed consent was necessary to ensure the participants were
aware that their participation was voluntary and that all the discussions were kept confidential. It
also ensured that they understood that they could withdraw at any point without penalty. To
ensure the safety of the participants, I also submitted my study to the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board (IRB) and followed their rules and guidelines regarding
the protection of the rights and welfare of the participants in this study (Glesne, 2011). The
participant consent forms used accessible language and spoke directly to the participants
describing their rights and what they were being asked to do (Marzano, 2012). It also included a
statement making them aware that they could stop participating at any time (Creswell, 2013;
Marzano, 2012; Merriam 2009).
As surveys were sent digitally to all site teachers, I included the informed consent to
participate and to opt out of answering a question or to opt out entirely on the first screen. The
survey protected people’s identities and anonymity. It was strictly voluntary and free of any
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 72
psychological harm or stress (Wiles, 2013). Participants were informed that their answers were
to be utilized in a dissertation (Glesne, 2011).
Similar protocols were used with focus groups. Focus groups were formed semi-
randomly from individuals who volunteered to participate. By means of a random draw from
each of the school department's volunteers, representative members from the various disciplinary
departments were asked to participate. Participants were not purposely included or excluded, and
the final grouping was left to chance (Marzano, 2012). Because I am an administrator at the site
and hold a supervisory role over teachers involved in the study—- excluded myself from focus
group discussions in order to address the power dynamics that exist between myself and the
participants (Krueger & Casey, 2009; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). It was ethically important to
ensure there were no blurred lines between the professional construct of the participants and the
academic inquiry of the focus group. Therefore, I had a third-party facilitator, who is a principal
at an elementary school, and a doctoral candidate at UC Davis conduct the interviews in order to
ensure that the dynamics of privacy and institutional politics did not play a role in inhibiting
teacher candor. There was no known direct relational connection between the individual
facilitator and the participants. Participants were informed that the facilitator was a neutral, third
party researcher, and they were informed that they had the freedom to remove themselves from
the focus group at any time.
Participants were additionally informed of the level of confidentiality and privacy that
was to occur throughout the study. Prior to the focus groups, I had the facilitator obtain
permission to audio record the interviews, and she informed participants that all identifiers in the
audio tapes were to be scrubbed by the transcriptionist and replaced by pseudonyms. Participants
were informed that the original recording was only going to be in the possession of the
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 73
facilitator, who then destroyed the recordings once the transcripts were considered
complete. The only data that was given to the primary researcher was the transcriptions with all
identifiers omitted to ensure anonymity was complete for the participants (Creswell, 2013;
Merriam 2009). No identifying data was ever used or reported, and I will keep the scrubbed
data in my possession within a password protected computer file, which I will delete in three
years. Participants who provided information were informed of the fact that their statements were
to be utilized in an Organizational Change and Leadership dissertation to be submitted through
the University of Southern California by the researcher, and this will be published upon passing
extensive evaluative review. After the study, focus group participants were given a small juice
gift card as a token of my appreciation for participating in the study.
This study was performed in the high school where the researcher acts as an
administrator. The dual roles have the potential to cause participants to feel pressure or anxiety
around the management and employee relationship. An information sheet was designed to
communicate to the participants emphasizing that they can refuse to participate in the study
without any negative reprisal (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Further, the researcher did not collect
identifying information in the survey and did not personally conduct the focus groups; rather, a
facilitator who is also a doctoral candidate who has little or no relationship to the school or
participants was the individual who conducted those discussions. This outside researcher had
familiarity with the research question for rich discussions and was also be responsible for
scrubbing the data to ensure anonymity of the participants. Using this intermediary, the intent
was to greatly limit the impact of the employer relationship on the data.
All researchers have assumptions and biases about their environment. To make sure that
these biases were overt to the researcher and monitor their influence on the data, the researcher
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 74
kept detailed notes in my analytic memos to document my ongoing perceptions. By utilizing
instructors, doctorate level colleagues, and other educational doctoral candidates as evaluators
for the fidelity of the coding process, multiple individuals participated in the evaluation of
material within the data that could have been problematic.
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of a study are those elements that may compromise the reliability of the
study, and delimitations are the boundaries which narrow the scope (Creswell, 2014). The
limitations of this study include the restriction that all school teachers are not represented in this
study. Participants may have had an investment in deception if they perceived the course maps
as a compliance issue being monitored by management that they have failed to complete (Coburn
& Turner, 2011; Creswell, 2013b). Participants may also have been affected by their memory
recall, or they may tend to under report their negative opinions because they do not wish to
portray themselves in a negative way (Kitzinger & Barbour, 1999). Teacher ideology or
perspective about management may also have interfered with their candor in the focus groups
(Coburn & Turner, 2011). The researcher was mindful of these dynamics and sought to address
these issues in the protocols. The information given to all the participants clearly indicated that
the study was anonymous and that there was no possibility of retaliation or reprisal; however,
this may not have convinced all respondents to be completely truthful. There was also the
possibility that participants rushed through the survey without much thought, and any evidence
of this behavior will be noted it in the findings.
The delimitations include the selection only of participants that are members of the 2017-
18 staff at RHS. While the research questions may lend themselves to an examination of
administration, I felt that the most important group is the teaching staff, as their behavior is most
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 75
significantly impacted by the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences articulated
in the framework. Although I considered incorporating a document analysis of course maps into
my research, my preliminary work found these artifacts either widely varying in form and
content or non-existent. I made a deliberate decision to step away from the artifacts themselves
and turn my focus to the self-reporting of the teachers. I chose to place more weight into the rich
reporting of the teachers who are striving to achieve the goal over what I saw as the more
compliance-oriented evaluation of documents for this study.
Conclusion
To achieve a curriculum aligned with Common Core state standards, institutions must
consider the many knowledge, organizational and motivational influences which affect teachers
as they to craft these course maps. A mixed-methods approach to this study allows for the
quantitative and qualitative assessment of surveys and focus group results. Information gathered
will provide insight into the causes that are preventing full achievement of this initiative.
Statistical analysis was conducted once the survey results were collected. Mean and standard
deviation was utilized to convey the average levels of responses on these questions. These are
reported in the next chapter to identify trends and themes, which were explored further in the two
focus groups.
Focus groups gathered voluntary participants after the survey completion. The transcripts
of these two groups were transcribed and coded into themes related to the Clark and Estes gap
analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2008). Additionally, course maps that have been uploaded to a
digital database were examined in a limited manner as artifacts to further triangulate the survey
and focus group results. This provided a broad assessment, which complimented the statistical
data. The accumulation and analysis of this data is shared in the next chapter, and it informed
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 76
the recommended solutions in the final chapter to achieve an increased percentage of teachers
meeting the school-wide goal.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 77
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

Overview of Purpose and Questions

Using a general inductive methodology, the purpose of this study was to explore organizational
factors that impact teachers’ curriculum mapping implementation in a California comprehensive
high school, including: teachers’ motivation and efficacy, and organizational and resource factors.
The three research questions informing this study were:
1. To what extent is Ranch High School meeting its goal of being compliant with 100% of
courses completing a Common Core Standards aligned course map within a digital library
by May 2018?
2. What are the teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers that
promote or inhibit a teacher’s ability to achieve this organizational goal?
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 compromised the use of a survey and
semi-scripted focus group interviews. This chapter begins with a general descriptor of the focus
group stakeholder participants, whose responses are the focus of this study and whose survey
responses served to inform the data. The presentation of the research findings will follow.
Researched-based solutions are proposed in Chapter Five.
Participating Stakeholders
The participants for this survey were the certificated secondary teaching staff employed at
Rancho High School. Twenty-eight teachers answered the survey, and 3 partially completed it.
Data for this study were also collected through semi-scripted focus group interviews with nine
participants who are all currently working at teachers at the comprehensive high school. The
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 78
facilitator was permitted to ask limited follow-up questions; however, the transcripts demonstrate
that the facilitator adhered to the script. Both interviews took place in October 2017. Because
both data collections were entirely anonymous, there was no other demographic information
available. The survey took place digitally, and all participants who received a link to the survey
were teachers working at the comprehensive high school being studied. All participants were
provided with the informed consent form (Appendix A). Data were analyzed using the Qualtrics
statistical program and standard transcript coding methods. Both the survey data and the focus
group data set are included within the findings. Focus group questions were aligned with survey
questions to focus on the research questions. Table 7 demonstrates this correlation.
Table 7
Alignment of the Interview Questions to the Research Questions
Research Question Corresponding interview
questions
To what extent is Ranch High School meeting its goal
of being compliant with 100% of courses completing a
Common Core Standards aligned course map within a
digital library by May 2018?

Focus Group Question: 1
Survey Questions: 1,2,3,4,5
What are the teachers’ knowledge influencers that
promote or inhibit a teacher’s ability to achieve this
organizational goal?

Focus Group Questions: 1,2,3
Survey Questions:
17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25
What are the teachers’ motivation influencers that
promote or inhibit a teacher’s ability to achieve this
organizational goal?

Focus Group Questions: 4,5,6
Survey Questions:
8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16
What are the teachers’ organizational influencers that
promote or inhibit a teacher’s ability to achieve this
organizational goal?
Focus Group Questions: 7,8,9
Survey Questions: 6,7,
26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35

Survey items 8-35 were on a Likert-scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree
(5). Focus group questions were open ended and recorded. The recordings were later transcribed
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 79
and then qualitatively analyzed to look for themes that answered the research questions. The
researcher utilized a facilitator with doctoral degree to code a sample of the focus group data to
compare it to her open coding patterns. A high degree of similarity between the researcher’s
coding and her colleague’s coding ensured interrater reliability with respect to the data analysis.
Findings
This section presents the findings of the study ordered by research question. The findings are
listed thematically, identifying the themes that emerged from the data collection, coding, and
analysis. The corresponding themes and properties elucidated by interview excerpts and survey
data are included under each research question. The Clark and Estes (2008) model was used to
organize the findings and delineate knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in
relation to the institutional goal.
To answer the posed research questions, the researcher ran frequencies for the whole sample.
The frequency distribution analysis provided the researcher the opportunity to provide a
representation of the data. Frequency distribution is a straightforward way to summarize large
amounts of numerical information in a methodical way. Findings are listed in sequential
alignment with the relevant research questions.
Findings Related to Research Question One
The first research question in the study asked to what extent Ranch High School is meeting its
goal of being compliant with 100% of courses completing a Common Core Standards aligned
course map within a digital library by May 2018. To begin the analysis, means and standard
deviations were performed on survey items to determine the levels of awareness. Table 8 presents
the outcome for the survey item. This self-reporting captures the progress of the institution in
completing its goal.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 80
Table 8
Data measurement for perception of the CCSSs curriculum mapping project
Survey Question Reponses Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Mean Variance Standard
Deviation
Are you aware of
the CCSSs
curriculum
mapping project at
this school?
25 2
Slightly
Aware
5
Extremely
Aware
4.28
Moderately
Aware
.79 .89
Do you understand
the objectives and
goals of the CCSSs
curriculum
mapping project at
this school?
25 1
Not at all
Understand
5
Extremely
Understand
3.92
Somewhat
Understand
1.41 1.19
How important is
the CCSSs
curriculum
mapping project to
achieving the
mission and vision
the school?
24 1
Not at all
Important
5
Extremely
Important
3.71
Moderately
Important
1.52 1.23
How achievable are
the objectives of
the CCSSs
curriculum
mapping project?
25 1
Not at all
Achievable
5
Extremely
Achievable
3.88
Somewhat
Achievable
1.44 1.2

Three main themes were identified that capture teachers’ responses to this research question.
They are as follows:
1. There is significant variance in teacher perception of the extent that RHS meeting its
goal.
2. Teachers are aware of and are able to articulate the objectives of the Common Core
Standards aligned course mapping initiative.
3. There are knowledge, motivational, and organizational barriers that hindered teachers
from creating Common Core Standards aligned course maps.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 81
This selection explores these themes and culminates with a synthesis of the findings for each
research question.
Significant variance in teacher perception. Utilizing a self-rating measure, teachers were
asked to report their perspective of the successfulness of the initiative. The majority of respondents
scored RHS in a realm that reflects progressing on this goal, and a smaller group of respondents
ranked the initiative at the lowest levels of completion and/or failure. No respondents ranked
achievement of this institutional goal at elevated levels. The reporting merged into the pattern
represented in Figure B.
Figure B.

Figure B: Teacher ratings of how effective Ranch High School has been in establishing CCSSs
curriculum maps. Rankings on spectrum of CCSSs aligned course maps are used to establish daily
teaching objectives for all courses and used to guide alignment in instruction and assessment (1)
to CCSSs aligned course maps don’t exist (13)

The mode, or the rating number that occurs most often, was a 6 (see Table 9). This rating falls in
the middle range of the scoring criteria. More teachers selected this rank than any other choice.
This distribution of reporting suggests some level of progress, but not an achievement of the goal.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 82
It could be argued this reflects neither success nor failure, which would be typical in an emerging
institutional progression. This trajectory is also reflective of a shift in the ecosystem, which has
not yet reached a successful conclusion.
Table 9

Percentage of teacher ratings of effectiveness of CCSSs curriculum maps initiative

The statistical mean, or central tendency, offers a sense about where the data for the entire set
cluster. This number is a slightly lower ranking than the mode on this ranking question. Analysis
of this lower rating reflects a high degree of variance and could suggest a generalized negative
response to the initiative or larger system (see Table 10). These potentialities were explored in the
focus group discussions and will be more fully analyzed later in this chapter.
Table 10
Data measurement of establishing CCSSs maps
Reponses Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Mean Variance Standard
Deviation
28 3

13 7.64 6.16 2.48

It should be emphasized that the ranking data reflects the views of only a sample of the total
population, and it was therefore impossible to calculate the actual standard deviation of the entire
population. The high levels of variance and dispersed dataset were phenomena that were explored
in focus group discussions. Although departmental categories were not captured as a data point in
the survey data, in focus group transcripts, the participants suggested that a factor in the variance
could be linked to different curricular departments. The participants suggested that different
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

0.00% 0.00% 3.57% 3.57% 7.14% 25% 17.86%

7.14%

14.29%

7.14% 3.57% 7.14% 3.57%

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 83
curricular departments had differing levels of success in attaining the initiative. Participant 1 gave
voice to this by noting the following:
…with our department in (redacted), we’re kind of the red-headed stepchild. We kind of
sit out back with almost like, (redacted)really and just said okay, well when we really need
your data and information we’ll—we’ll get around to you. And literally that’s where it’s
at right now, they’re just now getting around to us, while English and Math, and all the
other departments that have like-Science- they’re all the important ones.
Participant 8 said, “Within our department, within (redacted), we kind of get put out the back
burner until we’re absolutely needed.” Participant 1 continued this thought later in the discussion
stating:
I don’t feel like that they’ve brought everybody into the room that were players, I think
they – I feel, from what it’s been rolled out to us, is that they went department by
department in how they ordered it as order of importance and validity, and then they kind
of caught up with us.
Such a sentiment was reiterated almost verbatim in the second focus group. An exchange in the
transcripts reflects this lack of uniformity.
Participant 6: Yeah, I think instead of getting and going down their checklist of—okay
where’s our absolute—okay, English we gotta make sure they know what they’re doing. I
don’t feel like that they’ve brought everybody into the room that were players, I think
they—I feel from what it’s been ruled out to us, is that they went department by department
in how they ordered it as order of importance and validity, and then they kind of caught up
with us.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 84
Participant 3: Well, like technically, that’s where they’re getting tested is English and
Math.
Participant 6: But again, I think if there’s a buy in to this idea that we’re going to be able
to get the entire—the entire school site to be bought in to the, everybody’s on the same
page, then why aren’t we all in the same room at the same time?
Focus group responses points toward a causal reason for high variance in the data, as different
departments suggest that they are experiencing the initiative with different levels of urgency and
success. Teachers are reporting that the same level of urgency has not been applied to all the
school departments. Certain discipline areas are getting priority. This difference of experience
was apparent when Participant 9 reported their experience with course maps:
I changed jobs this year (redacted). And there was a curriculum map already that I was
able to pull this summer and kind of highlight, plan the year roughly, and have a good
idea what we were teaching and what—you know—really, that did help. That was a
positive. Having that.
This speaker is sharing an experience of having a completed curriculum map that is functional
and in use. The teacher demonstrates in this story that the map was accessible and informed her
instructional approach, which is the outcome that is desired. One of the participants offered a
rationale for why this discrepancy occurred.
Participant 3: …because the Math department and the English department were being tested
first, and our data goes public first, we got a lot of attention up front. And the former
Assistant Superintendent worked really hard to get us on board. There were trainings, there
were ra-ras, there was explanation of why it was important, and I think the reason why the
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 85
other subjects feel this way maybe is because they didn’t get that. She left, and nobody took
that up. So I think that’s part of it.
The history accounted by this participant shows that there was an institutional focus on certain
departments, which led to deeper levels of understanding and achievement. Other departments
did not receive the same investment of time and education to develop their knowledge and
support their success. This fragmentation was identified later in the transcript with Participant 2’s
statement,
It’s difficult in our departments. (Redacted) and I will be in this situation. (Redacted) will be
in this situation that hasn’t seen a lot of things, the clarification on where that goes, you
know, everyone’s just doing their own thing.
Employees’ departmental assignments are impacting the levels of successfulness and
understanding of the initiative. Change is occurring along a continuum in the system that is
reflected in the wide variance of the self-reporting data (see Figure B). Each teacher’s
perspective is relative to their own experience as a departmental member or individual. The
focus group transcripts indicate that the organization is not acting as a whole around this
initiative, which explains why the perceptions of achievement around this initiative vary so
significantly. Some teachers are expressing a feeling of feeling less valued in the change efforts,
with the efforts being emphasized on some departments receiving priority status. The central
mechanisms of the CCSSs course mapping efforts have only obliquely affected some members
of staff, resulting in resentment and lack of sense of belonging as indicated by the “red-headed
stepchild” comment. Major change initiatives will be more successful if they are characterized
by a sense of unity and inclusion.

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 86
Discussion
Teacher self-reporting demonstrates that the initiative is progressing, but it is not a goal that
has reached attainment. There was significant variability in the self-reporting data, which reflects
that individuals in the system are experiencing the initiative at differing levels. A small group of
respondents ranked the initiative at the lowest levels, and focus group discussions suggested that
this could be related to departments. Teachers expressed that the institutional efforts have not
been equally distributed to all the curricular departments, and some teachers reported feeling
neglected. No respondents issued a high achievement ranking level to the project.
The study further revealed that teachers were widely aware of, and able to demonstrate an
understanding of, the value of course mapping practices. Teachers self-reported and
demonstrated significant levels of comprehension related to the benefits and usage of course
maps and were able to offer concrete scenarios which demonstrated the value of the goal.
Findings Related to Research Question Two
The second question the researcher examined asked: What are the teachers’ knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influencers that promote or inhibit a teacher’s ability to achieve
this organizational goal? Organizational goals inform employees where the organization is going
and how it plans to get there. These goals can be difficult to achieve without also examining the
institutional influencers at play. Organizations must seek to create optimal environments in
which individuals can achieve success. The first areas of focus for this study is the resource of
knowledge.
Knowledge Results
To accomplish the CCSSs course map alignment project, there are numerous protocols
and procedures that teachers must be knowledgeable about to accomplish the task. Krathwohl
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 87
(2002) identified four types of knowledge that are crucial to accomplish a task: factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. The data demonstrates that knowledge influences
exist which may hinder the achieving of the institutional goal. The focus group discussions and
survey data revealed that teachers are not satisfied with the training and time allotment that they
have received to help them engage in course mapping. When teachers lack the knowledge or
time to fully participate in the course mapping initiative, they are at a disadvantage (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Participant responses provided insight into concerns teachers reported about having
limited time and/or training.
Teachers understanding of system benefits of course maps. The organizational goal of
establishing and utilizing standards aligned course maps to drive instruction relies heavily on
teachers’ declarative and procedural knowledge related to craft course maps. During the focus
groups, teachers demonstrated declarative and procedural knowledge about course mapping. In
the survey, 88% of respondents (22/25) agreed that they were aware of the Common Core State
Standards curriculum mapping project at RHS. Seventy-six percent (19/25) reported being
moderately or extremely knowledgeable of the objectives and goals of the project. This question
had a wider range of variance for the respondents, which suggests that there are differing levels of
understanding of the goals and objectives.
Table 11
Data measurements of teacher knowledge

Survey Question Reponses Mean Variance Standard
Deviation
Are you aware of the
Common Core State
Standards curriculum
mapping project at this
school?
25 4.28
Moderately
Aware
0.79 0.79
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 88
Do you understand the
objectives and goals of the
Common Core State
Standards curriculum
mapping project?
25 3.92
Somewhat
Aware
1.41 1.18

It was apparent in teachers’ focus group discussions that they were aware of initiative and
understood what course mapping is.
Teachers were repeatedly able to articulate the objectives and goals of system continuity
and curricular alignment. They expressed various aspects describing the value of using a
curriculum map to drive instruction. Participant 4 noted:
I think it’s a way to decide what you want the kids to know by the end of the year, and to
keep the teachers on pace to do that as well as if you have new staff members, they would
know where to. If they can in the middle of the year, kind of where you’re at and where
you’re going.
The teacher also provided multiple examples of institutional benefits to course mapping including
a curricular plan for the course. Participant 1 explained these benefits by noting:
Well, if we're under the assumption that every grade level, the same skills are being
taught no matter who is doing the teaching, so that students are reaching A through G
requirements in the same capacity as their peers, or at least with the ability to do that,
then course mapping, in my opinion, is common sense. So, you have a blueprint for
where you're going as an instructor.
Teachers echoed the need for a curricular plan and also suggested a key reason for course
mapping was to establish continuity across the system. This was reflected by comments of yet
another participant , who described a specific scenario demonstrating how course mapping can
benefit individual students. Participant 5stated, “And I know within the like, (redacted)
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 89
department, kinda the same thing; if students end up switching schedules we're all roughly in the
same place.” Participant 9 also gave a response centering on the student related benefit:
In a study skills capacity, it is important to know where teacher are so that you can pull
out the information and support it in your study skills class. So, if teachers are all doing-
so if you know what they're all working on throughout the year, you can easily access
that curriculum, pull it into your study skills class and support that.
Along with these student-centered benefits, Participant 5 expressed the teacher benefit of using
course maps to impact collaboration and instruction.
It would also be used as a collaboration- the mapping was intended to- intended to lead to
common assessments and then we could look at- what students were doing particularly
well, and what are those teachers doing so that we could collaborate and strengthen our
curriculum as a department.
This example of collaboration and modifying instruction based on aligned assessments
demonstrates that most teachers understand how the course mapping initiative lays the foundation
for greater ease in collaboration and modifying instruction. One teacher reflected this
understanding through a comparison to business. Participant 8 described their understanding as
follows:
…I've kind of changed my tune from a teacher being fiercely independent and teaching
what they think is important to the reality that ... Because professional development is so
limited that I think we can do a lot more professional development within our
departments, and so if you and I are science teachers and I'm teaching astronomy and
you're teaching astronomy and we have a common assessment and you do much better in
the area of gases on the planet than I do, then I can come to you and go, "How do you
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 90
present that unit because you had a lot more success." And then we're having this
conversation and you're saying ... You might even model, "Well, here's my introduction
to it. Here's how I introduce the concept." I go, "Wow, I hadn't thought about that." And
then I can go back into my classroom and be stronger in that area.
Using a hypothetical scenario, the teacher demonstrated a clear understanding of how to use
course maps, assessments and data to modify instruction. Both the focus groups and the surveys
corroborated that course mapping was a concept that most teachers understand. Participants
repeatedly articulated a rationale for the initiative. Teachers were able to describe benefits of the
course mapping initiative to students, teachers and the system. In the survey, there were elevated
levels of teacher agreement that they have a clear understanding of what a course map is.
Similarly, they expressed that they also understood how to utilize course maps. See Table 12.
Table 12

Data measurements of teacher understanding

Survey Question Reponses Mean Variance Standard
Deviation
I have a clear understanding
of what a course map is.
25 4.56
Somewhat
Agree
0.5 0.71
I understand how course
maps are utilized within the
larger school system to align
teaching.
25 4.24
Somewhat
Agree
0.77 0.87

During the focus group, teachers demonstrated this self-reporting and demonstrated declarative
knowledge in their discussions. Most participant teachers provided examples of how they use
course maps in the classroom. What was identified as challenging for teachers, however, was
organizational barriers.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 91
Teachers want more professional development. In the survey, 68% (17/25) of teachers
indicated that there has been adequate professional development and training in designing course
maps aligned with CCSSs. This was a topic that came up repeatedly in the focus group
discussion; the need for professional development was mentioned on twelve occasions.
Participant 1 stated, “We weren’t given any training, so to speak, we were just told to do it.” This
was echoed by Participant 6 who said, “At other schools we had some training with curriculum
mapping, I haven’t had any here.” The focus group transcript shows that teachers feel
professional development has been inadequate around the initiative. Teachers should be well
informed of standardized processes and online tools to be successful in meeting the goal. A
considerable number of teachers (12/25) reported that their teaching preparation program had not
prepared them to design and use course maps.
Table 13

Data measurements of teacher preparation

Survey Question Reponses Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Mean Variance Standard
Deviation
My teaching
preparation program
has prepared me to
design and use course
maps in my
professional role.
25 1
Strongly
Agree
5
Somewhat
Disagree
2.52
Neither
agree or
disagree
1.51 1.22

This finding may seem contradictory to the finding of high procedural and declarative
knowledge, but the focus interviews indicated that professional development was desired, “so we
start as simply as we can and keep developing skills throughout the year”(Participant 1).
Increased professional development could result in higher levels of self-efficacy, which is critical
in the domain of motivation. Although they are often linked, confidence and knowledge are not
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 92
the same. Teachers significantly demonstrated knowledge related to course maps throughout the
study; therefore, given the high knowledge levels identified, it is possible that the desire for more
training could be more strongly tied to increasing confidence, experience, and self-efficacy. This
is inevitable, especially when doing something new. However, the correlation between training
and achieving desired organizational outcomes is limited. These measures must be part of a
composite approach to the organization to be effective (Brown & May, 2012; Vakola, 2016).
Motivation Results
According to Bandura’s social cognitive theory, an individual’s belief that they can do
something, or self-efficacy, directly impacts their motivation (Bandura, 1986; Pajares, 2006). A
lack of motivation or self-efficacy can hinder the success of any pursuit. Motivation is based on
interest, self-efficacy, attributions, and goal orientation (Mayer, 2008). Motivation is a
prerequisite for task persistence and follow through. According to Eccles (2009), whether the
individual can do the task predicts performance and the motivation to pursue more challenging
tasks. Based on this study, motivation gaps exist which act as a barrier for success. This section
describes key findings in the area of motivation.
Self-Efficacy
Teachers reported limited levels of self-efficacy. When questions shifted into the realm
of self-efficacy and confidence-levels, the response levels dropped to lower levels than the
knowledge questions. Thirty-two percent (8/25) of respondents reported agreement with the
statement, “Teachers at this school lack confidence in their ability to integrate course mapping
strategies into their practice.” As Table 14 demonstrates, teachers ranked their application of
their learning at lower levels than their knowledge responses, which appear on Table 12.

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 93
Table 14
Data measurements of teacher self-efficacy

Survey Question Reponses Mean Variance Standard
Deviation
I have had success using
course maps.
25 3.44
Neither
Agree or
Disagree
0.92 0.96
I know how to use the
structure of course maps to
assess my own teaching and
engage in self-evaluation.
25 3.64
Neither
Agree or
Disagree
0.90 0.95
I am confident that I will be
successful in using course
maps to guide my instruction.
25 3.88
Neither
Agree or
Disagree
1.19 1.09

Participant 2 stated the following about crafting course maps: “That’s going beyond my comfort
zone and my ability zone.” Participant 9 shared a sense of limited confidence when challenges
arise:
We have received some training in creating the maps, but not much follow-up in what to
do if a class is behind, or needs more time in one area, etc. It would be nice to have some
follow-up and maybe a little more time within the departments devoted to where classes
are at in following the course maps.
While this teacher reports experiencing training, their comments also reflect a lack of confidence
in their ability to navigate variables and complexities. While teachers largely report that they
know how to use course maps in their classroom teaching (19/25), only 11 of the 25 respondents
reported that they had experienced successful application in using course maps. Teachers are
more likely to be intrinsically motivated if they have experienced prior successes or if they
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 94
believe that they have a chance to be successful. This belief is a crucial part of self-motivation.
This was reflected in the open response survey comments like this:
I do feel a more open-minded shift already. I think it will involve the balance of assuring
the staff that they are doing a great job, that what they teach is important, yet trying this
may help get us all on the same page and may help with student success. Many people
that avoid change often hear the suggestion as a means of criticism rather than a
brainstorming or suggestion to try a different approach. It is either their approach is good
and they keep or it is being suggested that it is bad and they need to do the new thing. I
think a feeling to trust and appreciation needs to come from the D.O. to be able to hear
change as a positive thing.
This anonymous survey participant identified the need for support and assurances from
management through the change process. Professional development may support teachers in
making the turn from practical knowledge into application, but, as this participant identified,
developing self-efficacy with these skills needs to take place in a safe, supported space with
encouragement. In order to take risks and develop confidence, teachers need to feel that there is
trust and encouragement from management. This need for appreciation extends to the desire to
also be valued for their insights.
Expectancy Value
Most teachers see the value of CCSSs aligned course maps. Integral to the achievement
of a goal is the value that participants perceive in the task. Beliefs about the utility and
importance of the task can drive the motivation and efforts of the participant. Only 32% (8/25)
of respondents agreed with the statement, “Teachers at this school do not value integrating
course mapping strategies into their practice.” The general trends of the survey data reflected
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 95
expectancy value in course maps, but no clear consensus emerged. In fact, variance levels for
questions relating to the professional responsibility of using course maps was slightly larger than
those questions asking about the value of the maps. Most of these individuals confirmed the
benefit of the measure, but there were fewer individuals who felt it was consistent with their
professional role.
Table 15
Data measurements of expectancy value

Survey Question Reponses Mean Variance Standard
Deviation
I believe it is beneficial for
teachers to use course maps.
25 4.08
Somewhat
Agree
1.16 1.07
Using Common Core State
Standards aligned course
maps is a task which is
aligned with the professional
goals that I hold for myself.

25 3.8
Neither
Agree or
Disagree
1.75 1.3
I believe that using course
maps can result in a positive
impact on student outcomes.
25 4.16
Somewhat
Agree
0.80 0.89
I value course mapping as an
essential component of my
role as a teacher.
25 3.72
Neither
Agree or
Disagree
1.54 1.24
I value collaboration with
other teachers.
25 4.64
Somewhat
Agree
0.74 0.86

The reason for this discrepancy may lie in the lens that teachers perceive their professional role.
When asked a question about autonomy in the teaching profession, 24% of respondents (6/25)
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 96
reported a belief that they should have full autonomy (see Table16). This perception of their role
could conflict with organizational goal.
Table 16
Data measurements of autonomy

Survey Question Reponses Mean Variance Standard
Deviation
I believe that classroom
teachers should be left alone
to teach with full autonomy.

25 2.68
Somewhat
Disagree
1.56 1.24

Teachers in the system do not perceive the initiative as in line with the expectancies they hold for
themselves professionally. If the action of course mapping is not aligned with their
psychological and professional expectations, these individuals will see little to no value in the
project. As a result, they will be unmotivated to engage in the task. These individuals are likely
to feel disenfranchised from the larger organization, which is pursuing a goal that they do not
perceive as relevant in their professional paradigm.
Teachers reported a feeling of being uninvolved in organizational decisions. During
the focus group interviews, motivation was targeted as a barrier to successful initiatives.
Employees argued that they feel out of the loop and that decisions are being made without
teacher input. Employees indicated that they do not have a great deal of respect for the district’s
senior leaders. They suggested that leadership makes decisions with limited teacher input.
Anonymous survey comments included statements which reflected this. These comments
included: “We were just told to do it,” and, “I don’t feel like that they’ve brought everybody into
the room that were players”. When asked to rank on a scale of 0-100 (with 0 being the lowest
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 97
and 100 being the highest) “RHS is involving the right stakeholders,” teachers gave an average
score of 54.
Table 17
Data measurements of teacher involvement
On a scale of 0-100 with 0 being the
lowest and 100 being the highest, please
slide the scale to rank your answers.
Reponses Mean
RHS is involving the right stakeholders in
change.

26 54.80

Only 5 (20%) respondents agreed with the statement that teachers trust administration.
Additionally, 23 (84%) of respondents agreed that there was top-down leadership at the school.
Table 18
Data measurements of teacher understanding
Survey Question Reponses Mean Variance Standard
Deviation
Teachers in this school trust
administration.
25 4.64
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
2.32 1.52
There is significant top-down
leadership at this school.
25 2.56
Somewhat
Agree
2.56 2.25

This data reveals that although there is a significant range of variance, most teachers feel low
levels of involvement in the organization. As a result, there can be a lack of ownership that can
arise. Ownership over an initiative can give employees not only a reason to perform, but a sense
of belonging. As one clearly frustrated anonymous survey participant put it this way, “Getting
leadership that knows how to work WITH a staff, not one that likes to spew out directives like
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 98
erupting vomit.” Employees have the emotional need to be heard, and have their expertise
valued within any organization (Eccles 2006; Pintrich, 2003). Motivation can be a challenge to a
group of individuals who feel a lack of involvement, and therefore investment, in the changes
occurring.
Teachers expressed a general sense of feeling frustration and exhaustion with high
levels of change and a lack of continuity in the system. While teachers were able to articulate
the value and benefit of course maps, they also expressed only limited success in accomplishing
this goal. As discussed previously, most respondents (16/28) scored RHS in a realm of progressing
on this goal, and 3 respondents ranked the initiative as a failure (see Table 9). No respondents
reported achievement of this institutional goal. In both focus groups, the discussion began
unprompted with teachers listing the various computer interfaces that have been utilized to
warehouse course maps in recent years. In one focus group, an exchange occurred reflecting
confusion around the way course maps were collected. A pattern was evident among participants’
descriptions. Teachers are experiencing confusion and frustration over software changes. In the
above exchanges, teachers identified four software systems that had been utilized by the district
within a multi-year period. This dialogue elucidated a key challenge for crafting a standard, united
system for course maps and reflects the barrier of a lack continuity and clarity surrounds a digital
method for managing the curriculum maps. Focus group Participant 9 expressed the frustration
this way:
I think there's a- there a trend we see of validity in any kind of program that creates some
kind of continuity within the structure of our system. But then the kind of general concern
that comes in mind with that is, you know, the term roll out, and the term, you know- what
we're applying it to and how it's being recorded or stored. I mean, I got here six years ago,
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 99
and the first time I ever heard of this process was about two years ago. Within our
department, within (redacted), we kind of get put out the back burner until we're absolutely
needed. But then- and ultimately, just seeing how things in the district have been applied,
what have we seen, already four different servers that we've used? And again, that's within
the framework of what, the last seven years?
This teacher identified continuity as a challenge for the system. The teacher also spoke about
repetitive changes, which can result in unfocused, uninspired and unsuccessful change efforts.
Still another focus group participant, Participant 3, expressed theses frustration this way:
Well, I think the acts of where we're putting the accessible elements has a lot to do with
the- the problem of it not being applied appropriately in- within any kind of consistent
continuity. Cuz then, if we're putting it in- I mean at one point we were saying, okay, now
look at your Engrade, and I think this summer it was like, Oh hey, Engrade’s not here. Now
we're going to do this thing. So, it gets lots in kind of the murky back room dealings of
what we’re gonna be sold on this month.
The goal of a consistent and clear system of curriculum maps requires that teachers are able to
act confidently, but when digital tools change with frequency, self-efficacy and confidence levels
can drop. Through focus group discussions, teachers expressed fatigue and frustration with
repeated application changes that had occurred in the past.
Change fatigue is the stress that results from the uncertainty of change (Glick, Huber, Miller,
Harold & Sutclifee, 1990). When change is perceived as a never-ending event, teachers are
unable to perceive a discrete end to initiatives, which results in employees being unable to align
their expectations with that of the organization. Psychological uncertainty is defined as the
inability of a person to make accurate predictions (Milken, 1987). Teachers in the focus groups
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 100
were expressing frustration in the change process by focusing on too many changes in the
organization. One anonymous survey participant described the challenge this way in the free
response section:
I believe that the make-up of the staff at this school creates an issue in fully implementing
Common Core Standards curriculum maps. There are many influential teachers who
distrust the school and directives of the administration team. There are new teachers who
lack confidence in integrate common core standards, or do not see the value in doing
something other than what they have felt to be successful in their own past practice.
Many teachers have been teaching long enough to be wary of programs that seem “extra”
because the longevity of said programs has had a shelf life of two years maximum in this
district. It is frustrating to put in so much work only to have the work tossed out and
replaced within a two-year timeframe.
The longevity of initiatives at the school, according to this participant, is at a two-year average.
These high levels of change can lead to feelings of confusion or ineffectiveness, which can lead
to a sense of frustration. A stable state becomes increasingly more important to these
individuals. The desire for stability can often come with negative response behaviors, including
cynicism, or change adverse employees (Milken, 1987). In describing this phenomenon, Marks
(2003) has argued that employees can only handle so much disruption and that change overload
makes stability become the new goal for employees. The focus group interviews elicited
repeated content emphasizing this theme of change fatigue.
Organizational Results
Organizational influences can inhibit the successful execution of performance goals.
Lack of organizational processes or resources can discourage individuals who may be
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 101
knowledgeable and motivated (Clark & Estes, 2002). Organizational gaps can range from
organizational processes and material resources to organizational culture. The data collected
suggests that there are organizational barriers at RHS that prevent teachers from fully
implementing CCSSs aligned course maps. When teachers were asked to identify factors that are
impacting the course alignment initiative, more respondents selected cultural components than
any other factor listed. The top two factors selected by participants were:
1) There is a culture of distrust at this school, which has hindered new programs (12/25
respondents selected).
2) There is a general resistance in this faculty at this school to new programs or anything
that teachers perceive as “extra” (11/25 respondents selected).
Organizational culture is the shared experiences and assumptions within an organization.
Organizational culture is the process employees use to work together and accomplish the
institutional goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). These two identified factors were further reflected in
the focus group’s descriptions.
Culture of distrust. When given the statement, “teachers in this school trust
administration,” the majority of teachers, 60%, disagreed (15/25) (see Table 18). This was
reflected in the focus group comments. In focus group discussions, Participant 6 suggested this
might be tied to frequent change:
There's also- there are educators here who have been here far longer than most of us
have, who've seen a lot of things come and go, even within a year. So there's a real lack
of trust that this methodology, the correct methodology, versus their twenty five plus
years of experience. I get out of high school, I'm ready for college. And you come along
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 102
and tell me this new method is supposed to work, when you said that last year when you
said that the year before about something else.
The issue of change came up repeatedly in the focus groups. Most respondents reported that
they as individuals can adapt quickly to change (19/25). More relevant, 60% (18/25) reported
that the organization of RHS itself does not adapt quickly to change.
Table 19
Data measurements of change responses
Survey Question Reponses Mean Variance Standard
Deviation
As an individual, I adapt
quickly to change.
25 3.92
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
1.16 1.97
As an organization, this
school adapts quickly to
change.
25 2.6
Somewhat
Disagree
1.25 1.11

According to focus group discussions, the unintended consequence of recent rapid organizational
changes (which may have initially emerged to improve educational outcomes) could have left a
detrimental impact to the system. Teachers who feel that participating fully in an initiative is a
win for administration but a loss for them is a significant obstacle to systemic change.
Consistent with this finding, teachers expressed that there is a general resistance to initiatives in
this system.
Still other focus group participants identified top-down leadership being a contributor to
this distrust. As mentioned earlier, most respondents agreed that there was top-down leadership
at the school (see Table 18). Participant 3 linked the distrust and the leadership style this way:
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 103
But I do feel like many teachers here take that lack of trust from the district office and
they're funneling for- all of our admin really, expecting that she's just going to completely
side with us at the risk of their own job. So, I think that does make it hard. But there's
definite lack of trust between the district office, and I would say lack of respect shown.
Which then can carry over into how we feel about our admin here in trusting, was this for
us, or was this for them?
In discussing the culture of distrust, Participant 6 made the statement, “… that becomes, I don’t
want to help them.” Participant 4 engaged with that thought, clarifying, “Right. This will make
their life easier, and so we see that some teachers just resistant because we feel as though if the
district claims success, it would be a false claim.” Regardless of leadership actions and
strategies, if teachers are holding a resistant or resentful view of management it is possible that
any efforts could be challenged or even sabotaged.
Several participants placed the responsibility for the distrust on senior staff. Survey
responses included statements which reflected this. When asked what factors could limit or
hinder the success of the course mapping initiative, one teacher submitted this short, open
response: “Stubbornness by senior staff.” Another anonymous participant offered a more
expanded explanation of this phenomenon:
I think sometimes teachers who have been in this profession for a very long time can get
comfortable in teaching the same things in the same ways year after year, so integrating
something new and different makes some want to resist or fight it. But, overall, I believe
most teachers have been flexible and accommodating to new programs in the past couple
of years.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 104
This aspect of resistant senior staff was also discussed in both focus group interviews. This
generational divide could be a contributing factor in the high variance answers. In an
organization that has a culture of trust, transparent communication, and highly involved
employees, resistance is less likely to occur. It is important to view the way change is received
at all levels and explore why it is not viewed as valuable by senior staff. It is possible, as focus
group members suggested, that change is inconsistent with their values.
General resistance in teachers directed towards increased controls. Andy Hargreaves in
the book Change Wars (2009) discussed the reaction trends of teachers in times of increasing
standardization and accountability. He described the reactions of teachers to these changes as
leading to a culture that has become largely skeptical and even defiant towards these new forms
of control. Teacher resistance toward school reforms was apparent in the data as 44% (11/25) of
participants agreed that the faculty is usually resistant to new programs and initiatives, and 42%
(10/25) of respondents agreed with the statement that course maps are something outside of their
professional responsibility. The responses are displayed below.
Table 20
Data measurements of new programs
Reponses Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Mean Variance Standard
Deviation
New programs are usually
successful at this school.
25 1
Strongly
Agree
7
Strongly
Disagree
4.64
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
2.32 1.59
The faculty is usually
resistant to new programs
and initiatives.
25 1
Strongly
Agree
6
Somewhat
Disagree
3.56
Somewhat
Agree
1.92 1.38
I view course maps as
something “extra” or
outside of my professional
responsibility.
25 1
Strongly
Agree
7
Strongly
Disagree
4.88
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
3.61 1.9
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 105

The high degree of variance on the question of professional responsibility reflects significantly
differing opinions on the teaching staff. Responses were given at both ends of the spectrum,
which may indicate an important cultural divide. When the topic of course mapping as a
teacher’s professional obligation was discussed in a focus group setting, Participant 2 stated:
I think it’s something extra. It’s not in my training to do something like this. I feel like I
should give input, but I shouldn’t have to come up with a plan to devise it.
Participant 3 explained the differing opinions on the staff in this manner:
But I feel like the culture then has created that- that perception of uncomfortable change,
fear of any kind of top down progress or even top down directives. And then we literally
get people who go into their rooms, lock their doors and call it a day. And when you have
senior teachers that I, you know, know personally who make comments that collaboration
is, you know, overrated, and we just need to do what we wanna do, and they shouldn't be
telling us how to do our jobs; that, to me, is clearly kind of an issue as far as our
profession goes.
According to this teacher, requiring teachers to generate curricular maps is an initiative that may
trigger two resistant responses: 1) resistance to “top down directives” and 2) conflict with some
senior teachers’ views of their professional role. Because these teachers highly prize autonomy,
they may automatically challenge or resist any new practice that emerges.
Teachers want to increased time dedicated to the course mapping initiative and want
more examples and templates. In the open response questions of the survey, the subject of time
was mentioned twenty times, making it one of the most talked about factors in the survey results.
Teachers reported that they do not feel there has been enough time dedicated to completing the
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 106
CCSSs course maps. Their survey answers included statements like, “We need more time to
develop materials that are aligned with course maps, as well as to re-examine and improve
maps,” and “I see the biggest barriers being time for teacher creation.” Teachers expressed that
more time is needed in order to achieve schoolwide success with the course mapping initiative.
They emphasized that it takes time to effectively complete aligned course maps and indicated
that while progress has been made, more time is still needed. More specifically, 7 of 18 free
responses identified time as a barrier.
In addition, teachers identified examples as lacking for teachers to follow. As table 21
demonstrates, most teachers disagreed that the professional development has been sufficient
(16/25).
Table 21
Data measurements of examples
Survey Question Reponses Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Mean Variance Standard
Deviation
There have been
adequate examples
provided for me to
follow in designing
course maps aligned
with Common Core
State Standards.
25 2
Agree
7
Strongly
Disagree
3.72
Somewhat
Agree
2.62 1.62

Several teachers reiterated this sentiment in the focus group interviews. Participant 9 expressed
this by stating:
I think it would be really important to have somebody come in who is trained on teaching
us on how to take those next steps. Because I feel like when we’re left to do it ourselves,
not that we’re not capable, but we’re not trained to actually create those groups…and to
show…we don’t have a template. I guess is what I’m trying to say.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 107
This comment reflects the experiences of teachers who expressed difficulty feeling successful
without models or templates to follow. Providing teachers more time and more examples could
secure more positive outcomes for RHS.
Discussion
While the course mapping initiative is progressing, most teachers identified the project as
progressing but not a goal that has reached attainment. The study revealed that teachers widely
understood and valued course mapping practices. When it came to the integration of these
practices into their work, however, teachers attributed the lack of completion of this goal by
identifying institutional factors. The teachers did not bear much of the responsibility for limited
achievement of the goal and expressed that they were doing their best within an organizational
system that lacked consistency and clarity.
There were multiple references to distrust within the organization, and there appeared to
be limited professional development or coaching around the crafting of course maps. There was
repeated resentment expressed about the prioritizing of some departments over other departments
that were not a part of the core curriculum. This lack of cohesive organizational support is not
conducive to achieving the organizational goal of completing a Common Core Standards aligned
course map within a digital library.
Knowledge factors discussed include teachers’ conceptual knowledge of what a course
map is and how it operates within the larger system. Procedural knowledge factors included
teachers knowing how to implement course maps in ways that are meaningful. Teachers also
need the metacognition to self-evaluate their knowledge of implementing CCSSs aligned course
maps. Teachers want to more professional development dedicated to the course mapping
initiative
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 108
Motivational influences examined self-efficacy and the need for teachers to feel
successful in their ability to use course maps. Teachers additionally need to hold expectancy
value and perceive course maps as an action that will influence the attainment of their
professional goals. Teachers expressed a desire to be included in decision-making processes that
affect their job and organization.
Organizational features give structure to and influence motivational and knowledge
factors. The cultural model is the unspoken or informal aspects of the workplace. Distrust and
resistance in the cultural environment can impact a school’s effort to accomplish desired
outcomes. There is a culture of distrust at this school, which has hindered new programs. There
is a general resistance in the faculty at this school to new programs or anything that teachers
perceive as “extra.” The cultural setting influencers include needed professional development
tools, time and examples or templates to accomplish the desired task. The setting influencers
identified as areas of need include increased time dedicated to the course mapping initiative and
wanting more examples and templates.

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 109
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
The success or failure of any educational innovation is conditional upon many institutional
factors. Chapter four discussed the researcher’s findings related to the Knowledge, Motivational
and Organizational influences impacting the development of course maps aligned with CCSSs.
The findings demonstrated several areas of focus that need to be addressed to create the optimal
conditions for achievement. This chapter addresses those areas of focus and makes
recommendations for improvements to drive institutional reform.
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. Prior to any implementation, it is necessary to determine whether a group
of individuals understands how to achieve their performance goals (Clark & Estes,
2008). Declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge affect the
overall ability of the teachers to implement curriculum mapping strategies to formalize
institutional expectations in the workplace setting. Individuals need to know “the what” prior to
any action taking place. This knowledge represents a necessary, although not the sole, condition
for changes in behavior (Krathwohl, 2002). Bandura’s Social Learning Theory posits that people
learn from one another, through observation, imitation, and modeling (1977). Information and
personal interpretations will dictate an individual’s response to new learning, and these must be
affected to impact implementation (Anderson, 2001).
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) identified an important revision to Bloom’s Taxonomy
by including four different types of knowledge. These four classifications of knowledge are:
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. According to Krathwohl (2002), factual
knowledge refers to essential facts, terminology and details individuals must know or be familiar
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 110
with to understand a discipline or solve a problem in it. Conceptual knowledge consists of the
interrelationships among the basic elements that exist within a larger structure (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001). Both factual and conceptual knowledge are considered declarative
knowledge, which constitutes knowledge about the “what.” The last two types, procedural and
metacognitive, constitute the knowledge of “how to” aspects of knowledge. Anderson (2001)
described procedural knowledge as information or knowledge that helps students to do
something specific within a discipline, subject, or area of study. Metacognitive knowledge is
awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition; it is strategic or reflective knowledge about
solving problems and understanding of the self (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). These
knowledge types form a useful model to lay out the branches of knowledge, and they are
important to understand to build an understanding of knowledge influencers in any
organizational initiative. These knowledge influencers identified in this study are reflected in the
table below, which also shows the recommendations for these influencers.
Table 22
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
Declarative:
(Conceptual):
Teachers need to have
the knowledge of what
a course map is and
how it operates within
the larger system.

N N Knowing why
something happens in a
particular way involves
understanding and
interpreting concepts
and the relationships
between them (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Continue to
articulate how
course maps
operate at RHS.
Procedural:
Teachers need to have
the skills to implement
course maps.
V Y
Procedural knowledge
is the information or
knowledge that can
enable an individual to
Provide Training
in which teachers
practice the
procedures
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 111
do something specific
within a discipline, it is
the knowledge used in
the performance of a
task (Anderson, 2001).
People learn most
rapidly through
observing others’
behaviors and through
modeling (Bandura,
1977).

required to direct
and participate in a
Professional
Learning
Community

Provide a job aid
poster that
includes a flow
chart for
Professional
Learning
Community
planning and
protocols.
Metacognition
Teachers need to self-
evaluate their
knowledge of
implementing CCSSs
aligned curriculum
maps.
HP N
Performance levels
increase with increased
self-regulation skills
and awareness of one’s
own functioning (Clark
& Estes, 2008;
Krathwohl, 2002).
From observing others,
individuals form ideas
of how new behaviors
are performed, and this
serves as a guide for
action (Bandura, 1977).
Provide training in
which a mentor
“thinks aloud” and
demonstrates their
thinking during the
creation and use of
course mapping.

Have well
regarded teachers
mentor struggling
teachers.

Declarative knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Declarative
knowledge refers to the concepts and ideas individuals will need to know when acquiring any
new skill. It is information that can be conveyed in words, orally or in writing; that is,
knowledge that can be declared (Krathwohl, 2002). Acquiring any skill usually begins with
declarative knowledge (Clark & Estes, 2008). A person must hold limited declarative knowledge
to step into the realm of procedural knowledge (Anderson, 2001).
Declarative knowledge was not confirmed as an obstacle for the initiative. Teachers
repeatedly demonstrated conceptual knowledge. RHS should continue to articulate in trainings
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 112
how course maps operate in the system. Procedural knowledge solutions, or description of
needs or assets. Procedural knowledge is knowledge about how to do something (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001). Procedural knowledge refers to the “how,” or the necessary steps involved in
completing a goal or possessing the knowledge of techniques or methods within a field
(Krathwohl, 2002). According to Clark and Estes (2008), training is the best way to equip people
with “how to” knowledge. Training also provides guided practice and corrective feedback to help
people achieve specific work goals. Training teachers on how to craft course maps and structure
them in a way that supports to collaboration and engagement in continuous improvement is vital
to a successful initiative (Jacobs, 1997; Jacobs, 2006; Jacobs, 2010).
These procedural knowledge recommendations are intended to address curriculum
mapping processes including: 1) provide training in which teachers practice the procedures
required to craft or revise course maps, and 2) provide a job aid poster that includes a flow chart
for planning and protocols. Use of a new skill is unlikely after a one-time workshop, particularly
when the skill is complex, and the concept is new, as is the case for course mapping (Bransford
& Schwartz, 1999; Yoon et al., 2007). Procedural knowledge happens with explicit directions,
demonstrations and guided practice. Most human behavior is learned from observing others and
from modeling. (Bandura, 1977) Therefore, the rationale for providing these tools is to enable
the teachers to see modeled, effective strategies in use (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).
Metacognitive knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Metacognitive
knowledge is the awareness of one’s own cognition and particular cognitive processes. It is
strategic or reflective knowledge about how to go about solving problems. Cognitive tasks
include contextual and conditional knowledge and knowledge of the self (Krathwohl, 2002).
Metacognition is higher order thinking that involves active control over the cognitive processes
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 113
engaged in learning (Perner, 1991). Metacognitive knowledge is the knowledge about cognitive
processes, or thinking about thinking (Krathwohl, 2002). It is valuable for teachers to have
awareness of their own cognition in order to implement course maps strategies within the
workplace (Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007). This knowledge and awareness can be utilized to
control and redirect cognitive processes through self-awareness (Lorenz, 2009). To achieve the
stakeholder goal, teachers need to have an understanding of how to go about solving problems
they will encounter in the course mapping process.
The recommendations for improving metacognition in RHS teachers are: 1) provide
training in which a peer model, or mentor, talks through curriculum mapping and demonstrates
their thinking in the creation and use of shared mapping, and 2) have well regarded teachers, act
asmentors after the training to support struggling teachers. Training with a peer model
establishes a community of learners in which learning is accelerated (Yough & Anderman, 2006;
Shute 2008). By modeling by mentors, teachers can watch a peer demonstrate how they use their
errors as opportunities to learn. This demonstrates that it is safe to take risks. (Anderman &
Anderman, 2006) Through mentoring, teacher peers can provide opportunities for colleagues to
monitor progress, and support as needed (Denler et al., 2009).
Motivation Recommendation
Introduction. Motivation is the integration of social-cognitive constructs and involves
the needs for self-efficacy or competence, control or autonomy, and value or relatedness by those
who aspire to be motivated. Pintrich (2003) defines motivation as not merely about interest,
which can be just curiosity, but also involving engaging in the activities that lead toward a goal.
Motivation encompasses an array of related beliefs, perceptions, values, interests, and actions
within individuals. These factors are important to consider in the attainment of any institutional
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 114
objective.
Table 23
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
Self-efficacy:
Teachers need to feel
confident in their
ability to integrate
strategies of course
mapping into their
practice.
V Y High self-efficacy
improves motivation
and persistence with
a task (Pajares,
2006). Learning and
motivation are
enhanced by positive
expectancies for
success (Pajares,
2006)
Emphasize that
teachers are capable
of learning how to
curriculum map. Set
close, concerted and
challenging goals that
allow the teachers to
experience successful
milestones along the
way.
Expectancy Value:
Teachers need to see
utility value in
curriculum maps
aligned to Common
Core State Standards
as an action which will
influence the
attainment of the
professional goals they
hold for themselves.

V Y According to
expectancy-value
theory, teachers’
choices are most
proximally
determined by
expectancies for
success, and how
useful, or enjoyable
the individual
perceives the task.
(Eccles, 1983, 2000,
2006; Pintrich, 2003)
Include mentor
teachers sharing value
with participants in
trainings. Include
rationales in training
and discussions about
the importance of the
task within the
context of the school
and ensure activities
are relevant to real
world tasks.

Self-efficacy solutions, or description of needs or assets. The recommendations for
improving self-efficacy include: 1) emphasizing and demonstrating that teachers are capable of
learning how to curriculum map, and 2) setting close, concerted and challenging goals that allow
the teachers to experience successful milestones along the way. According to Pajares (2006),
learning and motivation are enhanced when a person holds a belief in their power to affect
situations. When it is made clear to individuals that they are capable of performing a task, their
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 115
learning and self-efficacy improve (Pajares, 2006). Teachers need to feel confident in their own
ability to incorporate strategies of mapping the curriculum. Teachers will perform better if they
possess the belief that they can influence their own effectiveness through course mapping (Flook,
Goldberg, Pinger, Bonus, & Davidson, 2013). Bandura's (1977) learning theory argues that
people learn from one another through observation, imitation, and modeling. Mentor teachers
should be used to model curriculum mapping successfulness for struggling teachers.
Self-efficacy is one of the most critical tools to drive motivation and achievement.
(Pajares, 2006). RHS can stimulate critical thinking and comprehension and thus increase student
self-efficacy through a variety of strategies, such as emphasizing that teachers are capable of
learning how to curriculum map (Pajares, 2006). Teachers need to feel confident that their
expended efforts will result in achievement, and one of the easiest way to increase teacher’s
confidence and engagement with subject material is by setting close, concerted and challenging
goals that allow the teachers to experience successful milestones along the way (Pajares, 2006).
Teachers at RHS lack self-efficacy relative to their belief in their ability to course map.
Providing learners with modeling and with feedback can increase learners’ self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1977; Pajares, 2006). Utilizing a training plan that incorporates the use of quality
course maps as models and includes a trainer who can offer immediate and interactive feedback
can increase self-efficacy. It is recommended that RHS implement a training with mentors from
teachers who have successfully completed their course maps. This training should use practical
examples and real-life scenarios to enable teachers to receive immediate feedback and guidance
from the trainer and the mentor teachers.
Expectancy value solutions, or description of needs or assets. In order to enhance
learning value in students, the recommendations are focused on including rationales in training
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 116
and discussions about the importance of the task within the context of the school and ensure
activities are relevant to real world tasks.
Individuals may have more motivation to learn if they perceive the learning to have
utility value, and if the materials and activities are relevant to the learners with real world tasks
(Pajares, 2006). When rationales presented include a discussion of the importance and utilitarian
value of the work, it helps learners value the work and effort involved (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich,
2003). RHS should include rationales for the course mapping project in training and discussions
about the importance of the task (Pintrich, 2003). Mentor teachers at RHS should share the value
that they derive from their own use of course maps. Seeing a correlation between the project and
the goals they hold for themselves can impact the amount of effort that teachers are willing to
dedicate to this project. (Bandura, 1977)
Organization Recommendations
Schein (1990) explored how any change to an organization will affect its organizational
culture. The way in which the staff reacts to organizational change will depend upon many
factors, including: teacher workload, level of professional development, and the culture of trust
within the organization. Rueda (2011) defined culture is defined as the values, goals, beliefs,
emotions and processes in an organization. Organizational culture affects how teachers perceive
and approach new initiatives; therefore, it is important to examine these elements in the
implementation of programs and initiatives.

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 117
Table 24
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
Cultural Model
Influence 1:
There is a culture of
distrust in the school
which has hindered
new programs.

V Y Organizations with
high levels of
cultural trust tend to
recruit and retain
highly motivated
employees. “These
employees are more
likely to enjoy their
work, take the time
to do their jobs
correctly; make their
own decisions; take
risks; innovate;
embrace the
organization’s vision,
mission, and values;
and display
organizational
citizenship behavior
(e.g., helping a co-
worker in
need)” (Colquitt,
Scott & LePine, 2007
as cited in Starnes,
Truhon & McCarthy,
2010, p. 6).

Principals being
attuned to
“organizational
undercurrents” is
correlated with
student learning
outcomes in schools
(Waters, Marzano &
McNulty, 2003).
Develop high
“situational
awareness;” know
the undercurrents of
your organization
and use this
information to
anticipate and
address potential
problems.

The more a leader
acts in a way that
followers feel is
appropriate ethical
leader behavior, the
more a leader will be
trusted (Van den
Akker, Heres,
Lasthulzen & Six,
2009).
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 118
Cultural Model
Influence 2:
There is a general
resistance in faculty to
new programs, and
anything that they
perceive as “extra.”

V N A strong
organizational
culture controls
organizational
behavior and can
block an organization
from making
necessary changes
for adapting to a
changing
environment (Schein,
2004).

Align all activity
toward further the
vision, mission and
goals of the
organization. Ask
how each decision
furthers the mission;
stop activity when it
doesn’t further the
mission, vision or
goals.
Cultural Setting
Influence 1:
There is a lack of
necessary tools
including examples and
templates provided for
course maps aligned to
Common Core State
Standards.
V Y Organizational
performance
increases when
processes and
resources are aligned
with goals
established
collaboratively
(Clark & Estes,
2008). Templates
and examples
increase efficacy and
confidence in
participants
(Knowles, 2005).
Develop a template
based on the
organization’s goals.
Refer to examples
and template
regularly. Have
mentor teachers
demonstrate using
the templates in
trainings.

Organization solutions, or description of needs or assets.
Cultural model 1: There is a culture of distrust in the school, which has hindered
new programs. Clark and Estes (2008) state that when policies and procedures are aligned and
communicated from the top with all stakeholders, organizational performance increases. Clark
and Estes (2008) suggest that organizational performance increases when individuals experience
an environment where processes and resources are aligned with institutional goals and high
levels of trust exist within the organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). To achieve this alignment and
enhance trust, the beliefs and values of these stakeholders must align with the organizational
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 119
goals. These beliefs and values constitute the cultural model of the organization, and when there
is cohesion within these components, employee satisfaction and productivity increases (Clark &
Estes, 2008). RHS is an organization that has misalignment and distrust between the
organizational goals and the beliefs and values of the culture.
Therefore, the recommendations for improving the cultural model of the organization are:
1) meet frequently and candidly with stakeholders, 2) expand leadership perceptions and
understanding by encouraging open communication and feedback by all stakeholders, 3) ask
collectively and continually how each decision furthers the mission; stop activity when it does
not further the mission, vision or goals. The more a leader acts in a way that followers feel is
appropriate ethical leader behavior, the more a leader will be trusted (Van den Akker, Heres,
Lasthulzen & Six, 2009). By developing high “situational awareness,” a leader can know the
undercurrents of the organization, and use this information to anticipate and address potential
problems. Through frequent and open communication, leaders can recruit others in community
building by encouraging the alignment of institutional actions towards furthering the vision,
mission and goals of the organization.
Cultural models 2: There is a general resistance in faculty to new programs, and
anything that they perceive as “extra.” Teachers’ attitudes towards new initiatives is important
to address. Poor stakeholder collaboration due to trust issues, and a perception of top-down
leadership can create an atmosphere in which barriers exist that will inhibit new initiatives
(Denning, 2005; Lewis, 2011). When there is coordination and cooperation between all the
stakeholders, performance increases, as does employee satisfaction (Clark & Estes, 2008). In the
case of RHS, the staff often resents initiatives and feels as though something is being done to
them, rather than feeling a sense of involvement in a common institutional goal.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 120
As such, the recommendations for improving staff trust include: 1) engaging stakeholders
in identifying and resolving discrepancies between values and behavior, and 2) bringing diverse
opinions to the table to create plans, based on the organization’s goals, 3) referring to this plan
regularly and assess the organization’s progress. When teachers are involved in planning
discussions, they are more likely to comprehend the rationale for institutional decisions and act
as advocates for these measures. The more prevalent the awareness is for the actions and goals
of an institution; the more teacher will place value in the improvement tied to student outcomes.
(Schein, 2004)
Discussions with teachers should include a frequent review of the scope of the work
occurring in order to address the change fatigue that was reported. Supporting the initiatives and
avoiding inconsistency in the establishment of actions and institutional goals can impact the
internal motivation and mitigate the confusion that staff is reporting. Goals should be anchored
in continuous improvement to create an environment where everyone is focused on raising the
bar year after year, instead of arriving at a destination (Glick, Huber, Miller, Harold & Sutclifee,
1990). A stronger sense of teamwork will help the school adapt to the inevitable changes before
them.
Cultural Setting Influence 1: There is a lack of examples and templates provided for
course maps aligned to Common Core State Standards. Malcolm Knowles (2005) adult
learning concepts include the need for templates and examples. Learners are motivated if they
see examples that can be followed (Bandura, 1977). Teaching a new skill requires more than
training, it requires scaffolding, and a clear sense of where the student is going (Anderson,
2001). Templates and examples will increase efficacy and confidence in RHS teachers
(Knowles, 2005). Mentor teachers can demonstrate the use of templates and utilize them in their
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 121
coaching and support role.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
According to the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), an
effective evaluation plan must ensure that the program will provide value. This is done by using
a phased approach in which learning, and performance are interwoven into a complete package.
Kirkpatrick argues that the end is the beginning, and a backwards approach involves developing
a compelling chain of evidence that demonstrates the organizational value of the initiative
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The four levels work to not just evaluate what happened—
,they are also used to maximize outcomes and provide guidance for next steps.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
RHS prepares students for college and careers by helping students master the Common
Core Standards. In order to efficiently provide this education, the goal of RHS is to be compliant
with 100% of courses completing a Common Core Standards aligned course map in a digital
library by May 2018. By aligning courses with the standards, teachers will better prepare
graduates for state assessment examinations. Therefore, this study’s recommendations address
initiatives to increase the achievement of this goal in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
The leading indicators that would contribute to the desired results are grouped by external
and internal outcomes. These outcomes are achieved by metrics and methods as shown in Table
25. If the internal outcomes are met as a result of these metrics and methods, then the external
outcomes should also be realized.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 122

Table 25

Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Increase the number of
students achieving proficient
on state common core
assessments.
2. The number of students who
pass common core state
assessments.
2. Collect data from state
assessments annually.
2. Decrease the community
perception of RHS as a low
performing school.
3. The frequency of students
transferring to higher performing
schools.
3. Collect data and compare
monthly district transfer lists.
Internal Outcomes
1. Increase the number of
students achieving proficient
on school benchmark
common core assessments.
1.The number of students who
pass common core benchmark
assessments.
1. Collect data from benchmarks
from student learning database
every quarter.
2. Increase the number of
teachers who are designing
lessons around a common
core standard.
2. The number of lessons observed
which are based on common core
standards.
2. Collect data from faculty, and
monthly administration
observations.
3. Increased teacher
confidence/satisfaction.
3. Feedback from faculty 3. Compare annual
confidence/satisfaction survey
results.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 123
4. Increase the number of
courses which are aligned
with common core.
1. Course maps will exist for
every course and be warehoused
in one database.
1. Collect data from course map
database every semester.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus are the RHS teachers completing their
course maps. The first critical behavior is that they must develop course mapping competencies.
The second critical behavior is that teachers must spend appropriate time and effort in designing
their course curriculum. The third critical behavior is that they must work collaboratively with
other teachers. The specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of these outcome behaviors
appears in Table 26.
Table 26

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Students
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Teachers will develop
course mapping
competencies.
The number of hours
teachers are engaged in
course mapping
training, and feedback
forms.

Faculty will engage in
training, and tutorials to
develop competencies.
Ongoing reviewing of
training hours and self-
reported competencies.
2. Teachers will spend
appropriate time and
effort in designing their
course curriculum.
The number of hours
and amount of course
curriculums completed.

Faculty will calculate the
time required to complete
course maps. They will
design a plan with time and
responsibilities designated
for accomplishing this
outcome.
Ongoing reviewing and
assessment of course
map progress and
adjustment of plan
accordingly.

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 124
3. Teachers will work
collaboratively with
other teachers.
PLC meeting notes and
self-reporting on
feedback forms.

Faculty will plan time to
meet and work together on
course mapping. They will
design protocols for these
meetings to ensure teachers
work collaboratively.
Ongoing reviewing of
PLC meeting notes and
feedback forms, and
adjustment of plan
accordingly.

Required drivers. Working from the knowledge, motivation, and organization
recommendations in the previous sections, the motivation and organizational influences that are
necessary to drive the achievement of the stakeholder outcomes are listed below. Table 27
shows the recommended drivers to support critical behaviors of students.
Table 27
Required Drivers to Support Students’ Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing Critical Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Include rationales in training and
discussions about the importance of
the task within the context of the
school and ensure activities are
relevant to real world tasks
Ongoing 1,2,3
Provide a job aid containing a sample
of a course map and a digital shared
template for them to fill in with simple
descriptors as relevance cues.
In the first 30
days
1,2,3
Provide Training in which teachers
practice the procedures required to
design CCSSs aligned course maps
with mentor teachers.

Provide a job aid poster that includes a
flow chart for designing CCSSs
In the first 30
days - ongoing
1,2,3
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 125
aligned course maps.
Encouraging
Emphasize that teachers are capable of
learning how to curriculum map. Set
close, concerted and challenging goals
that allow the teachers to experience
successful milestones along the way.
Ongoing 1,2,3
Provide accurate feedback from
mentor teacher and trainer that stresses
the success or failure is tied to effort.
Ongoing 1,2,3
Provide training in which a mentor
teacher talks through curriculum
mapping and demonstrates their
thinking in the creation and use of
shared mapping.

Have well regarded teachers mentor
struggling teachers in accomplishing
this goal.
Weekly 1,2,3
Rewarding
Performance incentive when teachers
complete their course maps on time.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Public acknowledgement, including
all staff e-mail to reinforce and
celebrate teachers meeting the
timelines established for course
mapping.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3

Monitoring
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 126
Administration and Faculty Senate
will create opportunities to share
success stories through the only
portal or at staff meeting.
Semi-Annual 1, 2, 3
Administration will ask faculty to
self-report their confidence and self-
efficacy in course mapping.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Administration will assess the library
of course maps. As administration
monitors and reports progress, the
faculty can make adjustments if
results do not match expectations
established in planning phase.
Monthly 1, 2, 3

Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following completion of the recommended solutions, the teachers will be able
to:
1. Demonstrate the declarative and conceptual knowledge necessary for course mapping.
(D-C)

2. Apply how the course mapping training to establishing CCSS aligned course maps. (D)

3. See value in course maps, and how they will lead to better student outcomes on CCSS
state examinations (Utility).

4. Believe that they can successfully accomplish the course maps in a timely manner (Self-
Efficacy).

5. Attribute their course mapping performance to internal and controllable factors such as
effort and beliefs (Attributions).

Program. The learning goals listed in the previous section will be achieved with several
sequenced online learning modules followed by one large group training. Each online lesson will
run roughly twenty minutes and introduce the teacher to the rationale and value of establishing
CCSS aligned course maps, along with the skills needed to do so. Complex steps will be
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 127
simplified and taught in an easy and accessible manner. Questions at the end will check for
understanding and ensure that the most critical principles are understood by the teachers.
Subsequently, a pre-training workshop will take place with mentor teachers. Mentor
teachers will be selected from members of the RHS teaching staff who have already completed
the goal successfully. These teachers will attend an advanced training with the highly-qualified
trainer who will prepare them to play a mentor role for struggling teachers. In this preliminary
training they will learn how to utilize the job aid and help them determine what areas need to be
addressed to have institutional success. Mentors will be given information about the importance
of course mapping, giving them a clear sense of the learning objectives and the desired outcomes
of the training.
The full staff course map training will be marketed as a safe place to ask questions, take
risks and make mistakes. The support of the experienced mentor teachers will be available to
teachers. Teachers will use the training to apply the knowledge they learned in the modules and
to work on their course maps with expert support. Demonstrations, practice, and feedback from
mentors will be used to develop the skill of course mapping. Mentor teachers will model their
own course maps and discuss the value and benefits of using course maps within the high school
system.
An additional job aid will be given that guides participants through the course mapping
process. Using the job aid, participants will practice crafting a course map with real-time
feedback from mentors and the highly-qualified trainer. A job aid would help individuals
identify and understand structural elements of course maps. Moreover, these aids would also
provide textual relevance in the form of prompts within the shared document, which serve to
help people make sense of the material and clarify expectations (McCrudden & Schraw, 2006).
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 128
At the completion of the practice, participants will discuss their beliefs about their ability
to apply their learning to their work environment. This will conclude with teachers writing their
own action plan outlining their proposed steps to complete the unfinished course maps and use
them in their daily work context. These plans will be given to the trainer, who will follow up
with weekly check ins thereafter until the institutional goal of course mapping is complete.
Feedback from those check ins will drive the support that mentor teachers will provide.
Components of learning. To support the learning and application of new knowledge
and skills, a comprehensive evaluation plan will be utilized. Table 28 describes the activities and
timelines to evaluate and reinforce the knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements
required to achieve targeted behavior. Participants must be confident, knowledgeable and
motivated to transfer the learning into their daily work. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the
learning goals to ensure participants are using their newly learned knowledge and skills. In
addition, it is critical that participants are confident that they can succeed in applying their
knowledge and skills to real world challenges. The components for participant learning are listed
below.
Table 28
Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Checks for understanding using multiple choice Pre-training during
asynchronous online
learning module
Checks for understanding using multiple choice. Periodically during the
training
Group presentations and Gallery Walk during the training. Periodically during the
training
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Completion of course mapping scenarios During training workshop
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 129
Completion of action plan outlining their proposed steps for
complete the unfinished course maps and use them in their daily
work context
Post-training
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Participant discussions regarding positive outcomes as a
ramification of using skills and knowledge
During training
Pre and post belief survey examining teacher belief about the
value of using skills and knowledge
Post-training
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Discussions after scenarios are presented During training
Pre and post belief survey examining teacher confidence Post-training
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Teacher completion of action plan outlining their plan for
integrating skills and knowledge in their daily work context
During training
Pre and post belief survey examining teacher commitment Post-training

Level 1: Reaction
There are three aspects of reaction to the training, which will be evaluated in several
ways. The three aspects of reaction are: Engagement, Relevance, and Customer Satisfaction.
Table 29 outlines the methods and tools used and timing for Level I evaluation.
Table 29
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Observe on-task behavior during course map training During the training
experience
Completion of the course map training activities During the training
experience
Evaluation of the course map training Immediately after
training, and during
the two weeks follow
up
Relevance
Evaluation of the course map training Two weeks after the
workshop
Trainer evaluation of teacher participant discussion during course map
training
During the training
experience
Customer Satisfaction
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 130
Evaluation of the course map training Two weeks after the
workshop
Trainer evaluation of teacher participant discussion during course map
training
During the training
experience

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Course evaluation surveys will
be used to collect the Level I data as it relates to Engagement, Relevance and Customer
Satisfaction. RHS teachers will complete a brief survey (Table 30) that contains items about the
applicability of the skills they have learned and the degree to which they found the workshop to
be of interest to them. The survey will also question the teachers on their beliefs and feelings
about the workshop overall.
Additionally, Level 2 data will be collected during course map training by the trainer.
The trainer will monitor and evaluate the degree to which teachers are engaged in the learning
activities and the rate of completion of those activities. The trainer and mentor teachers will also
assess the depth of discussion that RHS teachers are engaged in during the workshop and while
they are performing the learning tasks.
Table 30
Immediately after the training
Level 1 Item
Engagement

Relevance

Customer satisfaction
This training held my interest

This training is related to my work

This training session was worthwhile
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 131
Level 2 Item
Declarative Knowledge Item

Knowledge checks using multiple choice
Which of the following is not a component
of implementing course maps?
Open ended question What new aspects of implementing a
course map did you learn today?
Procedural Skills Item
Scenarios in which procedural knowledge
is demonstrated in the solution
Complete the course map forms using the
information given
Open ended questions Please describe the process for how to
complete the course maps
Attitude Item
Discussions about the value and rationale
for course maps
Describe the value of completing a course
map
Surveys using scale to report attitude
(Strongly Agree- Strongly Disagree)
I believe completing the course maps is
valuable to my job
Confidence

Item
Surveys using scale to report ability Scaled item:
I feel confident about completing the
course map right now
Commitment Item
Self-reports of the progress I am completing the course maps
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly disagree
Open-ended questions How do you plan to apply what you
learned today to your job?
How is course mapping valuable to you?
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 132
Delayed 90 days after the training
Level 1, 2, 3 and 4 Item
L1 Reaction What I learned in the training was valuable
to me as an instructor
L2 Learning I was able to use the new course mapping
strategies during the training
L3 Behavior I used the strategies I learned in my work
L4 Results I was able to use the course mapping skills
to complete my course maps

Immediately following the program implementation. During the course mapping
training module, RHS teachers will answer questions after each module to assess their response
to the relevance of the material to their job performance and to their overall satisfaction with the
content and the online course. Additionally, the trainer during course map training will conduct
periodic brief check-ins by asking the RHS teachers to respond to the relevance of the material to
their job performance and to their satisfaction with the content of the training. Checks for Level
2 will include monitoring group work and gallery walks to demonstrate knowledge and teachers’
responses to questions.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. To support the transition of
new learning into sustained and actionable workplace behavior, a post-training evaluation will be
conducted. Two weeks after the training, a survey containing open and scaled items on a survey
will capture the teachers’ perspective of the satisfaction and relevance of the training modules.
Level 3 assessment will include the actual application of the training to the course mapping
process and the support from the trainer and the mentor teachers. And, finally, Level 4 will be
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 133
assessed by the extent to which the teachers’ performance is achieving the outcomes of the
design and implementation of course maps.
Figure C.

0 % of RHS have CCSSs 100 % of RHS have CCSSs
aligned Course Maps aligned Course Maps

Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal is measured by the number of teachers who complete and implement course
mapping. Each month, the school will survey to snapshot the number of teachers who have
achieved this goal. This information will be published on the dashboard, a visual tracking system
which displays these measures for all teachers as a monitoring and accountability tool. A visual
reporting process will be used to report the data gathered for Level 1, 2 and 3 monitoring as well.
Summary
This implementation plan used the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016), in which planning starts with the goals of the organization and then works
backwards to ensure that stakeholders are learning desired behaviors that will impact the
Current status of 63%
per survey response data
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 134
organizational goals. The overall goal is to have 100% of all courses completing a Common
Core Standards aligned course map. This plan integrates the training with evaluation
methodology to ensure the learning melds with the metrics to drive organizations to achieve their
most critical goals. The four phases support the training of new behaviors and is designed to
engage teachers while providing the necessary tools for stakeholders. These strategies empower
teachers to transfer learned skills into their existing work context. Dashboard monitoring enables
RHS to adjust and make course corrections in a timely manner. Through the use of these
strategies, it is expected that the school will realize the achievement of their stated goal.
Limitations and Delimitations
Small sample limits the reliability of the results of this research in this study. Several
findings that were marginally significant may have been more significant if there had been a
larger sample. The small percentage of the participants severely limits the researcher’s ability to
assess with high accuracy the perspective of the entire teaching staff. One cannot assess
whether, or how much, the managerial role of the researcher impacted the participation of the
staff. Additionally, because there are no control conditions for comparison, we cannot assess
whether, or how much, the experience of RHS varies from the national norms.
Additionally, the focus group and the survey were both limited to anonymous volunteers
in order to protect the participants. While there may have been varying attitudes and
perspectives that could have been useful to explore in the context of the teaching department and
other demographic information, the findings lack these comparisons. The data collected was
limited to individuals who self-selected to participate in this study. Certain attitudes could be
associated with individuals who chose to participate. One cannot capture what beliefs or
attitudes, if any, precluded other members of staff from participating in the study.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 135
Future Research
Future research could include a statewide comparison study of the RHS initiative to other
high schools. Each high school has the same standardized tests that determine state data, so
running a comparison of the alignment efforts at RHS with other schools could yield comparison
data revealing the effectiveness of these efforts. Further exploration into what measures other
schools are putting in place to ensure alignment and how these efforts compare and affect
academic achievement could yield information that would assist educators in determining
beneficial practices.
Future research relating to the topic of course mapping for curricular alignment within a
school culture should conduct a mixed-methods research. Using quantitative data related to
student outcomes would yield information related to what area the students are being
unsuccessful. This would enable teachers to identify the specific curricular gaps in the course
maps. By examining the data results this way, the school can align the expected curriculum to the
actual curriculum. Surveying teacher preparation programs about training they offer teachers in
curriculum planning, is another recommendation for future research. Researching this area may
provide greater insights into how and to what extent teacher candidates are educated on
curricular issues prior to embarking on their professional careers. Furthermore, studying the
curriculum which prepares teachers for this role, could yield a knowledge gap that could provide
guidance to assist with novice teachers and teacher preparation programs.
Since transformation is a process and not a product, further study could include a
longitudinal study to examine the recommendations and the consistency of the initiative as
compared with other initiatives at this school. Since teachers report that efforts are often short-
lived reforms, a study that examines the continuity of the project in correlation with the reform
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 136
goals could provide insight to whether schools that have fewer perceived changes see an increase
in academic achievement compared to those schools that are report high levels of perceived
change.
Conclusion
As education continually experiences changes in outcomes and standards, school reforms
like curriculum mapping are essential tools to drive sustainable change and adaptive
implementation. Course maps can ensure that students are provided a cohesive academic
experience, and it is a measure that studies have demonstrated can lead to increased student
achievement (Farris, 2008; Shanks, 2002). This study explored areas for growth at a
comprehensive high school system working to achieve a CCSS course mapping initiative. The
analysis focused on a school that has a significant achievement gap in the performance of their
students on state assessments when compared to county and state achievement averages. The
researcher documented teacher perspectives of the project, and the influence of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors. Though preliminary, this study confirms the relevance of
expectancy value theory in the professional model that teachers hold for themselves.
Professional development and increased teacher involvement aids in growth of ownership and
investment in the organizational changes and can reduce the resistance to the labor of achieving
the institutional goals.
Findings highlighted areas that should be targeted to increase the capacity and motivation
of teachers to accomplish the system’s goal. By designing a strategy which focuses on
professional support the interconnections between the course mapping initiative and the
institutional goals is made transparent. Patience, repetition, and transparency are required to
influence the organizational culture, improve the retention of information, and impact teacher
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 137
behavior.
This investigation identified the need for a coordinated organizational approach to build
capacity, cohesiveness, and motivation in teachers. When school leaders create the
circumstances that support teachers’ efforts by addressing the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences, they are better positioned to achieve institutional goals. Research may
help school leaders in progressing towards the critical aspect of gaining trust from teachers so
that they are willing to listen to new ideas. Overcoming initial resistance through consistency
while identifying and supporting teachers’ needs will increase trust levels. When organizations
engage in trust-building behaviors, morale increases and trust in administration can increase. An
atmosphere of transparency, openness and trust can, over time, lead to a stronger sense of unity
and an openness to new ideas in the context of continual improvement.

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 138
References

Abelmann, C., Elmore, R., Even, J., Kenyon, S. & Marshall, J. (1998). When accountability
knocks, will anyone answer? Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Abrami, P., Poulsen, C., & Chambers, B. (2010). Teacher motivation to implement an
educational innovation: Factors differentiating users and non-users of cooperative
learning. Educational Psychology, 24(2), 201-216.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 179–211.
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D., et al (Eds..) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and
Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Allyn & Bacon.
Boston, MA : Pearson Education Group.
Anderson, S., Leithwood, K., & Strauss, T. (2010). 'Leading Data use in Schools: Organizational
Conditions and Practices at the School and District Levels, Leadership and Policy in
Schools, vol. 9, pp. 292–329.
Baert, P. (1998). Social theory for the twentieth century. New York: University Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bentler, P. M., & Speckart, G. (1979). Models of attitude-behavior relations. Psychological
Review, 86, 452-464.
Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy, and Practice, Vol. 5, No.1, pp. 7–74.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.) (pp. 159-172 ONLY). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 139
Booker, J.E.G., (2006). Teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of leadership styles and their
relation to school climate. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Mississippi, 2003).
(Proquest No. AAT 3089826)
Boudah, D.J., Lenz, B.K., Bulgren, J.A., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (2000). Don't water
down! Enhance content learning through the unit organizer routine. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 32(3), 48—56.
Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of accountability (pp. 1–24).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burke, J. C. (2005). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands (pp. 1-24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burns, R. C. (2001). Curriculum Mapping. ASCD Curriculum Handbook. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/curriculum-handbook/421/chapters/Overview.aspx.
Burns, R. C. (2001). A leader's guide to curriculum mapping and alignment. Charleston, WV:
AEL, Inc.
California Department of Education. (2017). School Performance DataQuest -- concatenated,
2014 to 2016 [Data set].
Certo, J. L. (2006). Beginning teacher concerns in an accountability-based testing environment.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20(4), 331-349.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin &
Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage. Clough, D. B., James, T. L., & Witcher, A. E. (1996). Curriculum
mapping and instructional supervision. NASSP Bulletin 80(581), 79–82.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 140
Clarke, A. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clark, D. & Estes, F. (2002). Turning Research into Results: A Guide to Selecting the Right
Performance Solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Coburn, C. & Turner, E. (2011). Research on data use: A framework and analysis. Measurement:
Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective 9(4): 173-206.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education 5th
Edition. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Conley, S., & Cooper, B. S. (2013). Moving from teacher isolation to collaboration: Enhancing
professionalism and school quality. R&L Education.
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1995). Assessment in the learning organization: Shifting the
paradigm. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
(ASCD).
Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell J. W. (2013a) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2013b). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage publications.
Cuevas, N.M., Matveev, A.G., & Feit, M.D. (2009). “Curriculum mapping: An approach to
study coherence of program curricula.” Department Chair, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 23-26.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 141
Datnow, A. & Stringfield, S. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk V5, pp. 183-204.
David, J. (2008). What research says about... Pacing Guides. Educational Leadership, 66(2), 87-
88.
Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level
schools. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 473–490.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2008). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DiCicco‐Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical
Education, 40(4), 314-321. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x
Dowd, A. C. (2005). Data don't drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to assess
community college performance. Boston: University of Massachusetts, Lumina
Foundation for Education.
DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for
enhancing school achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Dufour, R. (1991). The principal as staff developer (D. Sparks, Eds). Bloomington, IN: National
Education Service.
DuFour, R. (2002). The learning centered principal. Educational Leadership. 59(8), 12- 15.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for
professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Dufour, R. (2007). In Praise of Top-Down Leadership. School Administrator, 64(10), 38- 42.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 142
Dunk, E. & Dickman, A. (2003) In School Choice and the Question of Accountability: The
Milwaukee Experience (pp. 207–216). Yale University Press. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1nptz1.13
Eaker, R., DuFour, R., & DuFour, R. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to become
professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.
Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2006). Leading schools in a data rich world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from:
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Eckstein, M. & Noah, H. (1993). Secondary School Examinations. New Haven CT: Yale
University Press.
Elmore, R. F., & Rothman, R. (1999). Testing, teaching, and learning: A guide for states and
school districts. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
English, F. W. (1980). Curriculum mapping. Educational Leadership, 37(7), 558-559. ERIC
Document number EJ221530.
English, F. W. (1980). Curriculum mapping. Educational Leadership 37(7), 558–559.
English, F. W., Frase, L. & Arhar, J. (1990). Leading Into the 21st Century. Thousand Oaks,
CA:Corwin Press.
Fairris, J. (2008). The effect degree of curriculum mapping implementation has on student
performance levels on sixth and eighth grade benchmark examination. (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (UMI No. 3313258).
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 143
Fallik, O., Eylon, B.S., & Rosenfeld, S. (2008). Motivating teachers to enact free-choice
projectBased learning in science and technology (PBLSAT): effects of a professional
development model. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 565-591.
Fairris, J. J. (2008). The effect degree of curriculum mapping implementation has on student
performance levels on sixth and eighth grade benchmark examination (Doctoral
dissertation). University of Louisiana, Monroe, LA. Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (Order No. 3313258)
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Fisher, D., Grant, M., Frey, N., & Johnson, C. (2007). Taking formative assessment schoolwide.
Educational Leadership, 65(4), 64-68.
Fowler, F. J. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Fullan, M. (1992). Successful school improvement: The implementation perspective and beyond.
Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Ontario
Principals' Council :Corwin Press.
Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation.
Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 335-397.
Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes
toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education,
13(3), 451-458.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 144
Glick, W.G., Huber, G.P., Miller, C.C., Harold, D. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (1990). Studying changes
in organisational design and effectiveness: Retrospective event histories and periodic
assessments. Longitudinal field research methods: Studying processes of organisational
change, Edited by: Huber, G.P. and Van de Ven, A.H. 126–154. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2009). SuperVision and instructional
leadership: A developmental approach (8th ed.). New York: Prentice-Hall.
Goodson, I.F. (2001). “Social histories of educational change.” Journal of Educational Change 2:
45-63.
Green, S. (2002). Using an expectancy-value approach to examine teachers' motivational
strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 989-1005.
Groves, R. M., & Ebooks Corporation. (2013). Survey methodology (2nd;2; ed.). Hoboken, N.J:
Wiley.
Guskey, T.R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching:
theory and practice, 8 (3), 381-391.
Gunzenhauser, M. G. (2012). Active/Ethical Professional: A Framework for Responsible
Educators. Continuum.
Hale, J. A. (2008). A guide to curriculum mapping: Planning, implementing, and sustaining the
process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hale, J. A., & Dunlap Jr, R. F. (2010). An educational leader's guide to curriculum mapping:
Creating and sustaining collaborative cultures. Corwin Press.
Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2010). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (3rd Ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 145
Harden, R.M. (2001), “AMEE Guide No. 21: Curriculum mapping: A tool for transparent and
authentic teaching and learning.” Medical Teacher, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.123- 137.
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and
Teaching: History and Practice, 6(2), 151-82.
Hargreaves, A. (2009), Change Wars. Bloomington: Solution Tree.
Hatzakis, T., Lycett, M., and Serrano, A. (2007). “A program management approach for ensuring
curriculum coherence in IS (higher) education.” European Journal of Information Systems,
Vol. 16, pp.643-657.
Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Heidi, H. J. (2000). Upgrading the K-12 journey through curriculum mapping. Knowledge
Quest, 29(2), 25.
Henderson, J. E., & Gornick, R. (2002). Transformative curriculum leadership (3rd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hentschke, G.C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, (Spring/Summer), 17–19.
Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current
knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Education Technology
Research & Development, 55(3), 223-252.
Hord, S. M., & Sommers, W. A. (Eds.). (2008). Leading professional learning communities:
Voices from research and practice. Sage.
Hoyle, J. R., English, F. W., & Steffy, B. E. (1994). Skills for successful school leaders, 2nd
edition. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 146
Jacobs, H. H. (1997a). Mapping the big picture: Integrating curriculum and assessment K–12.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jacobs, H. H. (1997b). Curriculum mapping: Integrating teaching and learning K–12. Keynote
address presented at the 1997 Conference of the Virginia Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, Williamsburg, Va.
Jacobs, H. H. (2000). Focus on curriculum mapping. Curriculum Technology Quarterly 9(4), A.
Jacobs, H. H. (2000). Upgrading the K-12 journey through curriculum mapping. Knowledge
Quest, 29(2), 25. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1
94723330?accountid=14749
Jacobs, H. H. (2002). Keynote address. National Curriculum Mapping Institute, Park City, Utah.
Jacobs, H. (2004). Getting Results with Curriculum Mapping. Alexandria, US: Association for
Supervision & Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Jacobs, H. H. (2006). Active literacy across the curriculum: Strategies for reading, writing,
speaking, and listening. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.
Jacobs, H. H. (2010). Curriculum 21: Essential education for a changing world. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jacobson, D. (2010). Coherent Instructional Improvement and PLCs Is It Possible to Do Both?.
Phi Delta Kappa, 91(6), 38-45.
Jenkins, L. (2008). From systems thinking to systemic action: 48 questions to guide the journey.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Kaplan, L., & Evans, M. (1997). Changing school environment: Restructuring one Virginia high
school. NASSP Bulletin, 81(589), 1-9.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 147
Kauffman, D., Johnson, S. M., Kardos, S. M., Liu, E., & Peske, H. G. (2002). “Lost at sea”: New
teachers' experiences with curriculum and assessment. Teachers College Record, 104(2),
273–300.
Kauffman, D. (2005). Curriculum prescription and curriculum constraint: Second-year teachers’
perceptions. NGT Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Project on the Next Generation of
Teachers.
Kelly, A. V. (2004). The curriculum: Theory and practice. London: Sage Publications.
Kerchner, C., & Caufman, K. (1995). Lurching towards professionalism. The saga of teacher
unionism. The Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 107-22.
Kern, D. (2013). Zombie ideas in education: High-stakes testing and graduation policies. New
England Reading Association Journal, 49(1), 96-99,104. Retrieved from Koppang, A.
(2016). Curriculum Mapping: Building Collaboration and Communication. Intervention
in School and Clinic. Vol 39, Issue 3, pp. 154 – 161.
Kitzinger, J., & Barbour, R. S. (1999). Developing focus group research: Politics, theory, and
practice. London ;Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Knowles, M., Holton III, E. & Swanson, R. (2005).The adult learner (6 ed). London: Elsevier
Kopera-Frye, K., Mahaffy, J., and Svare, G.M. (2008). “The map to curriculum alignment and
improvement.” In: Wright, A., Murray, S., and Wilson, M. (Eds.), CELT: Collected
essays on learning and teaching, vol 1, Windsor, ON: STLHE, pp. 8-14.
Koppang, A. (2016). Curriculum Mapping: Building Collaboration and Communication.
Intervention in School and Clinic. Vol 39, Issue 3, pp. 154 – 161.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 148
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002) A Revision of Bloom’s Taxxonomy. (PDF) in Theory into Practice,
41:4. Ohio State University. Retrieved from:
http://www.unco.edu/cetl/sir/stating_outcome/documents/Krathwohl.pdf
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied
research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
LaFee, S. (2002). Data-driven districts. School Administrator, 59(11), 6-15.
Lam, S., Cheng, R., Choy, H. (2009). School support and teacher motivation to implement
project-based learning. Department of Psychology, the University of Hong Kong,
Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong Department of Educational Psychology, Counseling and
Learning Needs, the Hong Kong Institute of Education, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong
Kong. Received 18 September 2008; revised 2 April 2009; accepted 21 July 2009.
Locke, W. (2001). Motivation and Goal Setting. In R. Golembiewski, Handbook of
organizational behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Marcel Dekker. pp. 43–56.
Loeb, S. (2017). Continued support for improving the lowest-performing schools. ().
Washington: Brookings Institution Press. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1881434538?accountid=14749
Lorenz, S. (2009). The Mindful Brain: Reflection and Attunement in the Cultivation of Well-
being. Journal of Mental Health. Vol. 18 (2).
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Learning from
leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Final report of research
findings. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 149
Lucas, R. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions on the efficacy of curriculum mapping as a tool for
planning and curriculum alignment. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Digital Dissertations. (UMI No. 3190194).
Marks, M.L. (2003). Charging back up the hill: Workplace recovery after mergers, acquisitions,
and downsizings. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory manual. Palo
Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Marsh, J., Kerr, K., Ikemoto, G., Darilek, H., Suttorp, M.J., Zimmer, R., et al. (2005). The role of
districts in fostering instructional improvement: Lessons from three urban districts
partnered with the Institute for Learning. MG-361-WFHF. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation. Retrieved December 18, 2006, from http://www.rand.org/pubs/
monographs/MG361/.
Martin-Kniep, G. O. (2008). Communities that learn, lead, and last: Building and sustaining
educational expertise. John Wiley & Sons.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Douglas, S. C. (2007). The role, function, and contribution of
attribution theory to leadership: A review. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 561–585.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to
results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 150
Marzano, M. (2012). Informed Consent. In Gubrium, J., Holstein, J., Marvasti, A., &
McKinney, K. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of
the Craft (pp. 443-457).
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Merriam, S.B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: a guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. O'Shea, M.R. (2005). From standards
to success: A guide for schools leaders. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervisions
and Curriculum Development.
Milliken, F.J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect,
and response uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, 12: 133–143.
Mills, M. S. (2003). Curriculum mapping as professional development. Curriculum Technology
Quarterly, 12(3), 1-4.
Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational Interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school
mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 424–436.
Mumtaz, S. (2006). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications
technology: a review of literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher
Education, 9(3), 319-342. University of Warwick, Coventry, USA. Available online: 20
Dec 2006.
Newmann, F., King, B. & Youngs, P. (2000). Professional development that addresses school
capacity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.§6319 (2008)
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 151
Olah L., Lawrence N. & Riggan M. (2010). Learning to learn from benchmark assessment data:
How teachers analyze results. Peabody Journal of Education 85(1): 226-245.
O'Malley, P. J. (1982, August). Learn the truth about curriculum. The Executive Educator 4, 14–
26.
O’Reilly, C. A. (1983). The use of information in organizational decision making: A model and
some propositions. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 103-139.
O'Shea, M.R. (2005). From standards to success: A guide for schools leaders. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervisions and Curriculum Development.
Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from:
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Palmgreen, P. (1984). Uses and gratifications: A theoretical perspective. In: Bostrom, R.N.
(Ed.), Communication Yearbook 8 (61-72). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Perner, J. (1991). Understanding the representational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Petrides, L., & Nodine, T. (2005). Anatomy of school system improvement: Performance-driven
practices in urban school district. San Francisco: NewSchools Venture Fund.
Peytchev, A. (2013). Consequences of survey nonresponse. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science. 645, 88-111.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Portelli, J. P. (1987). Perspectives and imperatives on defining curriculum. Journal of
Curriculum and Supervision, 2(4), 354–367.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 152
Reitzug, U.C., West, D.L., & Angel, R. (2008). Conceptualizing instructional leadership: The
voices of principals. Education and Urban Society, 40(6), 694-714.
Robley, W., Whittle, S., and Murdoch-Eaton, D. (2005), “Mapping generic skills curricula: A
recommended methodology.” Journal of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 29, pp. 221-
231.
Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the
Challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 227-238.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Rudy, D. W., & Conrad, W. H. (2004). Breaking down the data. American School Board
Journal, 191(2), 39-41.
Rzevski, G. & Skobelv, P. (2014). Managing complexity. Southampton: Wit Press.
Salkind, N. J. (2014) Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (5th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Schein, E. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(5), 109-119.
Schmoker, M., & Marzano, r. (1999). Realizing the promise of standards-based education.
Educational Leadership.56(6). 17 – 21.
Schunk, D.H. (1995). Self-efficacy, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 7(2), 112-137.
Shanks, D. J. (2002, January). A comparative study on academic gains between students in
second grade through sixth grade before and after curriculum mapping (Doctoral
dissertation). Tennessee State University, Nashville, TN. Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (Order No. 3061779)
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 153
Siegel, D. J. (2007). The mindful brain: Reflection and attunement in the cultivation of well-
being. New York: Norton.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with
strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99, 611-625.
Slavin, R.E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and
research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21.
Sloane, F. & Kelly, A. (2003). Issues in high-stakes testing programs. Theory into Practice, 42
(1), 12-17.
Sockett, H. (1993). The moral base for teacher professionalism. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Stecher, B., & 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.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Streifer, P. A. (2002). Using data to make better educational decisions. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Sztorc, S. (2009). An action research study to examine leadership practices in meeting academic
and social emotional needs of at-risk students in an alternative school (Doctoral
dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo).
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 154
Thornton, B., & Perreault, G. (2002). Becoming a data-based leader: An introduction. NASSP
Bulletin, 86(630), 86-96.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805.
Udelhofen, S. (2005). Keys to curriculum mapping: Strategies and tools to make it work.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
US Department of Education (2009). Using Student Achievement to Support Instructional
Decision Making. Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/webfm_send/1035
Vakola, M. (2016). The reasons behind change recipients’ behavioral reactions: A longitudinal
investigation. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(1), 202-215.
Vygotsky L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R. W., Davis-Kean, P. (2006). The
development of achievement motivation. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of Child
Psychology (Vol. 3, 6th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandra, VA: ASCD.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 155
Wilansky, J. A. (2006). The effects of curriculum mapping on the instructional practices of
professional collaboration, standards, alignment, and assessment (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docv
iew/304913188?accountid=13645.
William Brown, Douglas May, (2012). “Organizational change and development: The efficacy
of transformational leadership training”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 31
Issue: 6, pp.520-536, https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711211230830
Wiles, R. (2013). What are qualitative research ethics? London: Bloomsbury.
Wise, A. E. (2012). End the tyranny of the self-contained classroom. Education Wee,
Commentary. January 25, 2012, 31(18).

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 156
APPENDIX A
Informed Consent/Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Curriculum Mapping Initiative

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This purpose of this study is to provide insight into the Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational relationship with establishing course maps at the high school.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT

If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey which
is anticipated to take about 5 minutes. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t
want to, click “next” or “N/A” in the survey to move to the next question.

If you agree to take part in this study, you may also be asked to participate in an hour and a
half focus group discussion which will be audio-taped. You do not have to answer any
questions you don’t want to.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

You will be entered in a drawing to receive a $100 gift card to Sauced Restaurant for your
participation.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION

Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your employer will not be
affected whether you participate or not in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain
confidential. Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained
separately. The audio-tapes will be destroyed once they have been transcribed.

Required language:
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 157
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies
to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

Principal Investigator Faculty Advisor Kathy Stowe at kstowe@rossier.usc.edu

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 158
APPENDIX B

Recruitment Letter

October, 2017

Dear Potential Participant,

I am writing to let you know about an opportunity to participate in a research study. This
research project is being conducted for a dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Education in Organizational Change Leadership for the University of
Southern California. This project will consist of a semi-structured focus group that will take
about an hour. The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship of teachers’ knowledge,
motivation and organizational influencers in relationship with establishing course maps. Your
participation in this study is completely voluntary.

You should be aware that the foreseeable risks or potential discomfort to you as a result
of participating in this study are minimal. There is no major risk to you in answering any of the
questions. If, however, you are uncomfortable with any question, you may decline to answer it,
and you may terminate the interview at any time for any reason. You are free to decide not to
participate, not complete all the research procedures or answer questions, or to withdraw at any
time without it affecting your relationship with any other entity.

Further, your job status will not be affected by refusal to participate or by withdrawal
from the study at any time. All information collected will remain anonymous and confidential,
and all relevant data collected will remain private. All personally identifying information will be
removed from the focus group transcript. You are free to decide not to participate or to withdraw
at any time without it affecting your relationship with any other entity. Upon your request, I will
provide a copy of any published papers that take place as a result of this study.

With your permission, focus group interviews will be recorded electronically, and then
stored electronically and secured with a password. The focus group interview content will then
be transcribed with all identifying information scrubbed. All data collected will remain
confidential. All relevant data collected within the jurisdiction of the investigator, including
focus group notes, recordings, and transcriptions will be placed in a locked cabinet and destroyed
after all interviews are transcribed. Please feel free to ask the facilitator to stop or resume taping
this discussion at any point in our conversation. The investigator is willing to answer any
inquiries you may have concerning the research herein described.

You may contact Dr. Kathy Stowe, Professor of Clinical Education and the Associate
Dean of Academic Programs at Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California (kstowe@rossier.usc.edu) if I have other questions or concerns about this research. If
you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you can contact the USC Office
for the Protection of Research subjects at (213) 821-1154 if you have a complaint, concern or
wish to report a violation.

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 159
_____Yes, I understand to my satisfaction the information regarding participation in the research
project. All my questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I have received a copy of this
informed consent form which I have read and understand. I hereby consent to participate in the
research described above. By signing this form, I agree to participate.

__________________________ ________________________
Signature Date

I have explained and defined in detail the research procedure in which the subject has
consented to participate. Having explained this and answered any questions, I am cosigning this
form and accepting this person’s consent.

__________________________ ________________________
Signature Date

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 160
APPENDIX C
Survey Items
Survey Protocol

Please complete the following survey to the best of your ability and knowledge. All answers will
be held confidential and so will your anonymity. Demographic questions are intended to create
between group comparisons and not for identification of survey takers. The information
gathered in this survey will be used to analyze the knowledge, organizational and motivational
obstacles to implementing Course Maps at this high school. After data analysis, the information
you provide will be used for a dissertation. If you choose not to partake in this survey, or to not
answer any specific questions, there will be no repercussions. You may withdraw and stop
taking the survey at any time. Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.
Following the format of a typical five-level Likert item, responders will be asked to rate on a
scale of 1-5: (1) Strongly disagree, (2) Disagree, (3) Neither agree nor disagree, (4) Agree, (5)
Strongly agree. Please indicate where you fit along the spectrum for each item.

1. Are you aware of the Common Core State Standards curriculum mapping project at this
school?
2. Do you understand the objectives and goals of the Common Core State Standards
curriculum mapping project?
3. How important is the Common Core State Standards curriculum mapping project to
achieving the mission and vision of the school?
4. How achievable are the objectives of the Common Core State Standards curriculum
mapping project?
5. By moving the slider up or down, please indicate your response to the question below.
Overall, how effective has this high school been in establishing Common Core State
Standards curriculum maps and using them to guide instruction and assessment?
F= Common Core State Standards aligned course maps don't exist toA= Common Core
State Standards aligned course maps are used to establish daily teaching objectives for all
courses and used to guide alignment in instruction and assessment.
Rating from 1-13

6. Which factor(s) below exist and/or impact the success or failure of this school having
Common Core State Standards aligned course maps to drive instruction and assessment?
(select all that apply)
a. Teachers at this school lack confidence in their ability to integrate course mapping
strategies into their practice.
b. Teachers at this school do not value integrating course mapping strategies into
their practice.
c. There is a culture of distrust at this school which has hindered new programs.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 161
d. There is a general resistance in this faculty at this school to new programs, or
anything that teachers perceive as “extra”
e. Teachers at this school need professional development to gain the knowledge and
skills to create course maps aligned to Common Core State Standards.
f. There are a lack of examples and templates provided at this school for course
maps aligned to Common Core State Standards.
g. The leadership style at this school hinders the success of new programs.
h. Other (describe below)

Motivation:
1. I am confident in my ability to incorporate strategies of course mapping into my practice.
2. I know that I will be successful in using course maps to guide my instruction.
3. My opinions about course mapping can affect my ability to accomplish course mapping.
4. My behaviors can affect my ability to accomplish course mapping.
5. I believe that classroom teachers should be left alone to teach with full autonomy.
6. I value collaboration with other teachers.
7. I feel confident in my ability to link my daily lessons to Common Core standards.
8. I value having s curriculum maps aligned to Common Core State Standards

9. I believe that my actions in the classroom directly impact student success.
10. I values course mapping as a component of the teaching profession.
Organization:
11. I know others within my organization that I can turn to for support with course mapping.
12. My employer budgets resources and funding to support course mapping.
13. I regularly participate in professional development programs provided by my employer.
14. My employer offers the time I need to create course maps.
15. There is a culture of trust in the school.
16. New programs are often successful at this school.
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 162
17. The faculty is usually resistant to new programs, if they are perceived as “extra.”
18. There significant top-down leadership at this school.
19. There is not sufficient support from leadership to achieve the goal of increased student
proficiency on Common Core state assessments.
20. This school values course mapping as a component of the teaching profession.
Knowledge:
21. I have the knowledge of what a course map is.
22. I understand how course maps are utilized within the larger system to align teaching.
23. I know how to use course maps to facilitate the work of Professional Learning
Communities.
24. I view it as part of my profession to use shared curriculum maps with others.
25. I don’t know how course maps would benefit my students’ achievement on Common Core
State Standards assessments.
26. I know how to utilize course maps within my classroom setting.
27. In your experience, what do you think will be critical to change, or to start, in order to
achieve success in having Common Core State Standards aligned course maps utilized
significantly to drive instruction and assessment at this school?

CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 163
APPENDIX D
Interview Protocol
Hello, today I wanted to ask you a few questions about course mapping. I’m specifically
interested in understanding your current status with creating course maps and uploading them to
a digital library. And additionally, what your perceptions are of the knowledge, organizational
and motivational obstacles to implementing course mapping in your high school system.

It is important for me to understand your experiences, if any, with both course mapping.

All answers will be held confidential and so will your anonymity. I will be recording the
interview only to ensure that I get an accurate record of your responses. No one but myself will
have access to these recordings which will be transcribed with all identifying information altered
to pseudonyms, and then destroyed. You will be given an opportunity to review the transcript to
ensure that I have captured your thoughts accurately.

After data analysis, the information you provide will be used for a dissertation. If you choose
not to participate, or to not answer any specific questions, there will be no repercussions. You
may withdraw and stop taking the survey at any time. Do you have any questions before we get
started?

I appreciate you volunteering to share your perspective and to be part of my study.

Knowledge
1. What, if anything, do you know about course mapping aligned to Common Core standards
at this school?
2. Do you have any thoughts on why a school might choose to implement course maps
aligned to Common Core standards in the workplace? Explain.
3. How did your teacher training, professional development, or work experience prepare you
to create aligned to Common Core standards? In your opinion, what, if anything, could
have prepared you better in this regard?
Motivation

1. Can you describe a time when planning your curriculum aligned to Common Core
standards made a difference in the classroom (positive or negative)?
CURRICULUM MAPPING INITIATIVE 164
2. Can you describe an instance where your students failed to grasp an important concept,
and you redesigned your curriculum? What resources did you use to accomplish this?
3. Is there any logical or compelling reasons for you as a teacher to design course maps
aligned to Common Core standards? How could it benefit your professional goals? How
could this align with your organization’s goals or strategic plans?
4. Imagine a co-worker who might be resistant to participation in designing course maps
aligned to Common Core standards, and describe why you think they would feel resistant
about this task?
Organization
1. In your opinion, what are the general beliefs or attitudes that teachers hold about the
benefit of course mapping?
2. How does the leadership support the achievement of the performance goal to increase
student achievement on Common Core State Standards examinations?
3. Based on your experience with school initiatives, are there any barriers to a successful
implementation of course maps aligned to Common Core standards?
4. Is there anything that you feel I should ask you about this topic?
5. Is there anything else that you would like to add?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract With the rise of Common Core State Standards, the role of curriculum mapping is increasingly essential for schools to ensure alignment within the curriculum being taught and what is being assessed. The gap analysis framework was used to analyze the knowledge, motivation and organizational causes preventing a comprehensive high school from establishing curriculum maps to monitor classroom curriculum for alignment to the standards. A mixed methods analysis was utilized to form an analysis to illuminate systemic gaps in implementation of course mapping. Clark and Estes (2008) evaluation strategies through the Knowledge, Motivation, Organization influences served as the lens for this study.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Teacher retention influences: an evaluation study

PDF

Reconstructing the literary canon: an innovation study

PDF

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

PDF

The role of higher education in bridging workforce skills gaps: an evaluation study

PDF

Affluent teens and school stress: an evaluation study

PDF

Implementing comprehensive succession planning: an improvement study

PDF

Student engagement in online education: an evaluation study

PDF

An evaluation of project based learning implementation in STEM

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

STEM teacher education: An evaluation study

PDF

Achieving high levels of employee engagement: A promising practice study

PDF

What teachers in a high-performing high school need to effectively manage workplace stress: an evaluation study

PDF

Teachers assumptions on the importance of executive function: a gap analysis evaluation study

PDF

Keeping principals at the top of the class: an innovation study of principal leadership, self-efficacy, and the pursuit of leadership development

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

Assessing the meaning and value of traditional grading systems: teacher practices and perspectives

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influence diversity in volunteers in animal-assisted interventions

PDF

Establishing a systematic evaluation of an academic nursing program using a gap analysis framework

PDF

Supporting women business owners: the Inland Empire Women’s Business Center: an evaluation study

PDF

Employment rates upon MBA graduation: An evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Carter, Amie Rae (author)

Core Title Curriculum mapping initiative: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 03/05/2018

Defense Date 01/18/2018

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

Tag Clark and Estes,Common Core State Standards,course alignment,curriculum mapping,gap analysis,OAI-PMH Harvest,system gap

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Stowe, Kathy (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Ferguson, Holly (committee member)

Creator Email Amiecart@usc.edu,Amiercarter@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-480168

Unique identifier UC11266439

Identifier etd-CarterAmie-6072.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-480168 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CarterAmie-6072.pdf

Dmrecord 480168

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Carter, Amie Rae

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