University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running
head:
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS
1

AN EXAMINATION OF TRI-LEVEL COLLABORATION AROUND STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT USING THE GAP ANALYSIS APPROACH:
TEACHER FACTORS

by

Anthony
Steven
Carruthers

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 2013

Copyright 2013 Anthony Steven Carruthers
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

2
Epigraph

“We are here to awaken from our illusion of separateness.”

Thich Nhat Hanh
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

3
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my wife, Leta. I know that this process has called for great
sacrifices on your part. Thank you for your support. I can only hope to provide you with the
same level of support and encouragement as you pursue your dreams in life.
I dedicate this also to my sons, Elijah, Elon, Caleb and Joshua. Let this dissertation
remind you that education and hard work are the keys to success no matter what you choose to
do in life. When you find something you love, never stop learning about it and practice to
become the best you can be at it. I want you to know that your life has motivated me to be my
best. I hope that my life motivates you to be your best.
Finally, I dedicate this work to my grandmother, Devota Stevens Thomas. Thank you,
Grandma, for bequeathing to me your love of education.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

4
Acknowledgements
Life—that apportionment that renders me alive and makes possible all I think, do, and
experience. It is that raw material of existence for which no person can claim authorship—I
cannot deconstruct or define it. I can only acknowledge it as a gift from the original Author.
I express my heartfelt gratitude to those who invested portions of their lives toward the
completion of this dissertation. To the team in the Rossier School of Education, the caring and
committed service you provided throughout the program was invaluable. The constant flow of
reminders, encouragement, and resources kept me on track and made me feel valued and truly
supported.
To the professors in the Ed.D. program, each of you has left an indelible impression that I
will carry forward with me. Together you provided a well-engineered learning experience that
will surely continue to pay dividends in my life and the lives of those I encounter.
To Dr. Brian McDonald and Dr. Robert Rueda, thank you for your moral support and
critical feedback. To Dr. Kenneth Yates, I acknowledge the immeasurable amounts of time and
energy you devoted to my colleagues and me. You made me grow in ways that I would not have
grown on my own. Your commitment and work ethic in the service of your students will forever
be etched in my mind as a model and a source of inspiration. Thank you.
Finally, to Dr. Esther Salinas and Dr. Sonia Llamas, our work together has given me the
most valuable insights about collaboration. You helped me learn to be dependent and
dependable, flexible and assertive. I learned to be committed to something bigger than myself. I
learned what it means to work as a team. What a valuable and enjoyable experience this has
been. We lived our dissertation. May our dissertation now live in us.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

5
Table of Contents
Epigraph 2
Dedication 3
Acknowledgements 4
List of Tables 9
List of Figures 10
Abbreviations 11
Abstract 12
Preface 13
Chapter One: Introduction 14
Introduction of the Problem 14
Context of the Problem 14
Organizational Problem 17
Organizational Goal 19
Stakeholders 19
Stakeholders for the Study 19
Background of the Problem 19
Importance of the Problem 21
Purpose of the Study and Questions 21
Definitions 22
Organization of the Study 22
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 23
Organizational Capacity and Internal Accountability 24
Isolation 26
Isolation Within the Central Office 26
Principal Isolation 27
Teacher Isolation 28
Models of Collaboration in Educational Settings 29
Communities of Commitment 30
Communities of Practice 31
Critical Friends Group 32
Coalition of Essential Schools 33
Professional Learning Communities According to Hord 33
Professional Learning Communities According to DuFour and Eaker 34
Purposeful Community 35
Leadership 36
Magnitude of Change 36
Purposeful Community 37
Common Characteristics of Collaboration 37
Knowledge Requirements for Effective Collaboration 40
Factual Knowledge 40
Conceptual Knowledge 42
Procedural Knowledge 43
Metacognitive Knowledge 44
Motivation Requirements for Effective Collaboration 46
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

6
Capability Beliefs 46
Self-Efficacy 46
Self-Efficacy and Teacher Efficacy 48
Bandura’s Four Sources of Efficacy 48
Collective Teacher Efficacy 50
Affective Factors 51
Task Value 51
Organizational Requirements for Effective Collaboration 52
Trust 52
Leadership 54
Resources and Reciprocal Accountability 55
Quality Assurance and Monitoring 56
Tri-Level Considerations for Leadership and Organizational Change 59
Central Office Leadership and Organizational Change 59
School Site Leadership and Organizational Change 61
Teacher Leadership and Organizational Change 67
Chapter Three: Methodology 72
Purpose of the Inquiry and Inquiry Questions 72
Methodology Framework 73
Step 1: Identify the Organizational Goal 75
Step 2: Current Achievement 76
Step 3: Gaps 77
Step 4: Causes 77
Causes Informed by Informal Interviews 78
Informal Interviews with Central Office Administrators 78
Informal Interviews with Site-Level Administrators 79
Informal Interviews with Teachers 79
Causes Informed by Learning, Motivation, and Organizational
Theories 80
Knowledge Theory 80
Motivation Theory 81
Organization Theory 81
Causes Informed by the Literature 82
Step 5: Validated Causes 84
Population and Sample 84
Instrumentation and Data Collection 84
Surveys 85
Interviews 86
Data Analysis 87
Chapter Four: Results 88
Purpose of Study 88
Overview of Data Collection 89
District Survey 89
Teacher Interviews 89
Demographic Data 90
Validation of the Causes of the Perceived Performance Gap 91
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

7
Knowledge Results 92
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Causes 92
Knowledge Survey Results 92
Knowledge Cause #1 94
Survey Results 94
Interview Results 95
Tri-Level Results 97
Knowledge Cause #2 97
Survey Results 97
Interview Results 97
Tri-Level Results 98
Summary of Teachers’ Strengths and Challenges 98
Motivation Results 99
Summary of Assumed Motivation Causes 99
Motivation Survey Results 100
Motivation Cause #1 104
Survey Results 104
Interview Results 104
Tri-Level Results 105
Motivation Cause #2 105
Survey Results 105
Interview Results 106
Motivation Cause #3 106
Survey Results 106
Interview Results 107
Tri-level Results 107
Summary of Teachers’ Strengths and Challenges 108
Organization Results 108
Summary of Assumed Organizational Causes 108
Organization Survey Results 110
Organizational Cause #1 112
Survey Results 112
Interview Results 113
Tri-Level Results 113
Organizational Cause #2 113
Survey Results 113
Interview Results 114
Tri-Level Results 114
Organizational Causes #3 and #4 114
Survey Results 114
Interview Results 115
Tri-Level Results 115
Summary of Teachers’ Strengths and Challenges 116
Chapter Five: Solutions and Implementations 117
Solutions 118
Knowledge and Skill 118
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

8
Promote Teacher Autonomy 118
Increase Teacher Knowledge 121
Create Autonomy-Supportive Conditions 122
Create High Quality Assessments 123
Motivation 131
Address Group Tensions 131
Develop Personal Mastery 133
Organizational Factors 134
Develop Collaboration Capacity 135
Develop Communication Infrastructure 137
Chapter Six: Discussion 141
Synthesis of the Results 141
Organizational Support 141
Teacher Commitment to Professional Learning 142
Teacher Curriculum and Assessment Capacity 142
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 143
Strengths 143
Weaknesses 143
Recommendations and Implications 144
Evaluation 146
Develop Communication Infrastructure 146
Build Collaboration Capacity of Individual Teams 146
Support Teacher Autonomy 147
Train Teachers to Create High-Quality Assessments for Learning 147
Limitations 147
Future Research 148
Conclusion 149
References 150
Appendices
Appendix A: Definition of Key Terms 169
Appendix B: Concepts and Characteristics of Model Communities of
Collaboration in Education Settings 172
Appendix C: Common Characteristics of Collaboration Around Student
Achievement 174
Appendix D: CASA Team Characteristics and Competencies 182
Appendix E: The 21 Responsibilities of the School Leader 188
Appendix F: CASA Team Competency Survey Protocol 189
Appendix G: CASA Interview Protocol 198
Appendix H: Tri-Level Data (n=281) 201
Appendix I: Teacher Data (n=219) 219
Appendix J: Tri-Level Competency Means: District Administrators,
Site Administrators, and Teachers 228
Appendix K: Common Tri-Level Causes 229
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

9
List of Tables
Table
1:

Common
Characteristics
and
Competencies
of
Collaboration
Around

Student
Achievement
(CASA)
Synthesized
from
Literature
Reviewed

39

Table
2:

Comparison
of
First-‐Order
Change
and
Second-‐Order
Change

65

Table
3:

Possible
Causes
of
Knowledge
Performance
Gaps

81

Table
4:

Summary
of
Assumed
Causes
for
Knowledge,
Motivation
and

Organization

83

Table
5:

Knowledge
Item
Results
in
Ascending
Order
by
Means

94

Table 6: Motivation Item Results in Ascending Order by Means 101
Table 7: Organization Item Results in Ascending Order by Means (n=18) 111
Table 8: Summary of Solutions to Address Teacher Challenges and
Implementation of the Solutions 139
Table 9: Summary of Cascading Organizational and Short-Term
Performance Goals 140
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

10
List of Figures
Figure 1: Gap Analysis Process 74

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

11
Abbreviations
4Cs Communication, Collaboration, Creativity and Critical Thinking
API Academic Performance Index
AYP Annual Yearly Progress
CAHSEE California High School Exit Exam
CANE Commitment And Necessary Effort
CASA Collaboration Around Student Achievement
CC Culture of Collaboration
CE Collective Efficacy
CEIS Coordinated Early Intervening Services
CEP Center on Educational Policy
CES Coalition of Essential Schools
CFG Critical Friends Group
CLC Collaborative Learning Community
COA Central Office Administrators
CoP Communities of Practice
CRW Curriculum Revision Workshop
CST California Standardized Test
CTA Cognitive Task Analysis
CTE Collective Teacher Efficacy
ECED Every Classroom Every Day
EDI Explicit Direct Instruction
FR Focus on Results
GAP Gap Analysis Process
ILT Instructional Leadership Team
K,M,O Knowledge, Motivation, Organizational factors
LFP Learning as the Fundamental Purpose
M Mean
McREL Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning
NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress
NCES National Center for Education Statistics
NCLB No Child Left Behind
PLC Professional Learning Community
PUSD Pasadena Unified School District
SBAC Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
SD Standard Deviation
SEIS Special Education Information System
SME Subject Matter Experts
SSA School Site Administrator
SSL Supportive and Shared Leadership
STEAM Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics
STEM Science Technology Engineering Math
TCAR Teacher Collaboration Assessment Rubric
TCIF Teacher Collaboration Improvement Framework
WASC Western Association of School and College
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

12
Abstract
Using the Gap Analysis problem-solving framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), this project
examined collaboration around student achievement in the Pasadena Unified School District
(PUSD) from the teacher perspective. As part of a tri-level study, two other projects examined
collaboration around student achievement in PUSD from the perspectives of central office
administrators (Llamas, 2013) and school site administrators (Salinas, 2013). The primary
purpose of the current project was to identify the root causes in knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational factors that explain the gap between PUSD teachers’ current
performance and that required to achieve PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize
collaboration around student achievement. Mixed methods were used to collect quantitative data
from 219 teacher surveys and qualitative data from four teacher interviews. These data were used
to validate and prioritize assumed causes in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
factors. The findings revealed root causes related to the following:
1. Organizational support for effective collaboration around student achievement;
2. Teacher commitment to professional learning;
3. Teacher capacity related to curriculum and assessment.
Proposed solutions were aimed at strengthening organizational supports, fostering teacher
commitment, and creating a framework for capacity building.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

13
Preface
Some of the chapters in this dissertation were coauthored and have been identified as
such. While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm for most doctoral programs, team
inquiry and collaborative authorship are quite common in the research community. It is in
keeping with the Ed.D. program’s objective to develop highly skilled practitioners equipped to
take on authentic problems of practice, then, that the USC Graduate School and the Rossier
School of Education have permitted our inquiry team to use this collaborative approach.
This dissertation is the result of a collaborative effort between the author and two other
doctoral candidates, Sonia Llamas and Esther Salinas. These three doctoral students consulted
with the Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) with the aim of helping the district to solve an
authentic problem of practice. PUSD proposed a problem whose breadth was beyond the scope
of a single dissertation. It was therefore determined that the inquiry team would produce three
articulating dissertations to collectively address the proposed problem. This resulted in the
current dissertation and the works of Llamas (2013) and Salinas (2013).

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

14
Chapter One: Introduction
Authors: Anthony Carruthers, Sonia Llamas, Esther Salinas
1

Introduction of the Problem
Educational institutions in the United States have historically been loosely coupled, low-
reliability organizations (Weick, as cited in Marzano & Waters, 2009). These institutions have
been marked by isolation, lack of coordination, and extreme variance in the quality of education
provided. Increasingly, educators have come to grips with the reality that their institutions must
undergo transformations in organizational structure and culture. Educators and scholars have
written extensively on how principles of learning organizations (Senge, 1990) can be applied in
education to produce the results that the stakeholders within these institutions truly desire. In
practice, however, transforming educational institutions into learning organizations has presented
a complex set of challenges with which practitioners continue to grapple.
Context of the Problem
Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) serves a diverse urban community located in
Los Angeles County, California. It includes the communities of Altadena, Pasadena and Sierra
Madre. Long associated with images of prosperity evoked by the Rose Parade on New Year’s
Day, Pasadena’s public school district serves a different population than might be expected.
PUSD serves 18,652 K-12 students. Of these students, 60.6% are Hispanic, 16.9% are African
American, 13.7% are White, 5.6 % identify as other, and 3.2 % are Asian. Over 68% of students
qualify for the federal free and reduced lunch program for low-income families, 20.6% are
English learners, and 11.7% receive Special Education services.

1
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed reflecting the team approach to this
project. These authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

15
While academic achievement has risen steadily throughout PUSD for the past five years,
the district struggles with lower performing secondary schools, high truancy rates and high
dropout rates. In 2009, 84% of seniors and 74% of juniors passed the California High School
Exit Exam (CAHSEE). For the 2009-2010 school year, PUSD’s graduation rate per NCES
definition was 75.2%. That same year, 427 students in grades 9-12 dropped out of school for a
rate of 6.7%, higher than county (5.4%) and state (4.9%) rates.
PUSD has a vision to prepare all students for success in college and career. Its stated
mission is to provide a caring, engaging, challenging educational experience for every student
every day. The district’s guiding principle is: Our students come first. Our decisions are driven
by what is best for them. PUSD’s core values are Integrity and Respect, Transparency,
Accountability, Equity, Collaboration, and Fiscal Responsibility.
PUSD has launched three core initiatives that signal the direction in which the
organization is headed. First is the College and Career Pathways initiative, which is sponsored by
the James Irvine Foundation. The objective of this initiative is to prepare all students for post-
secondary education and careers. Eight small learning communities (called pathways), housed
within three of PUSD’s four comprehensive high schools, are at the heart of the initiative.
These pathways offer (a) a strong academic foundation, (b) technical education related to
a particular industry sector, (c) personalized student support services, and (d) work-based
learning opportunities. Pathway teachers who share a cohort of students have collaboration time
built into their schedules. Of the 5500 students enrolled in grades nine through twelve,
approximately 1670 (30%) are enrolled in a pathway. Recently the pathway initiative was
extended to the middle school level with the creation of the Science, Technology, Engineering,
Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) magnet at Washington Middle School. This magnet school is
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

16
intended to serve as a pipeline to the Engineering and Environmental Science Pathway at John
Muir High School.
The second major initiative under way in PUSD is the Curriculum Revision Workshop
(CRW). Beginning in the spring of 2012, the CRW has been convening teachers and coaches
from the core disciplines to revise the district’s curriculum to align with the Common Core
Standards. Participating teachers have received an in depth orientation to the Common Core
Standards, Backward Design, and the Understanding By Design process for designing curricular
units (Wiggins & McTighe, 2011). Teachers have also received training, provided by Envision
Learning Partners, on Project Based Learning and Performance Assessment. Grade-level,
subject-specific teacher teams have been developing curricular units and performance
assessments. In the fall of 2012, CRW teachers began piloting the units they had developed.
Teams will continue to pilot and revise curriculum until the 2014-2015 school year when
students will be expected to demonstrate their attainment of CRW learning outcomes on
common performance assessments and national Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
(SBAC) exams.
Finally, PUSD has joined EdLeader21, a self-described professional learning community
(PLC) for district leaders to come together around their commitment to 21
st
Century learning.
More specifically, EdLeader21 districts are committed to integrating communication,
collaboration, critical thinking and creativity (the 4Cs) into all areas of students’ educational
experiences. EdLeader21 provides a 7-step framework for districts to use as they implement the
4Cs. According to their website at http://www.EdLeader21.com/index.php?pg=11, the steps
include:

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

17
1. Adopt a vision.
2. Develop Consensus.
3. Align the system.
4. Build professional capacity (primarily through PLC formation; this is identified as the
key step in the framework).
5. Focus curriculum and assessment.
6. Support Teachers.
7. Improve and Innovate.
Organizational Problem
One of the biggest impediments to school success is an overwhelming number of district
initiatives (Olson, as cited in DuFour & Marzano, 2011). When districts have their attention and
resources dispersed to multiple initiatives, it leads to poor implementation of all initiatives. As
Reeves (2011) explains, sustained effort on a limited number of goals improves academic
success. In addition, even when the number of initiatives is manageable, there is often a lack of
effort to ensure that all initiatives are in alignment with one another.
In addition to the initiatives discussed in the previous section, Pasadena Unified School
District has launched several other initiatives ranging in focus from academic achievement to
social emotional development. The PUSD Strategic Plan, Excellent Middle Schools, Linked
Learning, Center X, Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) and Behavior Response to
Intervention (RtI) are examples of initiatives that have been undertaken simultaneously. Each of
these initiatives has an aim to increase student academic performance. Unfortunately, the
initiatives have not been implemented in alignment with one another, and this has resulted in
sporadic success instead of districtwide implementation. One problem, for example, has been a
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

18
lack of clarity with respect to the district’s overall vision, its strategy for attaining the vision, and
the roles that individuals throughout the organization are to play in the strategy. According to
DuFour and Marzano (2011) it is difficult to implement a substantive process in any organization
when people have a deep understanding of the process and its implications for specific action; it
is impossible however, to do so when there is ambiguity or only a superficial understanding of
what must be done (Clark & Estes, 2008; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000).
PUSD’s vision, mission, values, and initiatives reveal PUSD’s commitment, in principle,
to becoming a high-reliability learning organization that is coherently organized to produce the
student achievement outcomes its stakeholders truly desire.
While commitment on this level is necessary, it is not sufficient. What lies ahead for
PUSD as it attempts to become a 21
st
century learning organization is a complex problem that
will test PUSD’s collective commitment and will. Adapting to the new Common Core Standards,
developing and implementing a new curriculum districtwide, and incorporating the 4Cs into all
classrooms will be no small feat. Factor in the need to expand teachers’ instructional repertoires
to include more systematic formative assessment, project-based learning, and performance
assessment, and one begins to appreciate the magnitude of change that is being undertaken. All
of these reforms require organizational coherence and a culture of collaboration, both of which
are in the emerging stages in PUSD. Adding to the complexity is the fact that all of this is
occurring in an era of limited funding. In short, PUSD faces an organizational problem that will
require all stakeholders to replace old paradigms with new ones in order to solve never before
seen problems, the solutions of which are not yet known. In other words, PUSD stakeholders will
have to engage in transformational learning (Mezirow, 1997) and adaptive change (Heifetz &
Laurie, 1997).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

19
Organizational Goal
While PUSD cannot predict the challenges it will face in the future, developing the
capacity of all stakeholders to consistently and effectively collaborate will increase the
organization’s capacity to meet these challenges. Based on this rationale, PUSD’s superintendent
of schools and chief academic officer identified the improvement and scaling up of collaboration
as the highest priority goal for PUSD. As such, the organizational goal for PUSD is to
institutionalize effective collaboration around student achievement.
Stakeholders. To support student achievement, it is important to strengthen coherence
between actions at the central office, school site, and classroom levels (Childress, Elmore,
Grossman, & King, 2007). As such, the rationale for this study is the need for collaboration on
and between all three levels of PUSD. This study is part of a tri-level districtwide study (See
Llamas, 2013; Salinas, 2013) examining collaboration around student achievement from the
central office administrator, school site administrator, and classroom teacher perspectives.
Stakeholder for the study. The stakeholder focus for the current project was classroom
teachers. The investigator is a classroom teacher in PUSD.
Background of the Problem
Lyndon B. Johnson remarked, “The answer for all of our national problems, the answer
for all the problems of the world, comes down, when you really analyze it, to a single word:
education” (Johnson, 1964, p. 1). This statement embodies the dream of educating every child.
However, moving into the 21
st
Century, American public educators strain under the growing
burden of public expectations along with state and federal policies that dim this dream. There is
no clearer example of this than the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

20
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 gave birth to the era of standards-
based reform that has continued to grow in complexity and gravity. Responding to concerns of a
weak educational system that were brought to national attention by A Nation at Risk (1983), No
Child Left Behind (2001) ushered in the era of standards and high stakes accountability. As a
result, public schools today are under increasing pressure to demonstrate program effectiveness
through student achievement as measured by federal Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) and the
state Academic Performance Index (API).
While policy changes outside of the schoolhouse were unfolding, internal changes were
occurring as well. The landscape of American schools was becoming increasingly
heterogeneous. Classrooms were growing more diverse with respect to race, ethnicity, language
and socioeconomic status. Since the 1990s, the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) has shed light on achievement differences between Black and Hispanic students and
their White and Asian counterparts. Differential expectations and outcomes compel educators to
close this achievement gap (Rueda, 2011). Moreover, an increasingly competitive and
unpredictable global economy has made it a moral imperative to close the achievement gap and
prepare all students for post-secondary education and the workplace.
In sum, these pressures require school districts to identify and implement systemic
reforms that have been demonstrated to improve student achievement. One such promising
reform has centered on the role community plays in schools (Louis & Marks, 1998; Vescio,
Ross, & Adams, 2008). Louis and Marks (1998), in their examination of 24 elementary, middle,
and secondary schools, found that the strength of professional community in these schools
predicted quality of teaching practice, support for student achievement, and quality of student
learning. Offering further evidence, Vescio, Ross, and Adams (2008) reviewed eight studies that
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

21
had established direct links between collaborative learning communities and student achievement
gains. There are a variety of models of collaborative learning communities including
Professional Learning Communities (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Hord, 1997), Communities of
Practice (Wenger & Snyder, 2002) and Purposeful Learning Communities (Marzano et al., 2005)
whose key components include shared goals and collaboration. These models provide a structure
for leadership and a process for purposeful interaction (DuFour & Marzano, 2011).
Importance of the Problem
Institutionalizing effective collaboration around student achievement is important
because it develops and makes available the collective capacity of all stakeholders so that this
capacity can be applied to pursue the goals that matter most to stakeholders. In addition,
institutionalizing collaboration promotes innovation, the spreading of best practices, and the
curtailment of ineffective practices. In the absence of collaboration, valuable human capital is
left untapped and faulty practice is allowed to persist. As stated previously, with the moral
imperative to close the achievement gap and prepare all students to be viable in the 21
st
century
global economy, institutionalizing effective collaboration around student achievement is critical.
Purpose of the Study and Questions
The overall purpose of this inquiry project was to assist PUSD with its organizational
goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student achievement. The project was
driven by two inquiry questions:
1. What are the challenges for PUSD teachers, in knowledge and skills, motivation, and the
organizational dimension, that may impede the achievement of PUSD’s organizational
goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student achievement?
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

22
2. What are the potential solutions to address PUSD teachers’ challenges in knowledge and
skills, motivation, and the organizational dimension, and thereby support PUSD’s
organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student
achievement?
Definitions
Definitions of key terms can be found in Appendix A.

Organization of the Study
This chapter presented the background and the importance of the inquiry team’s focus on
collaboration around student achievement. It also provided a brief overview of the scope of the
project. Chapter Two will provide a review of the literature related to collaboration around
student achievement. Chapter Three provides the methodology used by the inquiry team and an
analysis of assumed causes of the performance gaps. In Chapter Four the results of the data
collection will be discussed. In Chapter Five, solutions will be proposed along with
recommendations for implementing these solutions. Finally, Chapter Six will provide a
discussion of project limitations and propose an evaluation plan for the project.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

23
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Authors: Anthony Carruthers, Sonia Llamas, Esther Salinas
2

Public education in the United States has been the object of reform efforts for the past
thirty years. Recently federal, state, and local agencies have implemented accountability
measures that focus on student achievement. The federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB),
state-level end-of-course and high school exit exams, and value-added teacher evaluations are
but a few examples of these achievement-centered accountability systems. Meeting the demands
of these accountability systems requires central office leaders, school site administrators, and
classroom teachers (tri-level) to work collaboratively to develop the environments and practices
that optimize achievement for all students.
It is widely accepted and empirically supported that collaboration capacity predicts
student achievement and can determine the success or failure of any school reform effort (Gajda
& Koliba, 2007, 2008; Goddard, Goddard, & Tschannen-Moran, 2007; Hord, 1986; Lawson,
2004; Welch, 1998). Efforts to build collaboration capacity within schools, which have taken on
a multitude of names, have common characteristics. These efforts have generally sought to
provide structures for distributed leadership and processes for purposeful collaboration to
ultimately promote student achievement.
This literature review will examine various topics related to collaboration around student
achievement and will be organized as follows:
1. Organizational capacity and internal accountability
2. Forms of isolation in educational organizations
3. Models of collaboration in educational organizations

2
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed reflecting the team approach to this
project. These authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

24
4. Common characteristics for collaboration
5. Knowledge requirements for successful collaborations
6. Motivational requirements for successful collaboration
7. Organizational requirements for successful collaboration
8. Tri-level considerations for leadership and organizational change
Organizational Capacity and Internal Accountability
This section of the literature review begins with an examination of the characteristics and
dynamics associated with external accountability systems. Then it examines on the need to
develop organizational capacity and internal accountability in order to meet the demands of these
high-stakes external accountability systems.
Researchers (Center on Educational Policy (CEP), 2007; Dee & Jacob, 2009) have noted
gains on standardized tests under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). This suggests that
external accountability systems promote student achievement. However gains have been modest
and have not been consistent across grade levels or content areas (Sahlberg, 2010). Moreover, it
is difficult to attribute increased test scores to NCLB because multiple reforms were being
implemented concurrently with NCLB (CEP, 2007).
External accountability systems also neglect important aspects of student achievement
not measured on standardized tests. For example, while strong state accountability systems have
been associated with higher average scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP), educational attainment and ninth grade retention, for example, were not significantly
affected by these accountability systems (Carnoy & Loeb, 2002).
External accountability systems also produce unintended negative effects. For example,
external accountability systems create tensions that contribute to teacher burnout (Berryhill,
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

25
Linney, & Fromewick, 2009). Schoen and Fusarelli (2008) argue that schools have responded to
the pressures of NCLB in ways that have diminished their capacity to provide a 21
st
century
education. Similarly, Sahlberg (2010) suggests that external accountability systems have stunted
the development of 21
st
century skills such as critical thinking and creativity.
Responding to external accountability pressures, and mitigating their harmful effects,
requires organizational capacity building. As Elmore (2002) explains, “Schools do not ‘succeed’
in responding to external cues or pressures unless they have their own internal system for
reaching agreement on good practice and for making that agreement evident in organization and
pedagogy” (p. 20). In order to create these conditions, the central office must perform the
strategic function (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006). That is, it must develop a strategy for
improving teaching and learning and align all organizational components with the strategy.
Additionally, norms of reciprocal accountability must be established (Elmore, 2002). According
to Elmore (2002), if leaders want increases in student achievement, “the quid pro quo is
investing in the knowledge and skill necessary to produce it” (p. 5). Similarly, “If educators want
legitimacy, purpose and credibility for their work, the quid pro quo is learning to do their work
differently and accepting a new model of accountability”(p. 5).
Hall (2010) describes this new model of accountability as internal accountability. It
requires educators to (a) modify content and practice, (b) monitor progress toward specific goals,
and (c) institute a system of rewards and sanctions (Hall, 2010, p. 10).
Citing Newmann et al. (1997), Hall (2010) reports that strong internal accountability
reflects the capacity of a school to collectively organize the following four dimensions: (a)
effective leadership, (b) teachers’ professional knowledge and skills, (c) technical and financial
resources, and (d) autonomy to act according to the demands of local contexts (p. 10). School
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

26
districts with strong internal accountability systems have (a) shared expectations among
stakeholders at all levels about what constitutes quality work and (b) processes for monitoring
whether these expectations are being met (Elmore, 2002).
This section established a vision of organizational capacity building and internal
accountability. The current state of affairs in educational institutions stands in stark contrast to
this vision of internal accountability and coherence. The next section examines the
organizational forms and culture typically found in educational institutions.
Isolation
School districts typically reflect a culture of isolation (Flinders, 1988; Gratch, 2000; Tye
& Tye, 1984). This section reviews literature on isolation within the central office, principal
isolation, and teacher isolation. Literature identifying strategies that institutions have employed
to address the isolation problem at all three levels is also discussed.
Isolation within the Central Office
Central offices have historically been organized as silos (Fullan, as cited in Borman,
Carter, Aladjem, Kerstin, & Carlson LeFloch, 2004). The silo organizational structure is
problematic (Waite, 2010). For example, the inherent insularity of silo organizations makes it
difficult for innovations that occur in one silo to spread throughout the organization. Silos also
create inefficiency due to duplication of efforts. Silo structures tend to leave critical
organizational functions not accounted for through a phenomenon called “responsibility floating”
(Bauman, as cited in Waite, 2010). Responsibility floating occurs when each silo is aware of the
failures that are resulting from particular organizational functions falling through the cracks, but
because these functions do not fall within the purview of any particular silo, no one takes
responsibility.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

27
School districts that have successfully addressed the problematic nature of silo
organizations without undergoing wholesale central office restructuring have (a) taken a systems
approach to reform, (b) created a learning community at the central office, (c) focused intently
on teaching and learning, (d) supported professional learning and instructional improvement, and
(e) used data to support accountability (Borman et al., 2004, p. 116). Borman et al. (2004) also
highlight the importance of all central office administrators being knowledgeable about district
reforms so that their resource allocation decisions are coherently aligned with district reform
efforts.
Principal Isolation
Principal isolation stems from the following variables: (a) role ambiguity, (b) role
overload, and (c) lack of social support (Stephenson & Bauer, 2010). Stephenson and Bauer
(2010) surveyed 196 first- and second-year elementary, middle, high, and alternative school
principals from across the state of Louisiana in order to examine the relationships between
various factors and principal burnout. The authors found that principal isolation mediated the
relationship between the above-mentioned variables and physical and emotional burnout.
Ironically, individual coaching provided to principals increased role overload and thereby
exacerbated principal isolation and burnout.
In a study of five high-poverty districts making strides in improving student achievement
system-wide, Togneri and Anderson (2003) reported that these districts countered principal
isolation by (a) forming networks of high-performing principals to increase leadership capacity,
(b) convening principals to share challenges and strategies and develop common understanding
on emerging issues, and (c) incorporating tools for improving collaboration.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

28
Teacher Isolation
Teacher isolation impedes school reform. Schmoker (2006) implicates the buffer as “a
protective barrier that discourages and even punishes close, constructive scrutiny of instruction
and the supervision of instruction” (p. 13). He argues that shielding instruction and
supervision—the heart of schooling—from external criticism prevents school improvement.
In order for schools to improve, teachers must be connected to external knowledge, and
conditions within the school must promote the sharing of knowledge (Tye & Tye, 1984).
Historically, teachers have been disconnected from external sources of new knowledge and have
not shared knowledge with each other (Goodlad, as cited in Tye & Tye, 1984). “New ideas in
education travel rather randomly through the system, from school to school and person to person;
they tend to be pursued individually, if at all—not in concert” (Goodlad, 1983, p. 555). Goodlad
(1983) asserts, “The culture of the school must operate in such a way as to encourage and give
legitimacy to alternative ideas, if such ideas are to take root and grow” (p. 555).
Teacher isolation also threatens human capital. For example, teacher isolation is a risk
factor for alienation and burnout (Brooks, Hughes & Brooks, 2008; Schlicte, Yssel, & Merbler,
2005). Flinders (1988) offers an alternate view of teacher isolation as an adaptive strategy that
teachers use to protect themselves psychologically. Flinders reasons that the inherent stresses of
collaboration pose a psychological threat to teachers who are already overwhelmed. Flinders
advises administrators and policy-makers to use a two-pronged approach that (a) removes
antecedents of isolation and (b) supports teachers in order to lower psychological barriers to
collaboration.
While isolation is clearly problematic, there are also intermediate states between isolation
and collaboration that can pose problems. For example, in a culture of contrived collegiality
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

29
(Hargreaves & Dawe, 1990) administrators contrive interactions between teachers in order to
engineer predetermined outcomes. In balkanized cultures (Hargreaves & Macmillan, 1992),
small groups of educators (e.g., departments) isolate themselves from the rest of the staff. These
groups typically adopt partisan stances and put their own interests above the collective interests
of the school community.
Fallon and Barnett (2009) found in a case study of an elementary school that restructuring
to foster collegiality and collaboration addressed the challenge of teacher isolation. Restructuring
schools as learning communities, in particular, holds hope for facilitating the transition from
isolation to a culture of collaboration (Rasberry & Mahajan, 2008).
In this section, the case was made for moving away from a culture of isolation toward a
culture of collaboration. The next section examines models that have been conceived to facilitate
this transition.
Models of Collaboration in Educational Settings
Although learning communities hold great promise for improving education, as Rasberry
and Mahajan (2008) explain:
Many schools across the country are currently using the term “professional learning
community” to loosely describe groups of teachers that work together at specified times
in their buildings. Unfortunately, a great majority of these schools falter in their efforts to
truly create PLCs because they are not implementing them appropriately or they do not
provide them with proper support (p. 3).
Collaboration within educational settings has come to be defined by a number of different
models and conceptions—not just PLCs—referred to generally herein as collaborative learning
communities (CLCs). It is important for practitioners to have an intimate knowledge of the
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

30
unifying and distinguishing features of the various models in order to avoid faltering in their
efforts to create CLCs. The models that will be reviewed here include Communities of
Commitment (Kofman & Senge, 1993), Communities of Practice (Wenger, 1998), Critical
Friends Groups (Costa & Kallick, 1993), Coalition Of Essential Schools (Sizer, 1986),
Professional Learning Communities (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, &
Karhanek, 2010; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2010; Hord, 1997), and Purposeful
Communities (Waters & Cameron, 2007).
Many case studies have examined the impact of CLC implementation on student
achievement outcomes (Hughes & Kritsonis, 2007; Taylor, Pressley, & Pearson, 2000; Vescio et
al., 2008). When implemented correctly, CLCs have been found to foster collective
accountability and coherence and in doing so raise student achievement. This section examines
the various models of collaboration that have been implemented within educational settings.
Communities of Commitment

‘Learning organization’ is a linguistic representation used to articulate a vision for
creating “a type of organization we would truly like to work within and which can thrive in a
world of increasing interdependency and change” (Kofman & Senge, 2003, p. 20). The learning
organization vision is grounded in (a) a culture based on values of love, humility, wonder,
empathy, and compassion; (b) a set of practices for generative conversation and coordinated
action; and (c) a capacity to see and work with the flow of life as a system (p. 20). Kofman and
Senge (2003) explain how pursuing one’s vision of a learning organization requires patience,
courage, and servant leadership. It requires community and commitment to building learning
environments that support individual transformation and collective agency. Communities of
commitment are at the heart of learning organizations and represent a frame of reference that is
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

31
countercultural to the fragmentation, competition, and reactiveness reflected in society. This
frame of reference promotes systems thinking, team building, and preemptive strikes of proactive
leadership.
Communities of Practice
Communities of Practice (CoP) evolved from a study of apprenticeship (Lave & Wenger,
1991). The study revealed that apprenticeship involves a set of complex social interactions
through which all involved participants learn—not just the apprentices. As a result, new
professional behaviors are collectively created, practiced, and refined (Harris & Jones, 2010).
CoPs are comprised of “groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they
do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (Wenger, 2009, p. 1). A CoP is
defined by three factors: (a) the domain, (b) the community, and (c) the practice.
The domain is the field of shared interest that unites the CoP members. The domain
ultimately derives value from the CoP’s collective enterprise. The community is built upon
relationships that enable its members to engage in common activities, help one another, and learn
from one another. The practice is the common repertoire of resources including experiences,
stories, tools, and problem solving strategies. Its improvement is the object of CoP interactions.
As co-participants, members engage in meaningful activity through which identity and practices
develop (Handley, Sturdy, Fincham & Clark, 2006; Wenger, 1998, 2009). These elements, when
developed, constitute a community of practice.
Critical Friends Group

Critical Friends Group (CFG) is a model developed by National School Reform Faculty.
CFGs usually consist of a small group who are committed to improving their practice and
increasing student achievement. CFGs are characterized by mutual trust and inquiry. They invite
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

32
reflection, public practice, meaningful questions, and substantive feedback that challenge
assumptions, habits, and practices. A critical friend is “a trusted person who asks provocative
questions, provides data to be examined through another lens, and offers critiques of a person’s
work as a friend” (Costa & Kallick, 1993, p. 49). A critical friend takes time to fully understand
the context of the work presented and the desired outcomes toward which the person and group
are working. The friend essentially becomes an advocate for the success of that work.
CFG participants use processes and protocols to promote meaningful interaction, learning,
and problem solving. The term “critical” distinguishes that which is important, key, essential, or
urgent (National School Reform Faculty, 2012). CFGs meet at least once per month for about
two hours. Four design features characterize CFGs: (a) a diverse menu of protocol choices, (b)
decentralized structure, (c) interdisciplinary membership, and (d) protocol reliance.
Coalition of Essential Schools

Theodore Sizer founded The Coalition of Essential School (CES) in 1984 in response to
the Carnegie Task Force’s insistence that schools should not continue to accept existing school
design, but should rather rebuild schools for better student performance (Muncey & McQuillan,
1993; Sizer, 1986). The Coalition of Essential Schools, originally sponsored by the National
Association of Secondary School Principals (Sizer, 1986), is a group of autonomous schools
united by a set of ten common principles for school-wide reform: (a) intellectual focus that helps
students use their minds well; (b) simple goals that value depth and mastery over breadth of
content covered; (c) universal goals that apply to all students; (d) personalization of teaching and
learning; (e) transition from student-as-worker and teacher-as-coach to teaching students how to
learn, then teach themselves; (f) student exhibitions of content mastery; (g) tone of decency,
portraying high expectations, trust and values of fairness, generosity and tolerance; (h) staff are
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

33
first generalists, then specialists; (i) budget or resources dedicated to teaching and learning; and
(j) democracy and equity (MacMullen, 1996).
Instructional Improvement Through Inquiry and Collaboration was a later project of the
Coalition of Essential Schools. It integrated the ten principles with elements of critical friends
groups and the cycle of inquiry to examine student work as a resource to improve instruction and
increase student achievement (Little, Gearhart, Curry, & Kafka, 2003).
Professional Learning Communities According to Hord
Professional learning communities have been the result of school reform efforts (Hord,
1997) through a process of continuous development of individuals who effect organizational
change (Fullan, 1993). The professional learning community has evolved over time. Hord (1998)
described five attributes that define a professional learning community of continuous inquiry and
improvement: (a) shared leadership, (b) collective creativity, (c) shared vision and values, (d)
supportive conditions, and (e) shared practice.
Supportive and shared leadership is collegial and facilitates staff input (Hord, 1997). The
site principal, for example, shares authority, facilitates the work of staff members, and
participates as a peer and colleague without dominating (Louis & Kruse, 1995; Prestine, 1993).
Collective creativity occurs when people work collaboratively and engage in inquiry activities
and reflective dialogue around teaching and learning (Hord, 1997; Sergiovanni, 1994). Shared
vision and values involve all staff in the development of a shared vision that guides decisions
about teaching and learning. Supportive conditions determine when, where, and how people
collaborate (Hord, 1997; Louis & Kruse, 1995). Physical supportive conditions include
allocation of time and space to meet and structures for communication. Human capacities
conditions include willingness to visit and review teachers’ classrooms, engage in inquiry, accept
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

34
feedback, and demonstrate collegial respect and trust (Hord, 1997). Shared practice is the
process of routinely observing and learning from the behaviors of colleagues (Hord, 1997; Louis
& Kruse, 1995). Together, these attributes nurture a community of continuous learning.
Professional Learning Communities According to DuFour and Eaker

DuFour and Eaker (1998) describe six characteristics of professional learning
communities: (a) shared mission, vision, and values; (b) collective inquiry; (c) collaborative
teams; (d) action orientation and experimentation; (e) continuous improvement; and (f) results
orientation. Each characteristic addresses a specific question that is posed to PLC members.

An organization’s shared vision and mission, for example, answers the questions, “Why
do we exist?” and “What do we hope to become?” How a school chooses to answer these
questions reveals the organization’s underlying assumptions, beliefs and values (DuFour &
Eaker, 1998). Collective inquiry (Ross, Smith, & Roberts, 1994) occurs when team members (a)
participate in public reflection, (b) arrive at shared meaning and common understanding of
assumptions and beliefs, (c) engage in joint planning to test their shared insights, and (d)
implement the action plans they develop (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
Teams are “a critical component of every enterprise – the predominant unit for decision
making and getting things done” (Senge, Ross, Smith, Roberts, & Kleiner, 1994, p. 354). Action
orientation and experimentation turn vision into reality when team members test their ideas,
evaluate their theories, reflect on the outcome of those experiments and develop new theories.
Failures are integral to the experimentation process and provide opportunities for team learning
(DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Continuous improvement requires a never-ending commitment to
innovation and experimentation that define the daily habits of the organization. This occurs when
members engage in answering key questions such as: (a) “What is our fundamental purpose?” (b)
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

35
“What do we hope to achieve?” (c) “What are our strategies?” and (d) “What criteria will we use
to assess our improvement efforts?” (DuFour & Eaker, 1998, p. 28). All efforts of the
organization must come under the scrutiny of assessed results, not intentions. Furthermore, the
extent to which the PLC is developing a shared mission, vision and values, engaging in
collective inquiry, building collaborative teams, taking action, and focusing on continuous
improvement must be subject to ongoing assessment (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
DuFour et al. (2010) present three big ideas of PLC:
1. The purpose of school is to ensure that all students learn.
2. Ensuring that all students learn requires a culture of collaboration.
3. Ensuring that all students learn requires a focus on results.
PLCs require an ongoing cycle of inquiry and dialogue (DuFour, 2004). DuFour et al. (2010)
identify four core questions PLCs must address:
1. What are the essential learning outcomes that all students must reach?
2. How will we know whether or not students have reached the essential learning
outcomes?
3. How will we respond when students do not reach the essential learning outcomes?
4. How will we respond when students demonstrate the need for enrichment?
Purposeful Community
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) conducted a meta-analysis
of the effect of school leadership on student achievement and found a significant correlation. The
researchers identified 21 leadership responsibilities and 66 corresponding practices that have
empirically been shown to raise student achievement (Marzano et al., 2005). McREL also
conducted three studies on the effects of classroom, school, and leadership practices on student
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

36
achievement (Waters & Cameron, 2006). From their analyses, Waters and Cameron (2006)
developed the Balanced Leadership Framework, which organized the 21 responsibilities into a
structure comprised of (a) leadership, (b) focus, (c) magnitude of change, and (d) purposeful
community.
Leadership. Leadership is the foundational component within the balanced leadership
framework because of how it permeates the other three components of focus, magnitude of
change, and purposeful community (Waters & Cameron, 2006). The 21 identified leadership
responsibilities are distributed among these three components and are designed to “help
principals balance their time and efforts in fulfilling important and essential responsibilities
[related to student achievement]” (Waters & Cameron, 2006, p. 18). Among the essential
responsibilities found to support student achievement are (a) providing resources in the form of
materials and professional development, (b) involvement in curriculum, instruction, and
assessment; (c) focusing on establishing clear and challenging goals for students and teachers,
(d) outreaching to all school stakeholders, (e) establishing an orderly environment, (f) providing
protection from instructional distractors, and (g) recognizing and rewarding accomplishments
(Waters & Cameron, 2006).
Magnitude of change. The magnitude of change is based on the nature of change, the
implications of change, the change process, and the skill required to lead change. Distinctions are
made between first-order change and second-order change. First-order change, perceived as an
extension of past practice, is contrasted with second-order change, which is perceived as a break
from past practice. Not all stakeholders will share the same perception of change so educational
leaders must be knowledgeable of the four phases of the change process which include (a)
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

37
creating demand, (b) implementation, (c) managing personal transitions, and (d) monitoring and
evaluating the effectiveness of the initiative on student learning.
Purposeful community. School community engagement comes from the intentional
creation of voluntary communities that focus on student and adult learning (Wagner, 2003).
Purposeful communities are ones “with the collective efficacy and capability to use all available
assets to accomplish purposes and produce outcomes that matter to all community members
through agreed-upon processes” (Waters & Cameron, 2006, p. 46). This definition is made up of
four interconnected characteristics (italicized). A purposeful community develops collective
vision around purposes that can only be accomplished through community. All available assets,
tangible and intangible, are developed and utilized to accomplish these purposes (Waters &
Cameron, 2006). Agreed-upon processes are organizing principles that establish order and
discipline. They influence patterns of interaction, relationships among community members,
connections between the school and other critical institutions, and shared leadership
opportunities (Waters & Cameron, 2006). Collective efficacy is the shared conviction that the
purposeful community can organize and implement a specific course of action. It is the shared
belief that together the community can positively impact student achievement.
The literature reviewed in this section explored the characteristics that define the various
individual models and conceptions of collaboration in educational settings. The next section
identifies the common characteristics shared by these various models and conceptions.
Common Characteristics of Collaboration
In the previous section, various collaborative models were examined (see Appendix B for
a table summarizing the models). Regardless of the particular model, there are core
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

38
characteristics and competencies related to effective collaboration around student achievement.
This section of the literature review identifies these core characteristics and competencies.
The following five common characteristics of collaboration around student achievement
were identified from the literature: (a) supportive and shared leadership, (b) learning as the
fundamental purpose, (c) culture of collaboration, (d), focus on results, and (e) collective
efficacy. Table 1 displays the five common characteristics and 12 associated competencies along
with the seminal works from which they were identified (see Appendix C for a detailed
explanation of the five characteristics and the associated competencies).

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

39
Table 1
Common Characteristics and Competencies of Collaboration Around Student Achievement (CASA)
Synthesized From Literature Reviewed
Common Characteristics and Competencies Literature Reviewed
Supportive and Shared Leadership
1. Building capacity
2. Defining autonomy
3. Allocating resources
Costa and Kallick (1993)
DuFour and Eaker (1998)
DuFour and Marzano (2011)
Hord (1997, 1998)
Kofman and Senge (1993)
Marzano et al. (2005)
Wenger and Snyder (2000)
Learning as the Fundamental Purpose
4. Building collective knowledge regarding essential
learning outcomes
5. Developing and deploying an assessment and
monitoring system
6. Developing timely, directive, systematic
interventions and enrichment opportunities
7. Evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in
producing the essential learning outcomes
DuFour et al. (2010)
DuFour and Marzano (2011)
Hord (1997, 1998)
Kofman and Senge (1993)
Marzano et al. (2005)
Sizer (1986)

Culture of Collaboration
8. Allocating time to meet
9. Working interdependently to gather, analyze and
determine best practices and transfer best practices
across all team members
Costa and Kallick (1993)
DuFour et al. (2010)
DuFour and Eaker (1998)
DuFour and Marzano (2011)
Hord (1997, 1998)
Kofman and Senge (1993)
Marzano et al. (2005)
Wenger and Snyder (2000)
Focus on Results
10. Using common assessment data to identify needs for
intervention and enrichment
11. Using assessment data to identify strengths and
weaknesses in individual and collective teaching as
part of a continuous improvement cycle
DuFour et al. (2010)
DuFour and Eaker (1998)
DuFour and Marzano (2011)
Hord (1997, 1998)
Sizer (1986)
Marzano et al. (2005)
Wenger and Snyder (2000)
Collective Efficacy
12. Sharing the belief that the team can organize and
execute a course of action that positively impacts
student achievement
DuFour and Marzano (2011)
Marzano et al. (2005)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

40
This section of the literature review narrowed the discussion of collaboration around
student achievement to five common characteristics and 12 associated competencies. Each of
these characteristics and competencies requires adequate levels of knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational support (see Appendix D for the 12 competencies parsed into
their knowledge, motivation, and organizational components). As such, there are knowledge,
motivation, and organizational requirements for effective collaboration around student
achievement. The next section discusses the knowledge requirements.
Knowledge Requirements for Effective Collaboration
It is important for all stakeholders to possess the factual, procedural, conceptual, and
metacognitive knowledge required to participate in effective collaboration around student
achievement. Asking uninformed people to make decisions will likely result in a group of people
making uninformed decisions (DuFour et al., 2010). The essence of collaboration around student
achievement is building the shared knowledge needed to make informed decisions (DuFour et
al., 2010). Ensuring that all team members have access to the same quality of information and
knowledge increases the likelihood that the members will arrive at conclusions that are of
similar, if not the same, quality (DuFour et al., 2010).
Factual Knowledge
Factual knowledge is fundamental because it forms the building blocks for higher levels
of knowledge construction. Knowledge of terminology is one of the major divisions of factual
knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). At a basic level, then, effective school districts
establish a shared understanding of common terminology embodying professional practice
(Marzano & Waters, 2009).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

41
Practitioners in less effective districts use established vocabulary loosely or fail to
establish a common vocabulary at all (Marzano & Waters, 2009). For example, terms such as
PLC, formative assessment, project-based learning, differentiated instruction, remediation, and
enrichment are used commonly. However, people’s usage of these terms often reveals that they
have incomplete understanding, or else complete misunderstanding of these terms. For example,
Fullan (2010) reports that the term PLC has traveled faster than the concept itself. Consequently,
many schools have implemented what they believe is a professional learning community
superficially and can show only minimal effects on student achievement. Districts that produce
notable effect sizes on student achievement develop a common “language of instruction” and
work to ensure that all stakeholders know this language (Marzano & Waters, 2009).
Teaching learners the meaning of important terms they will encounter in their routine
operations through direct instruction facilitates factual knowledge acquisition (Marzano, 2004).
An effective sequence for teaching essential vocabulary is (a) identifying a list of critical terms,
(b) providing a description, explanation, and example for each, and (c) providing opportunities
for groups to collaboratively develop accurate, learner-friendly definitions (Marzano & Waters,
2009). To ensure success throughout the organization, district leaders must identify the key
vocabulary needed for effective collaboration around student achievement and employ strategies
to ensure that all teams develop a common working knowledge of this vocabulary.
Based on the five common characteristics of collaboration around student achievement,
educators must have factual knowledge that the fundamental purpose of school is to ensure that
all students learn at high levels (DuFour et al., 2010). Acknowledging this as a fact initiates a
process of higher knowledge construction that ultimately results in practitioners identifying the
implications this fact has for their practice. Educators at all levels must also have factual
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

42
knowledge of the essential learning outcomes that all students must achieve (Marzano & Waters,
2009). These include outcomes specified by content and process standards as well as dispositions
and habits of mind that students are expected to acquire by the end of a particular learning
progression (Marzano & Waters, 2009). In addition, all stakeholders must agree on
operationalized definitions of key CLC elements. For example, there should be common
understanding of terms such as “action research” (Marzano & Waters, 2009) and “collaborative
analysis of student learning” (Langer, Colton, & Goff, 2003)
Conceptual Knowledge
Conceptual knowledge is related to factual knowledge. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001)
give a rationale for distinguishing conceptual knowledge from factual knowledge. Conceptual
knowledge is characterized by the connections that are made between discrete pieces of
knowledge in order to form an organized body of knowledge that is greater than the sum of its
parts. The authors associate conceptual knowledge with mental models, schema, and explicit and
implicit theories from cognitive psychology. The hallmark of conceptual knowledge, according
to Anderson and Krathwohl, is that it enables transfer of knowledge across domains and to novel
contexts.
In their revised taxonomy, Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) divide conceptual knowledge
into three categories. The first is Knowledge of Classifications and Categories. The second
category is Knowledge of Principles and Generalizations, and has to do with the deep
abstractions that can be made from the knowledge in a subject. Finally, conceptual knowledge
includes Knowledge of Theories, Models and Structures. This category, according to Anderson
and Krathwohl (2001), is distinct from the previous category because it relates to how groups of
principles and generalizations coalesce into larger theories, models, and structures.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

43
Working collaboratively to ensure that all students learn requires conceptual knowledge
of all three types described above. Having the ability to classify and categorize, for example, is
required when making distinctions between formative assessment and summative assessment.
This is an important distinction as it affects the mode of assessment, nature of feedback, and
impact on grades. With respect to principles and generalizations, it is important for educators to
understand, for example, core principles such as “Learning is the constant; time and support are
variables” (DuFour et al., 2010), and the implications this principle holds for all aspects of the
educational program. Finally, regarding theories, models, and structures, it is important for
educators at all levels to internalize (a) the cycle of continuous improvement and (b) the concept
of reciprocity of accountability for capacity building (Elmore, 2002) so that these mental models
shape every aspect of their practice.
Procedural Knowledge
Procedural knowledge is the knowledge of skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods—
the steps to be taken in a sequence or series. Aside from knowing the steps to take, procedural
knowledge also includes the knowledge of the criteria and conditions under which the
procedures should be followed (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Procedural knowledge is specific
to particular subjects and disciplines. For example, in math there are algorithms for solving
quadratic equations, and in science there is the scientific method of conducting experiments.
When following the steps of the procedure, the outcome or product is generally a predetermined
or fixed result. The emphasis of procedural knowledge is not the ability to use the procedure, but
rather the knowledge about the procedure (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Procedural knowledge
also includes the disciplinary norms that are subject-specific. This is the knowledge of the
heuristics used to solve problems within a particular discipline, and not necessarily the solutions
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

44
to the problems, themselves. Procedural knowledge is what one knows of the various methods
and techniques of a specific subject (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Procedural knowledge also
includes the knowledge of when and where to use the appropriate procedures. This knowledge is
often historical because it involves knowing the ways in which the procedures have been applied
in the past. Experts in their particular fields will know when and how to use the appropriate
procedures based on subject-specific criteria that will help them determine which method,
technique or procedure to apply (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
Collaboration around student achievement requires significant amounts of procedural
knowledge. For example, to enact the cycle of continuous improvement, educators must know
procedures for (a) identifying learning outcomes, (b) creating assessments, monitoring and
feedback systems, (c) planning instructional activities, (d) generating and analyzing assessment
data, (e) creating action plans based on assessment data, (f) executing action plans, and (g)
evaluating the impact of the actions taken. Additionally educators must know how to collaborate.
For example, they must know how to plan and conduct meetings, work interdependently, and
navigate interpersonal dynamics.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Metacognitive knowledge is knowledge about cognition in general, as well as knowledge
about one’s own cognitive processes and the cognitive strategies that are required for particular
tasks (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Metacognitive awareness allows, for example, teams to
gauge their progress through the stages of team development (Tuckman, as cited in Tuckman &
Jensen, 1977).
Tuckman (as cited in Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) identified stages through which
collaborative groups typically progress. With regard to the internal dynamics of the teams,
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

45
themselves, Tuckman (as cited in Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) proposed the following
developmental trajectory. In the first stage, team members are oriented with each other and begin
to test the boundaries of their interpersonal relations. They also start to develop dependency
relationships with one another. In the second stage, interpersonal conflict and resistance to group
conformity begin to surface. The third stage is marked by the lowering of resistance to group
identity formation and by the development of group cohesion. In this third stage, roles are
defined, standards of performance are developed, and modes of operation are established. In the
final stage, the group begins to function as a unit with interdependent roles flexibly assigned to
accomplish tasks with maximum effectiveness and efficiency.
With regard to a team’s engagement with a particular task, Tuckman (as cited in
Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) proposed the following trajectory:
1. The team gets oriented to the task.
2. The team has emotional responses to the demands of the task.
3. The team has an open exchange of relevant interpretations of the task.
4. Solutions begin to emerge.

The parallels between the trajectories of interpersonal dynamics and engagement with a
new task led Tuckman (as cited in Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) to organize the stages of
development, generally, into the four stages of forming, storming, norming and performing. It is
expected that all collaborative teams will progress through these stages. It is therefore important
for team members, first, to know that there is a developmental progression that plays out when a
new team is formed or when an existing team is presented with a new task. Secondly, it is
important for team members to use metacognition to locate themselves on the developmental
continuum so that they choose appropriate strategies to continue progressing along the
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

46
continuum rather than stagnating. Miller (2003) proposes an instrument for measuring the
constructs in Tuckman’s model (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977), which can be used by teams to
assess their own progress along the developmental continuum.
Dooner, Mandzuk, and Clifton (2008) similarly addressed the issue of stages of team
development as it relates specifically to PLCs. The authors asserted that a significant pitfall
involved in PLC implementation is prospective members’ ignorance of the inherent conflict that
PLCs involve. This ignorance, which can be seen as a lack of metacognitive knowledge, leads to
maladaptive responses to the conflicts that inevitably occur. As the authors explain, the inquiry
process that is part and parcel of learning communities is characterized by interpersonal tension
and teachers often view tension as a problem rather than an opportunity.
This section provided information on factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge. Additionally, the synergistic roles that these knowledge types play in promoting
effective collaboration around student achievement were discussed. The next section reviews
literature on motivational requirements for effective collaboration.
Motivation Requirements for Effective Collaboration
Knowledge alone is useless if people are not motivated. Motivation determines the extent
to which people choose to exert mental effort and persist in the face of difficulties. This section
reviews literature on constructs related to motivation. More specifically, in keeping with Clark’s
(1998) Commitment And Necessary Effort (CANE) model, this section reviews literature on the
effects of capability beliefs, affective factors, and task value on motivation.
Capability Beliefs
Self-efficacy. Clark (1998) postulated that capability beliefs are shaped by external and
internal factors. External sources that impact capability beliefs about collaboration include, for
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

47
example, organizational impediments like (a) inadequate time and resources or (b) conflicting
schedules. Organizational requirements of effective collaboration will be discussed in the next
section. Suffice it to say for the time being, though, that capability beliefs play a mediating role
between organizational factors and motivational variables.
Self-efficacy is an internal source of capability beliefs. Proposed and studied by Bandura
in the late 1970s and early 80s, self-efficacy relates to the perceived capabilities of an individual.
As a psychological construct, self-efficacy has been applied broadly in contexts from inquiries
about clinical phobias, depression, and recovery from heart attack to the study of smoking
cessation. This widespread applicability of the construct has created some ambiguity regarding
its meaning. This literature review aims to clarify the role of self-efficacy in the context of
collaboration around student achievement. While this study will ultimately consider perceived
collective teacher efficacy (CTE), the discussion begins with an articulation of Bandura’s (1977)
seminal theory of self-efficacy. Following this critical examination of self-efficacy, a discussion
of how the construct has been applied in educational research will be provided.
Bandura (1977) defines efficacy as the belief a person holds regarding his or her ability to
accomplish a given task (1977). Stated another way, Bandura (1977) defined perceived self-
efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capacity to organize and execute the courses of action required to
manage prospective situations” (p. 2). Self-efficacy has to do with a person’s perception of
competence rather than their actual level of competence (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).
Self-efficacy beliefs influence emotions and thoughts, thereby determining the extent to which
individuals exert the necessary effort to (a) initially pursue goals, (b) persist when tasks become
difficult, and (c) recover from failures and setbacks (Bandura, 1977).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

48
Self-efficacy and teacher efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief about his or
her capabilities to control his or her own level of functioning in response to events (Bandura,
1977). Related to self-efficacy beliefs, teacher efficacy beliefs refer to teachers’ judgments of
their ability to produce desired student outcomes, particularly with unmotivated or challenging
students (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Perceived teacher efficacy is essentially a teacher’s
perception of the extent to which they can impact student achievement (Tschannen-Moran et al.,
1998).
Bandura’s four sources of efficacy. Having established the importance of self-efficacy,
sources of efficacy will now be discussed. Bandura (1977, 1997) identified four sources of self-
efficacy beliefs: (a) performance accomplishments (also known as mastery experiences), (b)
vicarious experience, (c) physiological and emotional states, and (d) verbal-social persuasion. Of
the four sources, this review will focus primarily on mastery experiences, as these are the most
influential of the four sources (Bandura, 1997).
Mastery experiences relate to how an individual has performed a specific task in the past
and the outcomes they have experienced as a result. The perception by an individual that they
have been successful in the past with a particular task raises their efficacy related to that task.
Conversely, past experiences of failure with a task make it more likely that a person will expect
to perform the task poorly in the future.
In a quantitative study of 37 urban elementary schools conducted by Hoy and Woolfolk
(1993), it was found that teachers who had more teaching experience and higher levels of
education had higher levels of teaching efficacy. This is likely due, at least in part, to the fact that
the more seasoned teachers had more mastery experiences than less experienced teachers.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

49
Bandura’s (1997) second source of efficacy-shaping information is vicarious experiences.
Vicarious experiences occur by witnessing someone else model the skill desired. The person
modeling the skill must be perceived as reasonably similar to the observer. In other words, the
observer must identify with the model. If this condition is satisfied and the model executes the
skill successfully, the efficacy of the observer increases. One example of a vicarious experience
in the educational arena is peer observation of teaching (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). To the
extent that educators at all levels have opportunities to witness their peers having success with
students similar to the ones they serve, efficacy related to impacting student achievement will
increase.
Bandura’s (1997) third source of efficacy-shaping information are emotional and
physiological states, which can enhance or diminish one’s sense of efficacy. The level of anxiety
or excitement one experiences while performing a task determines whether they judge the
experience as a mastery experience or a failure (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). More
specifically, if someone experiences high levels of arousal, they perceive that they must not be
good at the task and his or her level of efficacy decreases. According to Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy
(2004), this can greatly impact individuals’ and organizations’ ability to respond to stressful
challenges that are bound to arise.
The fourth source of efficacy-shaping information is verbal-social persuasion. Verbal-
social persuasion is most influential in increasing teachers’ perceived efficacy when combined
with vicarious experiences and mastery experiences. As the name implies, verbal-social
persuasion involves colleagues or supervisors persuading teachers to feel efficacious through
encouragement, timely, task-specific feedback, or informal conversations about instances of
teachers raising student achievement.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

50
Collective teacher efficacy. Collective efficacy is a new construct that builds on
Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy formulation and Tschannen-Moran et al.’s (1998) model of
teacher efficacy (Goddard et al., 2004). Collective efficacy refers to the beliefs that the members
of a team hold about their team’s capability to interdependently produce desired results
(Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). In other words, it is the team’s belief in the collective power of
the interactive, synergistic dynamics of the group.
Within education, collective efficacy is a measure of teachers’ perceptions that the entire
faculty can organize and execute a plan of action necessary to produce desired student outcomes
(Goddard et al., 2004). Goddard et al. (2004) suggests that collective efficacy beliefs impact
student achievement by influencing teachers’ self-efficacy. According to Goddard and Skrla
(2006), the stronger an organization’s collective efficacy beliefs, the more its members will put
forth the sustained effort necessary to achieve organizational goals. Hence, teams’ sense of
collective efficacy plays a key role in determining whether individual educators will do what is
required to raise student achievement.
Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2000) proposed that two additional factors contribute to
teachers’ sense of collective efficacy: (a) analysis of the teaching task and (b) assessment of
teaching competence. The analysis of teaching task is related to teachers’ appraisals of the
complexity of the instructional tasks that are required to raise student achievement. Assessment
of teaching competence describes the internal process whereby individual teachers assess the
competency of their peers in order to judge whether or not the group has the collective skills to
successfully complete the task.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

51
Affective Factors
The CANE model (Clark, 1998) proposes that people’s affective states impact
motivation. To the extent that people experience positive emotions they will be more motivated.
When a person’s basic psychological needs are met, they tend to experience positive emotions.
When these needs are not met, negative emotions are likely to be the result. According to Deci
and Ryan’s (1987) Self-Determination Theory, people have three basic, non-hierarchical needs:
(a) autonomy, (b) competence, and (c) relatedness. Therefore, motivation is enhanced when
people feel that they have control over their actions, have a high sense of efficacy, and find
themselves in environments that allow them to connect with other human beings. Properly
functioning CLCs satisfy all three of these basic psychological needs, which suggest that CLCs
are highly motivating work structures.
Task Value
Task value relates to the perceived benefits that are associated with performing a
particular task. With regard to collaboration around student achievement, these benefits might be
internal or external. Internal benefits would include the satisfaction of working autonomously
and creatively to achieve a goal, raising one’s own sense of teaching efficacy, or the social
benefits of working closely with others on a team. External benefits might include student
achievement outcomes and positive recognition by other stakeholders. Conversely, when teams
experience dysfunction, task value decreases and motivation erodes.
This section discussed the integral role that motivation plays in determining the
effectiveness of collaboration. The next section reviews literature on the organizational
requirements. Because organizational factors influence how knowledge is developed and the
extent to which conditions are motivating, the organizational dimension is critically important.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

52
Organizational Requirements for Effective Collaboration
Although individuals within an organization may possess the knowledge, skills, and
motivation required to accomplish a given organizational goal, inadequate resources, structures,
and processes may prevent goal achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008). Furthermore, problems in
the organizational dimension can create problems with knowledge, skills, and motivation
(Rueda, 2011). Organizational culture is arguably the most important factor determining
performance in organizations because it dictates how people work together to complete a job
(Clark & Estes, 2008). In this section literature on critical organizational factors is reviewed.
Trust
Lack of trust can be a serious impediment to school reform efforts (Tschannen-Moran &
Hoy, 2000). Trust is a multifaceted construct as evidenced by its many connotations. Words used
to describe trust include willing vulnerability, benevolence, reliability, competence, honesty and
openness (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). Trust “reduces the complexities of transactions and
exchanges far more quickly and economically that other means of managing organizational life”
(Powell, as cited by Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000, p. 549). Trust is also a critical component
of shared leadership. Leaders must have faith in the people they lead in order to trust them with
decision-making authority (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000).
From an organizational standpoint, trust is often a collective judgment that another
individual or group will not take advantage, will be honest, and will follow through on their
commitments (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). Lencioni (2002) suggests that teams that lack
trust are unwilling to be vulnerable with each other and therefore avoid conflict. Further,
Lencioni asserts, lack of trust drains teams of their energy and diverts their attention away from
important tasks. Teams that lack trust are characterized by lack of commitment, deception, and
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

53
sabotaging tactics (Lencioni, 2002). Trust is the confidence among team members that their
peers’ intentions are good. This makes team members comfortable being vulnerable with one
another (Lencioni, 2002).
Trust brings with it the willingness to be vulnerable in times of risk and interdependence.
Interdependence engenders trust. Interdependence is the understanding that one individual or
department cannot do their job without the rest of the team (Rousseau, 1998 as cited in
Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). Multiple experiences of interdependence over time builds
confidence that goals, which have garnered collective commitment, will be brought to fruition
through interdependent efforts (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000).
If organizations are to create positive, trusting work environments, it is incumbent upon
the leaders of the organization to initiate trusting relationships by modeling trustworthy behavior.
For example, leaders should facilitate open communication without risk of reprisal (Tschannen-
Moran & Hoy, 2000). In addition, trust is built when leaders share decision-making authority
(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). In education, this type of shared leadership empowers
teachers to be responsive to student needs and communicates high levels of trust and respect
(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). Trust, therefore, contributes to an environment that is
conducive to student achievement.
Tan and Lim (2009) found a positive correlation between trust in coworkers and trust in
the organization. For the purposes of the study, coworkers included supervisors or colleagues.
This suggests that informal interactions among coworkers provide a context in which employees
obtain information about organizational norms and formulate their perceptions of the
organization. If employees do not have trust in their colleagues or supervisors, they may be less
likely to have trust in the organization they belong to. Coupled with past research on the
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

54
relationship between trust in supervisor and trust in organization (Tan & Tan, 2000), this
research highlights the important role that all employees play in shaping perceptions of
organizational integrity.
Leadership
Today’s American educational system calls for instructional leaders who can create and
sustain both student and adult learning and include all stakeholders in leadership responsibilities
(Thompson, Gregg, & Niska, 2004). Hence, a key focus of creating a collaborative environment
must be the development of leadership skills and capacities in the entire staff (Fullan, 2004).
Leaders, then, must have the inventory of skills required to build capacity in this way (Murphy,
Smylie, Mayrowetz, & Louis, 2009). Specifically, leaders must have knowledge of structures,
systems, and processes for distributing leadership throughout the staff, and then they must work
successfully through those structures, systems, and processes (Marzano et al., 2005).
Building capacity is about seeking answers and asking questions, as opposed to simply
giving directives. Leadership is about aiding learning and seeking out flexible solutions to
flexible problems (Marzano et al., 2005). This requires humility in the leader’s approach, and a
determination to improve (Fullan, 2001). For example, in conducting staff meetings, the focus
should be on learning (Schmoker, 2006). Reflecting on current practice, the center of attention
should be on improvement (Fullan, 2001). In considering changes to instruction, adult learning
should be central (Guskey, 2003).
Leadership is about learning (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998). Leadership is about finding and
meeting the needs of everyone in the system (Deming, 1986). Leadership aims to modify the
organization, itself, through continuous improvement. This perspective distinguishes leadership
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

55
from management (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998). In other words, leadership works on the system
rather than being confined to working in the system.
Resources and Reciprocal Accountability
According to Deering, Dilts, and Russell (2003), resources that are aligned at all levels of
an organization are necessary to analyze, plan, and take action in response to current and
potential problems. When administrators are able to anticipate potential issues, the organization
as a whole, is better positioned to overcome these issues and sustain its level of functioning
(Deering et al, 2003). Fullan (2001) expanded on this, stating that in order to improve
instruction, it requires additional resources in the form of space, time, and access to new ideas
and expertise. In other words, the responsibility of an instructional leader is providing the
necessary resources beyond basic equipment and supplies, and into the realm of resources such
as professional development and coaching to develop capacity within the organization. This
includes creating an environment and culture where collaboration for the improvement of student
learning is the norm and expectation.
According to Marzano et al. (2005), an abundance of professional learning opportunities
for teachers is a hallmark of schools that perform at high levels. In a review of existing literature
on professional development, Guskey (2003) concurs that ongoing teams meeting on a regular
basis engaged in learning, curriculum development, joint lesson planning, and problem solving
coupled with teaching observations is the most powerful form of professional development.
Further, Newmann and Wehlage (1995) highlighted the principal’s role in establishing a
collegial atmosphere conducive to professional learning not only for teachers, but for the
organization as a whole. For example, principals who had established collaborative cultures did
not merely encourage collaboration; they created structures and expectations to ensure that
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

56
teachers worked together purposefully in teams. When teachers were provided adequate time and
support to work collaboratively, they reported that collaboration was beneficial, motivating, and
valuable. In addition, providing opportunities for teachers to network with colleagues with whom
they wouldn’t normally collaborate provided even more momentum for collaborative culture.
These findings suggest that teachers value opportunities to collaborate. However, they
need more than simple encouragement. In order to facilitate collaboration, teachers need to be
provided the processes, structures, and impetus to collaborate (Easton, 2008). Fullan (2010)
cautions school districts not to neglect the need for a systemic strategy for institutionalizing
collaborative learning communities. Otherwise, Fullan (2010) warns, CLC implementation is
typically sporadic and doesn’t lead to systemic change. DuFour and Marzano (2009) suggest that
administrators are obligated to create the structures that facilitate job-embedded professional
learning and make collaboration meaningful.
As Elmore (2002) eloquently states,
Accountability must be a reciprocal process. For every increment of performance I
demand from you, I have an equal responsibility to provide you with the capacity to meet
that expectation. Likewise, for every investment you make in my skill and knowledge, I
have a reciprocal responsibility to demonstrate some new increment in performance. (p.
5).
This quote by Elmore (2002) demonstrates the principle of “reciprocity of accountability for
capacity,” which is the glue that holds accountability systems together.
Quality Assurance and Monitoring
When scarce resources have been allocated, it is important to have systems for ensuring
that these resources produce the intended outcomes that initially justified their allocation.
According to Marzano et al. (2005), the single most important factor in increasing student
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

57
achievement is monitoring and feedback. Thus, the role of school leaders in monitoring the
effectiveness of school practices in terms of their impact on student achievement is key
(Marzano et al., 2005). According to a meta-analysis conducted by Marzano et al. (2005), two
specific behaviors and characteristics were associated with improved student achievement. The
first was the continuous monitoring of the effectiveness of the school’s curricular, instructional
and assessment practices. The second was the ongoing awareness of the impact the school’s
practices have on student achievement.
Foord and Haar (2012) also identified two key strategies for ensuring that collaborative
learning communities produce the intended student achievement outcomes. The first strategy
involves alignment of student learning goals with professional learning goals and goals for
organizational culture and structure.. The second strategy involves systematic coaching using
evidence for continuous improvement.
Foord and Haar (2012) provide a list of questions that can be asked by evaluators, or by
teams, reflectively, to gauge the effectiveness of CLCs. The questions are designed to elicit
evidence of (a) student progress toward growth targets; (b) stakeholder perceptions and quality
of school processes; (c) professional growth; (d) effective use of professional development and
resources; (e) clear purposes, values and norms; (f) commitment to common academic, structural
and social goals; (g) role differentiation in pursuit of interdependent PLC goals; (h) assessment
and leadership in interpersonal and group processing skills; (i) formative and summative
assessment to determine areas in which coaching is needed; and (j) distributed leadership and
coherence.
Gajda and Koliba (2007, 2008) present the Teacher Collaboration Improvement
Framework (TCIF) and the Teacher Collaboration Assessment Rubric (TCAR). According to the
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

58
authors, the TCIF is presented “as a blueprint for supervising, assessing, and improving the
quality of teacher collaboration within a [collaborative] learning community” (p. 134).
The TCIF, which is grounded in action research theory, includes six non-linear stages: (a)
raise collaboration literacy, (b) identify and inventory communities of practice, (c) reconfigure
teacher teams, (d) assess quality of collaboration, (e) make corrections, and (f) recognize
accomplishments. Designed to be used in tandem with the TCIF, the TCAR measures a
collaborative learning community in four domains: (a) Dialogue, (b) Decision-Making, (c)
Action, and (d) Evaluation.
Lencioni (2002) provides an instrument for assessing (and activities for improving)
teams’ (a) trust, (b) willingness to engage in conflict, (c) commitment to decisions, (d)
willingness to hold themselves accountable, and (e) focus on results. Bernhardt (2011) provides
recommendations for measuring school processes, including collaboration, and also provides a
host of quality assurance and progress monitoring instruments.
This section presented literature-identifying trust as the foundation of effective
collaboration. The role of leadership in developing trust and other important organizational
conditions was also discussed. Then, literature establishing the basis for reciprocity of
accountability for capacity building was reviewed. Finally, the case was made for the
development of effective monitoring and quality assurance systems.
The next section focuses on the need for tri-level reform (district, school, and classroom)
with regard to (a) the manner of collaboration that occurs within, and between, the three levels,
and (b) the type of leadership that supports increased accountability in an era of limited funding.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

59
Tri-Level Considerations for Leadership and Organizational Change
Central Office Leadership and Organizational Change
Tri-level reform requires a system that has all of its levels aligned and connected with
each other (Fullan, 2009). Tri-level reform requires the district to become a learning organization
(Senge, 1990). As such, the central office has an integral role in developing the leadership
component, which is critical to institutionalizing effective collaboration around student
achievement.
Effective central office leadership promotes school success and, ultimately, promotes
student achievement. According to Fullan (2009), districts fail to garner buy-in, commitment,
and clarity relative to district reforms when they utilize top-down approaches. Central offices
that have successfully impacted student achievement have established relationships of defined
autonomy (Marzano & Waters, 2009) as a balanced alternative to extreme top-down or hands-off
approaches.
During the course of their meta-analysis of the effects of school-level factors on student
achievement, Marzano and Waters (2009) developed the concept of defined autonomy to
reconcile two seemingly paradoxical findings: (a) As site autonomy increased, student
achievement increased; and (b) Site-based management, which gives schools near complete
autonomy regarding goals, spending, and instruction, had no overall impact on student
achievement. The authors reasoned that autonomy, in order to reliably have a positive impact on
student achievement, must be nested within boundaries defined by district goals. Hence the term
defined autonomy.
Marzano and Waters (2009) explain that superintendents develop relationships of defined
autonomy when they (a) implement an inclusive goal-setting process that results in board-
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

60
adopted non-negotiable goals for achievement and instruction, (b) assure that schools align their
use of professional development resources with district goals, and (c) monitor and evaluate
progress toward goal achievement. Marzano and Waters (2009) assert that non-negotiable goals
for achievement and instruction are the centerpiece of any comprehensive district reform effort.
Additionally, Marzano and Waters (2009) argue that adequate resource allocation is one of the
foundations for ensuring that the non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction are met.
Providing a menu of research-proven instructional strategies, and a theory of action (Childress &
Marietta, 2008) connecting these strategies with the non-negotiable goals for learning is also an
important central office function. Districts jeopardize meeting their goals when they fail to
clearly delineate what is expected of schools, fail to allocate the resources required to meet
expectations, or fail to provide strategies for meeting expectations. (DuFour & Marzano, 2011).
Districts have moved toward the collaborative learning community model to move
teachers away from the professional isolation that has marked the last century (Elmore, 2004).
Effective collaboration does not occur naturally. The central office must ensure that teachers gain
the capacity to collaborate effectively. Ideally, the superintendent must work with district
leadership and site leadership to ensure that teachers at every school site have the time to meet
weekly with other teachers to discuss best practices (Thessin & Starr, 2011). This time should be
monitored (Foord & Haar, 2012; Gajda & Koliba, 2007, 2008) to ensure that it is used
purposefully for collaboration around student achievement. Despite the best intentions on the
part of teachers and site leaders, they need professional development on how to collaborate
around student achievement.
In a districtwide implementation of collaborative learning communities, Stamford Public
Schools found that there are four key roles the central office plays to successfully institutionalize
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

61
CLCs: (a) involving teachers and administrators in developing and leading the CLC process, (b)
developing teachers’ and administrators’ capacity to collaborate, (c) showing how CLCs fit into
the district’s improvement process so that each CLC’s work fits into an overall framework for
improving student achievement, and (d) supporting schools according to their unique needs in
order to help them move to the next stage in their CLC development (Thessin & Starr, 2011).
In addition, Wayman, Midgley, and Stringfield (2006), in a study of four school districts
utilizing observational and reflective data, examined the role of central office administrators and
found that the central office plays a crucial role in the realm of data generation and use. Kerr,
Marsh, Ikemoto, Darilek, & Barney (2006), in a study of three urban school districts utilizing a
mixed methods comparative case study design, found that the central office’s efforts to promote
instructional improvement through the use of data and monitoring was critical in improving
student outcomes. The central office should provide organized and refined data (i.e.,
information) that CLCs can use to create actionable knowledge (Mandinach, Honey & Light,
2006). Providing processes and protocols to facilitate collaboration is also a critical central office
function.
Furthermore, the central office is responsible for identifying promising practices and
sharing them throughout the district (Elmore, 2004). In essence, the central office develops the
districtwide strategy and builds a coherent organization that enables stakeholders at all levels to
see and fulfill their role in implementing the strategy (Childress et al., 2006). One key
stakeholder group is school site administrators, and they are the focus of the next section.
School Site Leadership and Organizational Change
The role of the school site administrator is critical to affecting the character and outcomes
of collaboration at the school site level. Principals significantly influence the success of schools
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

62
and, ultimately, student achievement. Marzano et al. (2005), in a meta-analysis of 69 studies
examining the correlation between school leadership of principals and student achievement,
found effective school site leadership to be an essential factor in creating the supporting
conditions for collaboration around student achievement. See Appendix E for the list of the 21
principal responsibilities (Marzano et al., 2005) that have been found to support student
achievement.
The sustainability of a collaborative learning community depends largely on school site
leadership. Several researchers agree that principal leadership is one of the most important
factors underlying the success of a collaborative learning community (Boyd & Hord, 1994;
DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Graham, 2007; Thompson et al., 2004).
Researchers have identified several characteristics of principals who support the success
of collaborative learning communities. Supportive principals create environments in which
shared leadership (Thompson et al., 2004), shared decision-making (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998),
and frequent, purposeful teacher interaction (Boyd & Hord, 1994) are the norm. For a principal
to share leadership, it requires letting go of some power (Hord, 1997). Newmann, Rutter, and
Smith (1989) found that principal leadership is highly correlated with both efficacy and
community.
The literature suggests that principals should begin by identifying the current values,
beliefs, and norms of the staff (Boyd & Hord, 1994). Without following this advice, principals
cannot guide their staff in the development of a clear vision focused on student learning.
According to Thompson et al. (2004), a leader cannot singlehandedly set the vision of the school.
Rather, the leader must facilitate the development of the mission by the stakeholders for it to be
accepted and implemented. Team and staff norms can also be anchors for success and should be
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

63

established early in a principal’s tenure. Furthermore, the principal needs to model what is
expected and hold high expectations for staff and students (Senge, 2006).
The principal’s relationships with the staff are the foundation of a collaborative learning
community. The principal must be open and trust the staff, must give frequent, meaningful, and
positive feedback, and encourage teachers to partake in leadership responsibilities. Building
relationships and developing trust are important leadership functions in collaborative learning
communities (Thompson et al., 2004). Hoy and Woolfolk (1993) conclude that it is important for
principals to inspire loyalty, trust, motivation and commitment in their teachers. Visibility on
campus, interacting with teachers and students, and frequent classroom visits are also important
because these activities allow the principal to monitor the school’s culture and adjust leadership
styles as needed.
Thompson et al. (2004) also found the importance of the principal sharing his or her
vision early on and reminding the staff of that vision regularly. This vision must be aligned with
that of the teachers in order to enhance consensus on what the school hopes to become. Teachers
and administrators should also work together to create shared goals and maintain ongoing
communication. The shared vision then helps guide the work of teachers and administrators
(Olsen & Chrispeels, 2009).
Although their actions and behaviors do not directly affect student learning, principals
indirectly impact student achievement through teacher interactions in the classrooms (DuFour &
Marzano, 2011; Marzano et al., 2005). Leaders who want to support collaborative learning
communities need to provide teachers with time to collaborate, develop lines of communication,
and increase interdependent teaching roles by sharing best practices (Liebman, Maldonado,
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

64
Lacey & Thompson, 2005). In practice, DuFour, Eaker, and DuFour (2005) enunciate this tenet
by stating that “principals in PLCs are called upon to regard themselves as leaders of leaders
rather than leaders of followers, and broadening teacher leadership becomes one of their
priorities” (p. 23). Again, this is a shift in thinking from classical notions of principals. Instead of
assuming the burden of being the only experts regarding curriculum, instruction, and assessment
practices (Marks & Printy, 2003), principals must learn to draw upon and build the capacity of
teacher leaders.
Despite the research supporting the benefits of collaborative culture there is a traditional
tendency for teachers to be isolated in their classrooms from other teachers, and for schools to be
isolated from other schools (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). Schmoker (2006) refers to isolation as
the enemy of improvement. Creating collaborative learning communities changes the traditional
path of influence that once flowed from principal to teacher to student, to a path that flows from
principal to collaborative team, to teacher, to student. Within the structure of collaborative
learning communities, principals can create opportunities for shared leadership. It is imperative
that principals create strong leadership teams (Marzano et al., 2005; Sergiovanni, 2005).
Building capacity involves change, which can be difficult. After ten years of reforming
schools using the principles of the Essential Schools Movement, Ted Sizer stated, “it is
exceedingly difficult to change schools – and particularly in a volatile environment where
assessment systems, political control, and collective bargaining are themselves in flux”
(Goldberg & Sizer, 1996, p. 687). The school site administrator must understand (a) change, (b)
the implications of change, (c) the change process, and (d) the leadership of change in order to
successfully implement collaborative learning communities (Waters & Cameron, 2007). Change
can be perceived as either first-order change or second order change, depending on the perceived
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

65
implication of change on the individual team members (Waters & Cameron, 2007). Thus, the
magnitude of change will be different based on each team member’s perceptions. Table 2 shows
the differences between first and second-order change.
Table 2
Comparison of First-order Change and Second-order Change
First-order Change Second-order Change
When a change is perceived as: When a change is perceived as:
• An extension of the past • A break with the past
• Within existing paradigms • Outside of existing paradigms
• Consistent with prevailing values and
norms
• Conflicted with prevailing values and
norms
• Implemented with existing knowledge
and skills
• Requiring new knowledge and skills

Change is complex and recursive, but essential for continuous improvement. Waters and
Cameron (2007) describe four phases of the change process as being interdependent: (a) creating
demand, (b) implementation, (c) managing personal transitions, and (d) monitoring and
evaluation.
Creating demand involves developing a tension between present reality and the preferred
future. When accomplished, this can create the motivation to move individuals and teams from
the status quo toward the preferred outcome, in this case, the successful implementation of
collaboration around student achievement (Waters & Cameron, 2007). Creating demand requires
school site administrators to expose their teams to research related to effective collaborative
practices. They must also be willing to challenge present conditions and routinely communicate
beliefs about collaboration around student achievement (Waters & Cameron, 2007).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

66
Implementing collaborative learning communities will require leading staff members
through the implementation with focus, fidelity, and consistency. The tension created must be
sustained in order to see successful implementation. Implementation requires school site
administrators to know about collaborative learning communities as well as inspiring their team
members to utilize the research-based practices. They must believe that their teams can
successfully implement a collaborative learning community and they must convey that belief to
them (Waters & Cameron, 2007).
External organizational changes cause internal personal transitions. Marzano and Waters
(2009) explain how managing personal transitions created by second-order change requires
flexibility to differentiate leadership behaviors and adapt to the needs created by change.
Additionally, taking on the role of leading change may be a second-order change for school site
administrators, themselves. Thus, they must reflect upon, and be aware of, the implications of
change for themselves as well as for those they lead (Waters & Cameron, 2007).
Monitoring the implementation of collaboration around student achievement will require
school site administrators to collect and analyze data on the quality, fidelity, consistency, and
intensity of implementation. They will also need to assess the impact that collaborative learning
communities have on student achievement as well as the impact it has on team members (Waters
& Cameron, 2007).
Since collaboration is a shared responsibility, leadership teams can help to mitigate
negative consequences by helping to articulate the vision, develop and provide new structures to
guide and support team members, listen to concerns, provide clarity, and seek input from other
team members to see what is or is not working (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). This positive support
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

67
will help ensure a successful implementation of collaboration around student achievement
(Waters & Cameron, 2007).
The structure of collaborative learning community works against isolation and demands
interaction between team members for the purpose of improving student achievement (DuFour &
Marzano, 2011). “Principals are in a key strategic position to promote or inhibit the development
of a teacher learning community in their school. School administrators set the stage and
conditions for starting and sustaining the community development process (McLaughlin &
Talbert, 2006, p. 56). Principals who can successfully lead the implementation of collaboration
around student achievement will not only positively impact student achievement, but also
facilitate the learning of those who directly serve students (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). As
mentioned earlier in this section, one of the key functions of school site administrators is to
develop teacher leaders. Teacher leadership as a facilitator of organizational change is the focus
of the next section.
Teacher Leadership and Organizational Change
The purpose of schools is to ensure that all students learn at high levels (DuFour et. al.,
2010). Teachers are charged with directly carrying out this fundamental purpose daily in
classrooms, face to face with students. Because of this daily direct interface with students,
teacher practice is the dominant factor in determining student achievement (Sanders, Wright, &
Horn, 1997). Teacher leaders, as both individual classroom practitioners and facilitators of
collective improvement on their teams, are powerfully positioned to impact student achievement.
Teacher leadership has become a division of managerial labor (Little et al., 2003).
Department chairpersons and lead teachers now fulfill managerial functions that were once the
purview of school site administrators. In CLCs, the role of the teacher leader takes on an even
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

68
greater significance. Zboralski (2009) identified several key roles for teacher leaders in
collaborative learning communities including (a) leading the community, (b) motivating
community members, (c) planning and organizing community work, (d) providing specialized
coaching and support, and (e) fostering communication and dissemination of information.
The culture of collaboration that undergirds CLCs is antithetical to the traditional culture
of isolation that has existed in schools (Flinders, 1988; Gratch, 2000; Tye & Tye, 1984).
Collaborative culture does not develop on its own. Teacher leaders, along with district and site
leaders, shoulder the primary responsibility for cultivating it. As one who cultivates land must
guard against the infringement of weeds, so teacher leaders must guard against threats to
collaborative culture. For example, teacher leaders must guard against attempts to co-opt
collaboration time for the purposes of fulfilling administrators’ directives (Hargreaves & Dawe,
1990; Little et al., 2003; Wood, 2007). Teacher leaders must be careful not to let their teams
mistake friendly congeniality or feigned consensus for collaborative culture (Cranston, 2009;
Dooner et. al., 2008; Williams, Brien, & Sullivan, 2008). Teacher leaders must bear in mind that
expecting or allowing collaboration to instantly bring shared values and social cohesion limits
the potential for true community to develop and undermines reform efforts (Achinstein, 2002).
Shifting from a culture of isolation to a culture of collaboration requires transformative
learning (Mezirow, 1997). Transformative learning changes points of view and habits of mind,
which shape thoughts, feelings, expectancies, and actions (Mezirow, 1997). Transformative
learning is psychically threatening because it challenges people’s views of themselves and their
core assumptions and beliefs. Mezirow (1997) defined three roles for facilitators of
transformative learning that inform teacher leaders as they do the tough work of developing a
culture of collaboration. Teacher leaders must help team members to (a) become aware and
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

69
critical of their own assumptions and those of others, (b) recognize frames of reference and use
imagination to reframe problems, and (c) engage effectively in critical discourse.
In a similar vein, Heifetz and Laurie (1997), defined adaptive work as that “required
when our deeply held beliefs are challenged, when the values that made us successful become
less relevant, and when legitimate yet competing perspectives emerge” (p. 38). Heifetz and
Laurie (1997) provide guidance for teacher leaders as they lead adaptive change. Accordingly,
teacher leaders must (a) maintain an elevated perspective on the adaptive change process, (b)
define and keep attention on adaptive challenges, (c) regulate distress so that it motivates without
disabling, and (d) empower their team members.
A hallmark of a culture of collaboration is situated learning (Horn, 2005). As Horn
(2005) explains, situated learning locates learning, in the case of CLCs, in the context of
interactions with colleagues and experiences in the learning community. Using this framework,
Horn (2005) defines learning as “a change in participation in a community of practice” (p. 211).
Particularly, with respect to CLC participation providing a context for carrying out reform, it is
important for teacher leaders to lead their teams in the process of engaging with reform artifacts.
Reform artifacts, according to Horn (2005), include slogans, policy documents, theories of
action, and the like. Whereas central offices devise reform strategies and principals create the
conditions to facilitate the implementation of these strategies, teachers implement the strategies
directly. In order for teachers to implement reform authentically and effectively, teachers must
extract from reform artifacts the larger ideas of the given reform and reflect upon the
implications of these ideas for classroom practice.
Horn (2005) also identified teachers’ conversation-based classification schemes (e.g.,
slow vs. smart students) and renderings of classroom practice as important reframing
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

70
opportunities upon which teacher leaders should capitalize. More specifically, when teachers
reveal their pedagogical assumptions and practices through collegial conversations, teacher
leaders can facilitate critical discourse that (a) identifies and challenges these assumptions and
practices, and (b) offers alternate frames of reference for consideration.
Teacher leaders must also work to establish a climate of trust on their teams. The
literature consistently underscores the importance of trust to effective collaboration (Datnow,
Park & Wohlstetter, 2007; Dooner et. al., 2008; Hipp, Huffman, Pankake & Olivier, 2008;
Servage, 2008). Teachers, for example, must feel safe admitting that their instructional practices
have been inadequate when faced with compelling data. They must trust the collective
competency of the community to help them improve, and they must trust that data will not be
used to hurt them. According to Datnow et al. (2007), such trust is built upon mutual
accountability among teachers and between teachers and administrators. Lencioni (2002)
suggests that this trust is fostered when team leaders authentically demonstrate vulnerability by
exposing their challenges and shortcomings.
Finally, ensuring that all students learn at high levels requires a focus on results (DuFour
et. al., 2010). Focusing on results requires teachers to develop several competencies. Teacher
leaders must be adept at taking inventory of their teams’ knowledge and skills to make sure that
these critical competencies are developed. Among these competencies, teachers must be skilled
at developing formative assessments and using formative assessment strategies (Wiliam, 2011)
that reveal students’ understanding and progress with respect to learning goals. Teachers must
also be skilled at using data management systems (Datnow et al., 2007; Mandinach et. al., 2006;
Wayman, 2005) to store, analyze and communicate data. Teachers must have the capacity to
collectively analyze student work in order to identify strengths and weaknesses in individual and
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

71
collective practice (Langer et al., 2003; Little et al., 2003). Finally teacher teams must develop
the collective capacity to respond in a timely, directive, and systematic manner whenever there is
a demonstrated need for intervention or enrichment (DuFour et. al., 2010).
This literature review began by establishing the need to move from the isolation that
characterizes educational institutions toward a vision of organizational capacity and internal
accountability. Developing a collaborative culture was identified as a high-leverage strategy for
facilitating this transition. Various models of collaboration in educational settings were presented
and common characteristics of effective collaboration were identified. Specific consideration
was given to requirements in the areas of knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
factors. Finally, the roles that central office administrators, school site administrators, and
teacher leaders play in bringing about organizational change were discussed.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

72
Chapter Three: Methodology
Authors: Anthony Carruthers, Sonia Llamas, Esther Salinas
3

Purpose of the Inquiry and Inquiry Questions
The overall purpose of this inquiry project was to assist PUSD with its organizational
goal of institutionalizing effective collaboration around student achievement. The project was
marked by three distinct stages. The objective of the first stage was to examine various aspects
and forms of collaboration around student achievement in order to distill essential components
that drive its success. The objective of the second stage was to utilize the Clark & Estes (2008)
gap analysis problem-solving framework to determine and analyze the challenges in knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational factors that may impede PUSD as it pursues its
organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student achievement. In the
third stage of the project the team developed potential solutions to address the root causes of
these challenges. The inquiry questions for this study were:
1. What are the challenges for PUSD teachers, in knowledge and skills, motivation, and the
organizational dimension, that may impede the achievement of PUSD’s organizational
goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student achievement?
2. What are the potential solutions to address PUSD teachers’ challenges in knowledge and
skills, motivation, and the organizational dimension, and thereby support PUSD’s
organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student
achievement?

3
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed reflecting the team approach to this
project. These authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

73
Methodology Framework
The framework for the methodology in this study was the Gap Analysis Problem Solving
Approach (GAP or Gap Analysis) (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011) The elements of the Gap
Analysis framework address measurement, diagnosis, evaluation, and proposed solutions. The
Gap Analysis Process Model addresses gaps in knowledge and skills and expands beyond these
realms to include gaps in motivation, organization, and culture to improve performance (Rueda,
2011). Whereas the classic Gap Analysis framework addresses gaps with respect to specific
organizational metrics, the current project used the framework to analyze gaps in the
implementation of a comprehensive innovation: Collaboration Around Student Achievement
(CASA). More specifically, the analysis diagnosed the root causes of the discrepancy between
current conditions and institutionalization of the innovation.
Gap Analysis uses both qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative methodology
leads one to discover how people feel, know, perceive, think, and act in a setting or situation
(Patton, 2002). It clarifies the human causes behind the performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008).
As such, the Gap Analysis framework relies on qualitative data to validate, and add depth of
understanding to, gaps in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational factors identified
through quantitative methods.
Figure 1 is a schematic diagram showing the sequence of steps in the Gap Analysis
Process. The figure also displays the cyclical nature of the Gap Analysis Process.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

74

Figure 1. Gap Analysis Process. Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
The steps of the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Process Model are:
Step 1: Goals: Identify the organizational goal.
Step 2: Current Achievement: Determine the current levels of performance with respect
to the identified goal areas.
Step 3: Gaps: Determine gaps between goals and current performance.
Step 4: Causes: Hypothesize causes in knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational culture, and empirically validate which of these are root causes.
The following steps of the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Process Model will be discussed
in Chapters Four, Five and Six of the dissertation and will not be incorporated into this
methodology chapter.
Step 5: Solutions: Plan systemic and individual gap-closing solutions.
Step 6: Implement: Implement systemic and individual gap-closing solutions.
Step 7: Evaluate: Evaluate and modify solutions for continual improvement.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

75
The significance of this study was the development of an Innovation Gap Analysis
process that may be adapted by other school districts to measure the institutionalization of
collaboration around student achievement or other innovative reforms.
Step 1: Identify the Organizational Goal
Through a meeting with PUSD’s superintendent and chief academic officer, it was agreed
that the focus of the current project would be the district’s goal to improve collaboration in order
to raise student achievement. For the purposes of this project, the term collaboration around
student achievement (CASA) describes the gestalt of collaborative efforts taking place between
stakeholders at all levels of the organization whose primary purpose is student achievement.
Collaborative Learning Communities (CLCs) is herein used as a generic term for models of
collaboration including, but not limited to, Purposeful Communities (Waters et al., 2005),
Professional Learning Communities as defined by DuFour & Eaker (1998), Communities of
Practice (Wenger & Snyder, 2000), and Professional Learning Communities as described by
Hord (1997). Appendix B shows the various models of collaboration in educational settings and
displays the salient concepts and characteristics of each model.
To operationalize PUSD’s organizational goal, a review of literature related to
collaboration around student achievement was conducted. The review revealed five key
characteristics required for effective collaboration around student achievement. Using the five
key characteristics as an organizing framework, the team identified 12 critical competencies that
support each of the characteristics. See Appendix D for a description of the characteristics and
the competencies based on knowledge and skill, motivation, and organization. PUSD’s
organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student achievement, then,
was operationalized as follows. PUSD will have achieved its organizational goal to the extent
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

76
that, districtwide, knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational factors are sufficient to
sustain high marks on measures of the 12 competencies.
Step 2: Current Achievement
The Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) has embarked on multiple initiatives and
projects supporting diverse goals. Examples of these include Excellent Middle Schools, STEM
Education, College and Career Pathways: Linked Learning, Special Education Information
System (SEIS), Behavior Response to Intervention (RtI), Redistricting Task Force, John Muir
High School Reinvention, Step Up To Writing (Auman, 2003), Kagan student engagement
strategies (Kagan & Kagan, 2009), Thinking Maps, ConnectEd and National Academy
Foundation Certification, Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI), Every Classroom Everyday (ECED),
and technology infrastructure improvement. Against this backdrop, collaboration around student
achievement is currently seen as one of many initiatives that teachers, site leadership teams, and
district administrators must juggle. Each of these initiatives and reform efforts have been
researched and implemented with varying degrees of fidelity. Consequently, their impacts on
student achievement have been mixed.
With regard to collaboration around student achievement, specifically, individual schools,
teams, and teachers demonstrate various stages of concern (Hall & Loucks, 1979) and levels of
use (Hall, Loucks, Rutherford & Newlove, 1975). Some teachers do not belong to a collaborative
team at all, and although many teachers do belong to grade-level or department teams, the
quality of collaboration on these teams varies widely. California Partnership Academies, of
which collaboration around student achievement is an integral part, exist within three of PUSD’s
four high schools. However, these academies also display a wide range of performance with
regard to collaboration around student achievement. The current performance in PUSD is
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

77
consistent with empirical findings that efforts to institutionalize models of collaboration are often
met with varying levels of commitment to learning and collaborating (Mullen & Schunk, 2010).
Step 3: Gaps
The PUSD seeks to ensure consistent and effective collaboration around student
achievement by all teams within the organization. In PUSD, there are 28 schools with grade-
level, department, academy, and administrative teams. In addition there are various departments
and teams working within the central office. During informal interviews, grade level and
department chairs, site administrators, and central office administrators were asked to gauge the
effectiveness of collaboration on their teams. The responses suggested that there is room for
improvement on all teams at all levels. It was hypothesized, therefore, that no department or
team within PUSD has achieved the desired level of performance with regard to collaboration
around student achievement. Hence, the gap between current performance and full
institutionalization of the desired level of collaboration around student achievement was assumed
to be 100%.
Step 4: Causes
Step four of the Gap Analysis Model (Clark & Estes, 2008) is to hypothesize and then
validate the causes of performance gaps. People often have naive and unfounded theories for
explaining performance problems (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). These assumed causes
can provide valuable insights. However, before they are determined to be actual causes, they
should be validated through systematic investigation. Otherwise, as Rueda and Clark and Estes
relate, organizations choose solutions that often fail to produce the results they desire. In the
current project, assumed causes were identified through (a) informal interviews, (b) consultation
of learning, motivation and organizational theory, and (c) review of the literature on
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

78
collaboration around student achievement (see Table 3 for a summary of the assumed causes
derived from these three sources).
Causes informed by informal interviews. To elicit the perceptions and perspectives of
stakeholders from multiple levels within PUSD about the implementation of learning
communities, informal interviews were conducted with 7 teachers, 13 school principals, and 9
district leaders. The guiding questions were: How are learning communities implemented at your
site? and What are the likely causes of any performance challenges with regard to the
implementation of learning communities?
Informal interviews with central office administrators. One central office administrator
shared that, until recently, the Pasadena Unified School District has given “little attention to a
coherent framework” that supports district-wide improvement. Although there have been
“sporadic attempts to implement forms of collaboration, they have been applied in “various
capacities and with varying degrees of success…but without collective purpose.” These
responses seem to indicate that the district’s attempt to implement multiple initiatives
unsystematically has resulted in uneven success throughout the district.
Central office administrators also expressed frustration over what they perceived as a
series of “unconnected” demands they are expected to meet year after year. There was a “shared
belief” among central office administrators that current initiatives would not continue for the
following year. A central office administrator commented, “We buy the new thing and use it
until the next new thing comes out. We never evaluate progress and we are not held accountable.
That’s why we don’t progress.”
When asked about their understanding of the characteristics of learning communities, no
central office administrator could define the approach to learning communities that was currently
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

79
being implemented within the PUSD. The term, “Professional Learning Community” (DuFour
et. al., 2010) was mentioned in several responses, but there was no elaboration with regard to the
defining characteristics of the model.
Informal interviews with site-level administrators. Thirteen principals were informally
interviewed. In response to How are learning communities implemented at your site? an
elementary school principal said, “The number of district initiatives is difficult to manage, given
the constraints of time to meet with faculty and staff during the monthly allotted meeting times.”
Another stated, “ Prioritizing initiatives coming from different district departments is
challenging, especially when each initiative competes for the same small allocation of time.” A
secondary principal commented “It would be great if district departments collaborated so we
[principals] wouldn’t get conflicting information from different departments. This is a problem
when it comes to our school budgets.” Another secondary principal stated, “Our current culture
[in PUSD] promotes isolation among the schools. We don’t really know what other schools are
doing.” An elementary principal stated, “I don’t really like how PLCs are being implemented and
feel that PLCs should be as individual as schools and not something we all have to implement in
the same way.”
Informal interviews with teachers. Seven teachers were interviewed informally. One
teacher leader shared “The district lacks focus and does not provide the direction needed to make
the gains with students.” When teachers were asked to define learning communities, no two
answers were the same. Responses included, “We meet everyday during lunch,” “We meet once
a week,” and “We can’t get our team to meet because, according to the contract, we can only
meet as grade levels on ‘A’ Mondays [A Mondays, per the union contract, are 14 specific days
within the school year when administrators can require teachers to meet.] No one shared an
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

80
understanding of what was being asked of teachers. Each teacher expressed that “the district is
not transparent or mutually accountable, and they [central office administrators] lack clear
direction about the outcomes for the district.”
Causes informed by learning, motivation, and organizational theories. The body of
knowledge in learning, motivation and organizational theory informed possible causes for
performance gaps. Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) Taxonomy, was used as a framework for
considering knowledge causes. The Commitment And Necessary Effort (CANE) model (Clark,
1999), was used for considering motivation causes. The Gap Analysis framework (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011) was used to analyze organizational gaps and identify possible
organizational causes.
Knowledge theory. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) categorize knowledge according to
four domains: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and
metacognitive knowledge. Possible causes of knowledge performance gaps were identified
according to these four domains. All four types of knowledge are required to sustain
collaboration around student achievement, whereas deficiencies in any of these types of
knowledge could lead to performance gaps (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). Table 3 lists the four
domains of knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) and provides examples of each related to
collaboration around student achievement.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

81
Table 3
Possible Causes of Knowledge Performance Gaps
Type of Knowledge Examples
Factual Knowledge Key vocabulary related to CASA; Knowledge of the various models
of CASA and the prominent features of each; Operationalized
definition of CASA.
Conceptual Knowledge Knowledge of the key principles of CASA; Understanding of the
fundamental ideas of CASA and how the elements are interrelated,
Understanding of the benefits of CASA; Understanding of the
generalizations, theories, models, and structures of CASA.
Procedural Knowledge Knowing how to carry out the key functions of CASA, e.g.,
facilitating meetings and conducting action research.
Metacognitive Knowledge Goal-Setting; Knowing when and why to apply interventions; Self-
reflection regarding progress through the stages of team
development

Motivation theory. Motivation is what the learner contributes to the process of learning
and is considered a prerequisite to meaningful learning (Mayer, 2011). Clark’s (1999)
Commitment And Necessary Effort (CANE) model posits that motivation is the product of
capability beliefs, affective factors, and task value. As such, these three factors, in addition to
other important motivation constructs, were considered as possible sources of performance gaps.
With respect to capability beliefs, in particular, lack of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) and lack of
collective efficacy (Goddard et al., 2004) were identified as the primary probable causes of
performance gaps.
Organization theory. Clark and Estes (2008) identify key aspects of organization that are
possible sources of performance gaps. According to the authors, gaps usually exist in work
processes, material resources, organizational culture, and features of effective organizational
change. As such, potential causes in these areas were considered.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

82
Causes informed by the literature. The literature related to collaboration around student
achievement is extensive. A review of this literature yielded key elements that are required for
effective collaboration around student achievement. See Appendix B for prominent concepts and
characteristics of models of collaboration in educational settings. Deficiencies in any of the key
elements were considered as possible sources of performance gaps.
Table 4 displays the assumed causes, organized by source and classified as Knowledge,
Motivation, or Organization.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

83
Table 4
Summary of Assumed Causes for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization
Sources

Knowledge

Motivation Organizational
Processes
Interview
No clear definition of
CASA
Lack of self-reflection on
progress as a learning
community
Lack of understanding of
the process – what and why
Lack of procedural
knowledge (i.e., how to
conduct CLC business)
Lack of collective
efficacy
Value
Interest
Attribution beliefs
Lack of planning time
Resource allocation
Lack of collaboration
Lack of prioritization
No clear goals
Theory
Factual
Conceptual
Procedural
Metacognitive

Self-efficacy
Collective efficacy
Perceived value
Attributions
Professional identity
Beliefs
Values
Goals
Isolation
Collective
accountability

Literature
Failure to operationalize the
reform goal
Procedures
Lack of conceptual
framework
No cycle of continuous
improvement due to lack of
reflection
Level of efficacy
Perceived Task Value
Norms and beliefs
Clear goals
Isolation
Distrust
Procedures
Multiple initiatives
Competing
allegiances
Lack of accountability

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

84
Step 5: Validated Causes
Mixed methods captured data in order to validate the assumed causes listed in Table 4,
and to identify other causes of performance gaps relative to PUSD’s goal of institutionalizing
effective collaboration around student achievement. Quantitative data were obtained using the
Collaboration Around Student Achievement Team Competency Survey. Qualitative data,
collected via semi-structured interviews, achieved methodological triangulation and added depth
to the quantitative data. In keeping with the principles of qualitative research (Patton, 2002),
secondary goals of the qualitative data collection were to add a personalized dimension to the
project and to clarify the human causes behind the performance gaps in the organization (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
Population and Sample
The survey population consisted of all 915 certificated staff (teachers, assistant
principals, principals, and central office administrators) employed in PUSD during the 2011-
2012 school year. Pasadena Unified School District was selected for this inquiry because, at the
onset of the project, the researchers were employed within the district and represented three
levels within the district: central office administrator, school site administrator, and classroom
teacher. Of the 915 employees in the target population, 281 PUSD certificated staff members
submitted a response to the quantitative survey.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
The following section describes the data collection instruments and the procedures that
were utilized to collect data for this project.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

85
Surveys
Quantitative data were obtained using the Collaboration Around Student Achievement
(CASA) Team Competency Survey Protocol (see Appendix F). The survey addresses five
essential characteristics of effective collaboration around student achievement, broken down into
12 critical competencies (see Appendix D for the CASA team characteristics and competencies).
Survey items were developed to assess Knowledge and Skills (K), Motivation (M), and
Organizational Factors (O) related to the competencies. For each competency, one to three items
were developed for each of the three levels (K, M, and O) of the Clark and Estes (2008)
framework. Additionally, several items were developed to assess teams’ perceived collective
efficacy. The survey contained 69 items. For each item, excluding six demographic items,
respondents were able to respond on a sliding scale from 0 to 100 with 0 indicating “Strongly
Disagree” and 100 indicating “Strongly Agree.”
The Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) administered the CASA Team
Competency Survey. On June 7, 2012, the Superintendent of Schools sent an email to all 915
certificated staff detailing the nature of the survey, and providing a direct link to the web-based
survey, which was hosted by Qualtrics. The survey window closed on August 23, 2012.
Qualtrics’ forced response feature was enabled, requiring respondents to answer all survey items
before moving on to the next group of items. Respondents were only allowed to submit the
survey once.
The Qualtrics instrument maintained respondents’ confidentiality as no identifying data
were collected. Survey data were uploaded to SPSS. Data were also stored and backed up on a
password-protected computer.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

86
Interviews
Standardized semi-structured interviews were conducted for the following advantages:
(a) the instrument was made available for those reading the findings of the study, (b) the focus of
the interview respected participants’ time, and (c) analysis was facilitated by making responses
easily comparable (Patton, 2002, p. 346). The CASA interview protocol consisted of 20
questions related to the assumed causes in Table 4. See appendix G for a list of the 20 interview
questions.
Survey respondents indicated whether or not they were willing to participate in the
qualitative portion of the study. Key informants (Patton, 2002) from all three levels (central
office administrators, school site administrators, classroom teachers) were selected for individual
interviews. The pool of interviewees included six central office administrators, six school site
administrators, and six classroom teachers.
In each case, the inquiry team member sent a formal recruitment letter to the interviewee,
which initiated the process of the researcher and the interviewee mutually agreeing upon a time
and place to conduct an interview. With the interviewees’ consent, the interviews were audio
recorded. The interviews typically lasted between 60 and 90 minutes. Interviews were conducted
at each of the three levels (central office administrators, school site administrators, classroom
teachers) until redundancy (Patton, 2002), marked by interviewees’ tendency to duplicate
answers and provide limited amounts of new information, was reached. As it turned out, four
interviews were conducted at each of the three levels within the district. The setting for each
interview was a private room. Care was taken to obtain a quiet room with ample space, where
interviewee and interviewer could have open discussion without interruption, and without
compromising confidentiality.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

87
Data Analysis
The unit of analysis for this inquiry project was the Pasadena Unified School District.
The purpose of this inquiry project suggested a mixed methods approach. This section explains
the strategies that were used to analyze survey and interview data.
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the survey data. Specifically, means and
standard deviations were computed for each survey item. Additionally, means and standard
deviations were computed for each of the 12 competencies. Finally, grand means of the
knowledge items, motivation items, and organization items were computed.
Audio recordings of the semi-structured interviews were transcribed and coded using the
12 competencies in conjunction with the K/M/O classification scheme (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The researchers reviewed the transcripts and identified emergent themes relevant to the current
project. Specifically, the researchers looked for patterns in the interview data that (1) clarified
ambiguous results from the survey, (2) bolstered the findings from the survey, or (3) registered
as completely new. Additionally, the researchers looked for interesting convergences and
divergences of the perspectives between the three levels in the district.
The results of the data collected and analyzed are presented in Chapter Four, which
follows.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

88
Chapter Four: Results
Author: Anthony Carruthers
Purpose of Study
This inquiry project was designed to assist Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD)
with its organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student
achievement. The inquiry questions for this project, which focuses specifically on the role of
teachers in supporting PUSD’s organizational goal, were:
1. What
are
the
challenges
for
PUSD
teachers,
in
knowledge
and
skills,

motivation,
and
the
organizational
dimension,
that
may
impede
the

achievement
of
PUSD’s
organizational
goal
to
institutionalize
effective

collaboration
around
student
achievement?
2. What
solutions
would
address
PUSD
teachers’
challenges
in
knowledge
and

skills,
motivation,
and
the
organizational
dimension,
and
thereby
support

PUSD’s
organizational
goal
to
institutionalize
effective
collaboration
around

student
achievement?
Mixed methods captured data to identify and validate the causes of performance gaps
pertaining to PUSD classroom teachers. These causes, associated with teachers’ knowledge and
skills, motivation, or with the organizational dimension, need to be addressed in order to achieve
PUSD’s organizational goal. Potential solutions to address the validated causes of the gaps will
be presented and discussed in Chapter Five.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

89
Overview of Data Collection
District Survey
To validate the assumed causes, quantitative data were obtained using the Collaboration
Around Student Achievement Team Competency Survey (see Chapter Three for a discussion of
assumed causes and a description of the survey). The survey population consisted of all 915
certificated staff (teachers, assistant principals, principals, and central office administrators)
employed in PUSD during the 2011-2012 school year. Of the 915 solicited participants, 281
PUSD certificated staff members (30.7%) submitted a completed survey. Though the response
rate of the survey is low (30.7%), this is typical for web-based surveys (Nair & Adams, 2009;
Shih & Fan, 2009).
Of the 281 certificated staff members who completed the survey, the 219 who were
classroom teachers formed the subsample for the current study, which examines collaboration
around student achievement from a classroom teacher-level perspective. Two concurrent studies
(Llamas, 2013; Salinas, 2013) were conducted from the same original data set (n = 281),
isolating central office administrators (n = 18) and school site administrators (n = 34),
respectively. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the survey data. All statistical
analyses were conducted using SPSS 20.0 statistical package for Windows (see Appendix H for
data on n = 281).
Teacher Interviews
Interviews were conducted subsequent to the administering of the Collaboration Around
Student Achievement Team Competency Survey. Interviews were conducted as a form of
methodological triangulation (Patton, 2002), adding depth and clarity to the quantitative data
and, in some cases, further validating the assumed causes.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

90
Six key teacher informants (Patton, 2002) were identified to ensure the emergence of
meta-themes, as recommended by Guest, Bunce, and Johnson (2006), and selected to participate
in individual interviews. Of the six key informants selected, two were female and four were
male.
A point of redundancy was reached after the fourth interview when no new information
was forthcoming (Lincoln & Guba, as cited in Patton, 2002). Thus, of the six interviews
originally planned, four were conducted and it was not necessary to conduct the final two
interviews.
Demographic Data
The first section of the survey included 12 demographic items, broken down into three
categories: participant information, current work setting, and models of collaboration used. For a
complete breakdown of the demographic data, see Appendix I.
Of the 219 teachers surveyed, 178 were female (81.3%) and 41 were male (19.7%).
Participants’ ages were distributed as follows: twelve were in the 21-28 year range; twenty-six
were in the 29-34 year range; thirty-seven were in the 35-40 year range; thirty-eight were in the
41-46 year; forty-three were in the 47-52 year range; thirty-seven were in the 53-58 year range;
and twenty-six were 59 years or older.
One hundred twenty of the respondents were Caucasian-American (54.8%), 41 were
Hispanic-American (18.7%), 23 were African-American (10.5%) and 16 were Asian-American
(7.3%).
Teachers in the survey tended to have at least a Master’s Degree (n = 164; 74.9%) and
124 (56.6%) had been in the teaching profession for more than ten years. In terms of work
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

91
setting, 87 (39.7%) were assigned to elementary sites (K-5), 47 (21.5%) worked in middle
schools (6-8), and 39 (17.8%) were assigned to secondary school sites (9-12).
Thirty-Five participants had five years or fewer in their current position. Sixty had served
6 to 10 years, 58 had served 11 to 16 years, 36 had served 16 to 20 years, 18 had served 21 to 25
years, eight had served 26 to 30 years, and four had served 31 years or longer.
Of the 219 teachers who completed the survey, 108 indicated that they had received
training on a particular model of collaboration around student achievement. Of the 108 who had
received training, 75 indicated that they had been trained in the Professional Learning
Community (PLC) model. When asked about the implementation of a particular model of
collaboration, 106 of the 219 respondents indicated that a particular model was being
implemented. Of the 106 teachers who indicated that a model was being implemented at their
site, 63 indicated that the PLC model was the one being implemented at their site.
Respondents were asked to indicate the number of collaborative teams to which they
belong. One hundred seventy-four respondents indicated belonging to at least one team and 55
did not identify themselves as a member of any collaborative team.
All teacher interviewees were male. Their ages were distributed as follows: two were in
the 35-40 year range; one was in the 41-46 year range; and one was in the 47-52 year range. All
interviewees had served at least five year in their current position.
Validation of the Causes of the Perceived Performance Gap
A primary goal in this project was to answer Inquiry Question #1: What are the
challenges for PUSD teachers, in knowledge and skills, motivation, and the organizational
dimension, that may impede the achievement of PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize
effective collaboration around student achievement? To do this, survey and interview data were
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

92
used to validate and prioritize the assumed causes of the performance gap. The results of this
process are presented in the sections that follow.
Knowledge Results
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Causes
In Chapter Three, the assumed causes of the performance gap were outlined. The
assumed causes of the knowledge gaps were classified as factual, procedural, conceptual, or
metacognitive (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). It was noted in scanning interviews that staff (a)
did not have a clear definition of collaboration around student achievement (factual knowledge),
(b) lacked an understanding of the process of collaboration around student achievement
(conceptual knowledge), (c) lacked the procedural knowledge to conduct CLC business, and (d)
had not engaged fully in self-assessment of their progress as a learning community
(metacognitive knowledge).
The literature on collaborative learning communities (CLCs) revealed the following
common gaps associated with CLC implementation: (a) failure to operationalize the reform goal
(factual knowledge), (b) incomplete understanding of the conceptual framework that undergirds
CLCs, (c) lack of knowledge with regard to fundamental CLC procedures, and (d) failure to
engage in the cycle of continuous improvement due to the absence of meaningful reflection
(metacognitive knowledge).
The gap analysis methodology attempts to validate these assumed causes. In this section
the results of the application of this methodology is presented.
Knowledge Survey Results
In total, the survey included 17 items eliciting respondents’ self-reports of their teams’
knowledge and skills pertinent to collaboration around student achievement. Respondents ranked
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

93
each item on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 indicating “Strongly Disagree” and 100 indicating
“Strongly Agree”. Mean teacher responses (n = 219) for each item are reported in Table 5. The
grand mean for the 17 knowledge items was 68.3 on a scale of 0 to 100, indicating that
respondents, on the whole, reported a moderate level of agreement with the statements presented
in the knowledge items. As a matter of practicality, only the two items with the lowest mean
responses (i.e., the highest priority) will be analyzed in further detail. The fact that only these
two highest-priority items are analyzed in further detail does not imply that the rest of items are
not worthy of similar attention. In fact, the results from all of the survey items warrant PUSD’s
attention as it pursues its goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student
achievement. For further analysis of the knowledge survey results relative to the 12
competencies, see Appendix I and Appendix J.
Table 5 displays the survey items used to assess teachers’ knowledge and skills with their
corresponding means and standard deviations. Each mean represents the average teacher
response to the associated survey item on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 indicating “Strongly
Disagree” and 100 indicating “Strongly Agree”. The items are presented in ascending order
according to their means.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

94
Table 5
Knowledge Item Results in Ascending Order by Means
Knowledge (0 = “Strongly Disagree”; 100 = “Strongly Agree”) Mean SD
My team has been given the responsibility and authority for determining how to meet the
goals set by central office.
54.11 30.66
My team knows how to develop high quality assessments that produce useful data about
whether students have met essential learning outcomes.
62.69 28.39
My team knows how to engage in team learning activities that raise our capacity to achieve
the outcomes for which we are accountable.
62.88 28.16
My team knows how to collect various data to determine how effective a particular
intervention has been.
63.70 28.51
My team knows how to prioritize resources that benefit student achievement outcomes. 65.25 27.95
My team members know the specific knowledge and skills required for our team to achieve
the outcomes for which we are accountable.
66.26 27.70
My team knows how to connect students with interventions for remediation and enrichment
when there is a demonstrated need.
67.17 27.63
My team understands that there are inherent tensions embedded in the collaborative process
but we implement strategies to overcome these interpersonal challenges.
68.36 28.36
My team works together to gather, analyze, and implement best practices. 68.95 28.35
My team analyzes student achievement data in order to identify instructional strengths and
weaknesses as part of ongoing improvement.
69.50 29.15
My team knows how to use a data management system (e.g. DataDirector) to store, analyze
and communicate assessment data.
70.14 25.82
My team has clarity about the essential learning outcomes that all students are expected to
achieve.
70.32 27.90
My team knows how to establish the tasks and purposes for working together. 70.64 27.22
Members of my team know how to organize and execute a course of action to positively
impact student achievement.
70.73 26.00
My team knows how to use common assessment data to refer students for interventions for
remediation and enrichment.
71.87 26.83
My team knows how to identify proficient and advanced students in need of enrichment
opportunities.
78.95 24.65
My team knows how to identify struggling students in need of remediation. 79.18 24.16
Note. SD = Standard Deviation.
Knowledge cause #1.
Survey results. On a scale from 0 to 100 with 0 indicating “Strongly Disagree” and 100
indicating “Strongly Agree”, the knowledge item with the lowest mean response among teachers
was “My team has been given the responsibility and authority for determining how to meet the
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

95
goals set by central office.” The relatively low mean for this item, 54.11, suggests a variety of
possible causes that are not mutually exclusive. On one hand, it may indicate that teacher teams
have not been given adequate responsibility and authority to determine how to go about meeting
central office goals. On the other hand, it is possible that teachers have, in fact, been given
responsibility and authority to determine how they will go about meeting central office goals, but
are unaware of this fact. This lack of awareness could be the result of (a) teachers not
ascertaining the responsibility and authority they have been given or (b) the central office not
adequately communicating the extent to which teachers have been given responsibility and
authority to determine how they will go about meeting central office goals.
Interview results. Interviews with teachers provided information that may clarify the
survey results. There was clear agreement between the four teachers interviewed on the
following two points: (a) their teams are not given adequate time to meet together and (b) when
their teams are given time to meet, administrators typically set the agenda and the time is spent
completing tasks that administrators have assigned. One teacher described the collaboration time
as follows: “Mostly we are discussing or looking into a predetermined set of topics…so we are,
most of the time, just trying to keep up with what’s coming down the pike…the parameters are
given…we’re trying to constantly catch up…we’re not exploring new grounds…we’re just doing
the homework that’s given.” In a strikingly similar account, another teacher said, “It’s usually
coming from admin…‘this needs to get done’…directives. [The administrators] come through us
and we make sure it gets done. But as far as collaboration or forward thinking, it’s not
happening. It’s more like survival mode.”
So while it may be true, on an abstract level, that teachers have been granted the authority
and responsibility for determining how they will meet central office goals, not having adequate
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

96
time to meet, and not experiencing freedom and creativity in the collaborative meetings, has sent
an overriding message that teacher teams do not have authority or responsibility. The four
teacher interviewees clearly described conditions of contrived collegiality (Hargreaves & Dawe,
1990) as opposed to true collaboration.
Teachers indicated that, on occasion, their teams had attempted to assert their autonomy.
In some cases, they described a positive outcome. For example, one teacher described a time
several years ago when his team had identified a need to create standards-based units and
common assessments. The principal provided time and money for the team to implement its
ideas. Another teacher described a time when he and his colleagues had taken the initiative to
create a tutoring program. These instances demonstrate that teachers must explore the boundaries
of their autonomy in order to determine what is possible.
There were other instances, however, when teachers’ efforts to exert autonomy had
negative outcomes. For example, one teacher described a time when his department had
brainstormed a list of objectives that they wanted to address during professional development.
Describing what happened next, the teacher related, “for the upcoming professional development
day, my department submitted a list to the principal [saying], ‘we’d like to, as a department, look
at some of this stuff [referring to the list of objectives].’ The reaction was that, no…the district
has already mandated a certain, shall we say, ‘choreography.” Another teacher described a time
when he and his colleagues had engaged in a collaborative effort to create and implement a new
department policy. The team had agreed that the policy would alleviate a critical problem that
was negatively impacting student achievement. Having obtained the site administrator’s approval
at the outset to work on the policy, when the team presented the policy in its final form, the site
administrator rejected it without providing any rationale. The teacher who related this experience
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

97
explained, “it leaves a sour taste in your mouth…and you lose motivation to take those kinds of
chances in the future.”
Tri-level results. In Salinas (2013), the mean response by school site administrators to
“My team has been given the responsibility and authority for determining how to meet the goals
set by central office.” was 71.76. This ranked sixth lowest out of seventeen knowledge items.
Overall the means for the knowledge items for Salinas (2013) ranged from 67.06 to 82.87,
placing this item closer to the lower extreme. For this same item, Llamas (2013) reported a mean
response by central office administrators of 69.44. This ranked eleventh lowest among all
knowledge items, the means of which ranged from 58.33 to 76.11. These data suggest that one’s
perception of autonomy is inversely related to one’s position, vertically, on the organizational
chart.
Knowledge cause #2.
Survey results. The Knowledge item with the second lowest mean response was “My
team knows how to develop high-quality assessments that produce useful data about whether
students have met essential learning outcomes.” The mean response for this item was 62.69 on a
scale of 0 to 100. Developing high-quality assessments is one of the fundamental functions of
collaborative teacher teams. It is, therefore, imperative that this knowledge and skill gap be
addressed in order for PUSD to achieve its goal of institutionalizing effective collaboration
around student achievement.
Interview results. Creating high quality assessments is a time-intensive process. There
was overwhelming evidence in the interviews that lack of time is a barrier for teachers. Time
constraints, therefore, impact teams’ ability to create high-quality assessments. Nonetheless,
teachers’ knowledge and skill in this area must also be considered.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

98
While difficulties with creating assessments did not come up explicitly in the interviews,
a related theme did emerge. There was a prevailing feeling expressed by the interviewees that the
central office should provide access to expertise when it is needed. As one teacher said, “We
haven’t had any expert infusion…whatever is being generated is being organically generated by
us… I’m sure there are specialists in collaborative decision-making and collaborative
management. It wouldn’t be a waste of money if we did bring in people like that.” Another
teacher said, “To an extent we sort of assume that once they’re in administration, like at the
district, they know everything, and I know that’s not true, but I guess I want to think that it’s
true.” So with regard to the lack of knowledge and skill to create high quality assessments, the
qualitative interviews seem to suggest that teachers want and need expert training.
Tri-level results. Results from concurrent projects by Salinas (2013) and Llamas (2013)
validated developing high quality assessments as the highest-priority knowledge and skills
challenge for school site administrators and central office administrators, respectively. The fact
that teachers, school site administrators, and central office administrators expressed challenges
with regard to creating quality assessments substantiates the need for expert training in this area.
For a comparison of the validated knowledge causes among the three levels, see Appendix K.
Summary of Teachers’ Strengths and Challenges
The results indicate that PUSD teachers possess relatively high levels of knowledge and
skill with respect to identifying students in need of intervention and enrichment. PUSD teachers
also indicated that they know how to organize and execute courses of action to positively impact
student achievement.
The results also revealed that PUSD teachers need to gain knowledge and skills in key
areas in order to help PUSD to achieve its organizational goal of institutionalizing effective
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

99
collaboration around student achievement. Specifically, it will be important for teachers to (a)
learn to accurately assess the bounds of the responsibility and authority they have been given, (b)
learn to advocate for more autonomy when it is needed, and (c) learn how to create high quality
assessments. Specific solutions to address these areas will be presented in Chapter Five.
Motivation Results
Summary of Assumed Motivation Causes
In Chapter Three, the assumed causes of the performance gap were outlined. Clark’s
(1999) Commitment And Necessary Effort (CANE) model of motivation was used as a guiding
framework to consider possible causes of motivation gaps. The CANE model frames goal
commitment as the product of capability beliefs, affective factors, and task value. It was noted in
scanning interviews that teachers had negative capability beliefs with regard to doing the
collaborative work necessary to impact student achievement. Teachers expressed that
collaboration time, in many cases, is simply not provided. In other cases, teachers expressed that
collaboration time is taken up by administrative tasks such as calendaring or with compulsory
tasks like completing WASC reports or school single plan documents.
Informal interviews with teachers revealed affective challenges as well. Teachers
expressed being so overwhelmed by the demands of teaching that they lack the patience to sit
through collaboration meetings. Teachers admitted to using collaboration time to grade papers or
plan lessons. Teachers also described collaboration meetings as negative environments
characterized by griping and complaining.
Finally, with respect to task value, many teachers expressed that, while there is much
talking during collaboration meetings, very little action that is of value to students takes place.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

100
Teachers communicated, for example, that collaborative time is rarely used to look at student
work or share best practices.
Assumed causes related to motivation were also distilled from theories of motivation.
Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) is a predictor of collaboration. Teachers with low self-efficacy
with regard to their teaching practice, it is assumed, will not be motivated to open themselves to
scrutiny in a collaborative situation; they also may feel they have nothing to contribute.
Collective efficacy (Goddard et al., 2004) also plays a role. Presumably, team members who do
not believe in the efficacy of the team may be hesitant to put forth their best efforts. They may
also be less likely to trust other team members enough to share the responsibility for achieving
collective outcomes.
Finally, professional identity (Musanti & Pence, 2010) plays a role in determining
teachers’ motivation to collaborate. To the extent that teachers do not identify collaboration as
part of their professional role, they will not be motivated to collaborate.
Motivation Survey Results
In total, the survey included 29 items eliciting respondents’ assessments of their teams’
motivational factors related to collaboration around student achievement. Respondents ranked
each item on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 indicating “Strongly Disagree” and 100 indicating
“Strongly Agree”. Mean teacher responses (n = 219) for each item are reported in Table 6. The
grand mean for the 29 Motivation items was 73.7 on a scale of 0 to 100, indicating that teachers,
on the whole, reported moderately strong agreement with the statements set forth in the 29
motivation items. As a matter of practicality, only the two items with the lowest mean responses
(i.e., the highest priority) will be analyzed in further detail. The fact that only these two highest-
priority items are analyzed in further detail does not imply that the other items are not worthy of
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

101
similar attention. In fact, the results from all of the survey items warrant PUSD’s attention as it
pursues its goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student achievement. See
Appendix I and Appendix J for further analysis of the motivation survey results relative to the 12
competencies.
Table 6 displays the survey items used to assess teachers’ motivation along with their
corresponding means and standard deviations. Each mean represents the average teacher
response to the associated survey item on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 indicating “Strongly
Disagree” and 100 indicating “Strongly Agree”. The items are displayed in ascending order
according to their means.
Table 6
Motivation Item Results in Ascending Order by Means
Motivation (0 = “Strongly Disagree”; 100 = “Strongly Agree”) Mean SD
My team respectfully addresses group tension when working
collaboratively to gather, analyze and transfer best practices across
all team members.
65.98 29.86
My team values being given the responsibility and authority for
determining how to meet district goals.
67.08 29.87
My team is committed to developing our professional knowledge
and skills so that we can achieve the outcomes for which we are
accountable.
68.81 28.50
My team values comparing assessment results and sharing
instructional strategies to identify strengths and weaknesses in
individual and collective teaching.
68.90 27.95
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole,
can do the following: Provide students with additional time and
support whenever there is a demonstrated need.
69.36 27.22
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole,
can do the following: Provide students with enrichment
opportunities whenever there is a demonstrated need.
69.68 26.91
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

102
Motivation (0 = “Strongly Disagree”; 100 = “Strongly Agree”) Mean SD
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole,
can do the following: Agree to be held accountable to clear, non-
negotiable goals for learning and instruction set by site and/or
district leadership.
70.05 28.11
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole,
can do the following: Identify specific knowledge and skill deficits
that inhibit our team from achieving the outcomes for which we are
accountable.
70.27 24.79
It is important to my team to make all members feel that their
contribution is vital to our success.
71.10 31.11
My team values having access to a data management system that
can communicate to all team members the extent to which students
are achieving essential learning outcomes.
71.69 27.15
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole,
can do the following: Accept and carry out the responsibility and
authority for determining how to meet the clear, non-negotiable
goals set by site and/or district leadership.
71.78 27.96
My team values feedback from colleagues when identifying and
implementing best practices.
72.19 27.07
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole,
can do the following: Engage ourselves in knowledge- and skill-
building activities that raise our team’s capacity to achieve the
outcomes for which we are accountable.
72.92 25.61
How certain, working together as a whole, can your team: Make
use of available time to hold productive collaboration meetings.
73.24 26.72
How certain, working together as a whole, can your team: Identify
strengths and weaknesses in our collective and individual practice
as part of an ongoing cycle of improvement.
73.29 25.81
Using common assessment data to refer students for interventions
for remediation and enrichment is important to my team.
73.79 26.58
My team is committed to the belief that, working collectively, we
have the ability to produce the student achievement results we truly
desire.
73.84 27.41
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

103
Motivation (0 = “Strongly Disagree”; 100 = “Strongly Agree”) Mean SD
My team makes a concerted effort to connect students with
interventions for remediation and enrichment whenever there is a
demonstrated need.
74.02 27.38
How certain, working together as a whole, can your team:
Collaborate interdependently to gather, analyze and determine best
practices and transfer best practices across all team members.
74.11 25.60
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole
can do the following: Make resource allocation decisions that
provide the greatest benefit to student achievement outcomes.
74.34 26.33
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole,
can do the following: Use data to measure the impact of
interventions.
74.43 26.67
My team believes that all members of our team play an essential
role in positively impacting student achievement.
74.66 28.14
How certain, working together as a whole, can your team: Use
common assessment data to identify needs for intervention and
enrichment.
75.02 25.48
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole.
can do the following: Develop clarity among all team members
regarding the essential learning outcomes that all students are
expected to achieve.
76.07 25.51
My team values the time we spend together collaborating. 76.12 28.00
It is important that my team can make decisions about how to spend
allocated resources that provide the greatest benefit to student
achievement outcomes.
80.05 26.40
It is important for my team to develop clarity about the essential
learning outcomes that all students are expected to achieve.
81.00 25.16
It is important to use data to determine how effective an
intervention has been.
83.88 20.88
It is important that students are provided with interventions for
remediation and enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need.
90.73 18.58
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

104
Motivation cause #1.
Survey results. On a scale of 0 to 100 with 0 indicating “Strongly Disagree” and 100
representing “Strongly Agree”, the motivation item with the lowest mean response among
teachers was “My team respectfully addresses group tension when working collaboratively to
gather, analyze and transfer best practices across all team members.” The mean response for
this item was 65.98. This suggests that teachers have not been able to effectively deal with the
tensions that are inherent in collaboration. The literature consistently emphasizes the importance
of collaborative teams finding ways to embrace and address the tensions that arise as teams
develop (Achinstein, 2002; Lencioni, 2002; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). If teachers do not find
productive ways to address these tensions, the ensuing dysfunction will stunt team development
and cause teams to stagnate. It is therefore important to build teams’ capacity to navigate the
inherent conflicts and tensions that arise in the midst of collaboration.
Interview results. The qualitative interviews revealed that group tension is a problem for
some teams, while others have successfully dealt with this challenge. One source of tension
expressed by teachers was discrepancies in team members’ passion and dedication. As one
teacher described it, “Some people’s level of interest in collaboration…in the job we have to
do…plays a role. At least somebody who has a philosophy that is diametrically opposed to
me…and says ‘you know what? I disagree with you.’… I can appreciate that…but the person
who says ‘this all shall pass…the hell with all of it’…that’s more frustrating”. Three teachers
expressed frustration over one or two team members who tended to derail productive
collaboration by straying off topic, being negative, or by bringing up issues over which the team
has no control.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

105
One teacher on a team whose members had been together for two to five years had
positive things to say about his team’s interactions.. According to this teacher, the team was able
to have “courageous conversations” without any inhibiting tension. The teacher attributed this to
several factors. First, he said that individual teachers’ courage to admit when they need help was
a key factor. The degree of familiarity among the team members also played a role. The teacher
added that members of his team have grown closer to each other as a result of their frequently
attending each other’s family functions. The result has been that the team members trust each
other and have faith that each other’s intentions are good (Lencioni, 2002).
Tri-level results. Salinas (2013), which focused on Collaboration Around Student
Achievement from the school site administrator perspective, also identified “My team
respectfully addresses group tension when working collaboratively to gather, analyze and
transfer best practices across all team members” as the highest-priority motivation item. This
concurrence calls attention to the need for capacity building in the area of navigating group
tensions during the collaborative process. As a teacher interviewee said,
Given the time [to collaborate], nobody knows what to do with it…so you fill it in with
griping… it’s like you don’t know what to do when you actually do have the time [to
collaborate] because we don’t know how to structure it…so another thing the district
could offer is a good structure for that time…you can fill it in, you’ll always fill it in, but
it ends up not being so beneficial.
Motivation cause #2.
Survey results. The motivation item with the second lowest mean response was “My team
values being given the responsibility and authority for determining how to meet district goals.”
The mean response for this item was 67.08 on a scale of 0 to 100. At first glance, this may
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

106
appear to indicate that PUSD teachers do not value autonomy. However, it could reasonably be
argued that in order to value being given autonomy people have to perceive that they have been
given autonomy. Considering teachers’ low level of agreement with the statement, My team has
been given the authority and responsibility for determining how to achieve the goals set by
central office (Mean = 54.11), it appears that the responses to this motivation item further
validate the need for autonomy and are not indicative of a motivational challenge.
Interview results. Interview data supported the interpretation in the previous paragraph.
All four teachers indicated that they would, in fact, value having the authority and responsibility
to determine how to achieve central office goals. As one teacher stated “We would like to at least
have equal parts in identifying the problems and suggesting solutions…definitely”. For this
reason, no solution will be recommended to address a lack of value for autonomy. A solution for
the third lowest motivation item will be proposed instead.
Motivation cause #3.
Survey results. The motivation item with the third lowest mean response was “My team
is committed to developing our professional knowledge and skills so that we can achieve the
outcomes for which we are accountable.” The mean response for this item was 67.08 on a scale
of 0 to 100. Senge (1990) identifies Personal Mastery as one of the five disciplines that sustain
learning organizations. Senge explains:
People with a high level of personal mastery are able to consistently realize the results
that matter most deeply to them—in effect, they approach their life as an artist would
approach a work of art. They do that by becoming committed to their own lifelong
learning. (p. 7)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

107
The perception expressed by teachers that their teams are not fully committed to
increasing their professional knowledge and skill for the benefit of student achievement indicates
an important motivational challenge and warrants serious attention.
Interview results. In the interviews, teachers were asked to talk about structured ways in
which their teams have worked together to purposefully gain knowledge and/or skills in areas
that directly affect their work. Of the four teachers who were interviewed, only one could muster
a specific example of his team, of its own volition, seeking out an opportunity to develop
professional knowledge and skills. Follow-up questioning revealed that this learning event had,
in fact, not yet materialized and had actually been proposed to the team by an administrator.
Without exception, the four teachers responded to this interview question by describing
barriers to their team engaging in team learning. One teacher said that there is no longer money
available for this type of team learning. The other teachers talked about time being the inhibiting
factor. So while teachers’ responses indicate that there is an organizational component to the
scarcity of team learning taking place, there also seems to be a motivation issue as teachers are
not making the active choices, exerting the mental effort, or demonstrating the persistence
required to intentionally develop their professional knowledge and skills.
Tri-level results. Both Llamas (2013) and Salinas (2013), examining motivation
challenges among central office administrators and school site administrators, discovered low
levels of efficacy within their respective populations with regard to identifying the specific
knowledge and skill deficits that inhibit their teams from achieving the outcomes for which they
are accountable. Taking inventory of one’s own knowledge and skill deficits is an important
aspect of personal mastery (Senge, 1990). Senge explains, “People with a high level of personal
mastery are acutely aware of their ignorance, their incompetence, their growth areas. And they
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

108
are deeply self-confident” (p. 133). Taken together with the fact that teachers are not fully
committed to developing their professional knowledge and skills, this suggests that PUSD will
need to find ways to increase motivation in the district relative to capacity building and
developing personal mastery. For a comparison of the validated motivation causes among the
three levels, see Appendix K.
Summary of Teachers’ Strengths and Challenges
In general, with regard to motivation, PUSD teachers seemed to place a high level of
importance on providing enrichment, using data, and gaining clarity on essential learning
outcomes. In other words, teachers expressed high value for these things.
While saying that something is important indicates motivation, exerting the necessary
effort to produce results around the things one says are important requires a deeper level of
commitment. The results of this study indicate that teachers’ commitment and effort could
improve in several key areas. The obvious caveats regarding the impact of organizational factors
on motivation notwithstanding, PUSD teachers have motivation challenges that they should work
to address in order to be more effective. First, teachers need to find the motivation to do the work
of creating a healthy collaborative culture that embraces conflict and tension and has processes
for working through it. Second, teachers need to find the motivation to develop their professional
knowledge and skills in order to increase their capacity to create the results they truly desire.
Solutions to address these two areas will be provided in Chapter Five.
Organization Results
Summary of Assumed Organizational Causes
In Chapter Three, the assumed causes of the performance gap were outlined. Clark and
Estes (2008) identify key aspects of organization that are possible sources of performance gaps.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

109
According to the authors, gaps typically exist in work processes, material resources,
organizational culture, and features of effective organizational change. Additionally, Rueda
(2000) suggests looking for organizational gaps in culture, structure, and policies and practices.
As such, potential causes in these areas were considered. It was noted in scanning interviews that
teachers often lamented not having adequate time to collaborate. Lack of available resources to
implement their ideas was also a concern for teachers.
For teachers who work in schools where collaboration time is built into the school day,
lack of time was not an issue. These teachers expressed concern over lack of structure, direction,
or clarity of purpose during collaboration time. These teachers also talked about having
competing allegiances as a result of belonging to more than one collaborative team.
From organizational theory, culture of isolation (Tye and Tye, 1984; Flinders, 1988;
Gratch, 2000) and lack of coherence (Childress et. al., 2011) were identified as potential causes
of the performance gap.
Several potential causes related to organizational factors were identified in the literature
on collaboration around student achievement. Among these were (a) failing to communicate,
organizationally, that learning is the fundamental purpose; (b) failing to cultivate a culture of
collaboration, and (c) failing to focus on results rather than intentions (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
Additionally, failing to build teams’ capacity to collaborate through job-embedded professional
development (DuFour, Dufour, Eaker, & Many, 2006) was assumed to be an organizational
cause. Specifically, failing to provide teachers with protocols and processes for collaborating
around student achievement was assumed to be a cause of the performance gap.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

110
Organization Survey Results
In total, the survey included 17 items eliciting respondents’ assessments of organizational
factors related to collaboration around student achievement. Respondents ranked each item on a
scale of 0 to 100, with 0 indicating “Strongly Disagree” and 100 indicating “Strongly Agree”.
Mean teacher responses (n = 219) for each item are reported in Table 7. The grand mean for the
17 organizational items was 55.8 on a scale of 0 to 100, indicating that teachers, on the whole,
communicated weak agreement with the statements proposed in the 17 organizational items. As
was noted earlier, teachers scored the organization items substantially lower than the knowledge
and motivation items. In fact, each of the means for the 17 organizational items were below the
overall mean for the motivation items, and only one was greater than the mean for knowledge
items. This warrants a closer examination of organizational factors. For this reason, the four
(instead of two) organization items with the lowest mean responses (i.e., the highest priority) will
be analyzed in further detail in the following paragraphs. Again, the means for organization
items were generally low. Therefore, it is recommended that PUSD pay particular attention to the
results from the organizational dimension. A further analysis of the organization survey results
relative to the 12 competencies can be seen in Appendix I and Appendix J.
Table 7 displays the survey items used to elicit teachers’ perceptions of the organizational
dimension along with their corresponding means and standard deviations. Each mean represents
the average teacher response to the associated survey item on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0
indicating “Strongly Disagree” and 100 indicating “Strongly Agree”. The items are displayed in
ascending order according to their means.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

111
Table 7
Organization Item Results in Ascending Order by Means
Organization (0 = “Strongly Disagree”; 100 = “Strongly
Agree”)
Mean SD
Resource allocation criteria are consistently applied and
managed.
46.48 27.51
My team is provided the necessary time to learn and grow
professionally.
48.17 32.20
Intentional communication occurs between central office
and school sites regarding clear, non-negotiable goals for
learning and instruction.
48.20 30.09
My team is provided with the time to develop clarity
about the essential learning outcomes that all students are
expected to achieve.
48.58 31.26
Central office sets clear goals and expectations for site
performance.
48.95 28.99
My team is provided the necessary resources to learn and
grow professionally.
49.63 30.26
My team is provided with processes and resources that
enable us to develop clarity about the essential learning
outcomes that all students are expected to achieve.
50.64 29.30
My team is provided the systems, processes and/or
resources necessary to provide students with interventions
for remediation and enrichment whenever there is a
demonstrated need.
53.15 29.70
Protocols, models, and/or other resources for determining
the effectiveness of interventions, have been available to
my team.
54.29 30.36
Administration supports and facilitates collaboration time
through helpful scheduling arrangements.
59.54 31.76
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

112
Organization (0 = “Strongly Disagree”; 100 = “Strongly
Agree”)
Mean SD
My team uses a systematic, collaborative process to
develop common assessments that are aligned with
essential learning outcomes.
59.82 29.41
My team is provided structured opportunities to develop
the clear actionable steps (i.e., action plans) necessary to
produce the student achievement results we truly desire.
59.95 30.27
My team is provided an environment where we can safely
share and examine strengths and weaknesses in individual
and collective teaching.
61.69 31.54
My team has specific protocols and processes for
analyzing common assessment data.
63.29 29.45
My team consistently uses norms and protocols for
working collaboratively to gather, analyze, and transfer
best practices across all team members.
64.02 30.08
My team has access to a data management system that
communicates to all stakeholders the extent to which
students are achieving essential learning outcomes.
67.99 27.84
School culture fosters the notion that, working
collectively, we have the ability to produce the student
achievement results we truly desire.
71.92 28.80
Note. SD = Standard Deviation.
Organizational cause #1.
Survey results. On a scale of 0 to 100 with 0 indicating “Strongly Disagree” and 100
indicating “Strongly Agree”, the organization item with the lowest mean response among
teachers was “Resource allocation criteria are consistently applied and managed.” The mean
response for this item was 46.48. This could indicate teachers’ frustration over what they
perceive as less than sound resource allocation decisions by the district. It must be noted,
however, that the current study takes place against a backdrop of severe cuts to public education.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

113
The response to this item could be interpreted, partially, as a referendum on public education
funding in general.
Interview results. With regard to resource allocation, one teacher said,
There was a time that the state and district were flush with money. They would actually
pay teachers money to get training. There was all kind of incentive to constantly learn
new things and get exposure to other things. Now, the way life is, it’s a rat race. We don’t
get any sort of professional development outside of the campus.
Another teacher described a time when the principal of the school told the faculty how
much money was left in the school budget. Given the tone, and the fact that it was a low amount,
this was taken as an implicit message not to request extra resources of any kind. Another teacher
shared his opinion that, if administrators value collaboration, they should structure collaboration
time into the school day or compensate teachers for collaboration time after school.
Tri-level results. Central office administrators (Llamas, 2013) and school site
administrators (Salinas, 2013) agreed that they were not given adequate resources to learn and
grow professionally. Coupled with the findings from the current study, resource allocation
appears to be a root cause of the performance gap.
Organizational cause #2.
Survey results. The organization item with the third lowest mean response was
“Intentional communication occurs between central office and school sites regarding clear, non-
negotiable goals for learning and instruction.” The mean response for this item was 48.20 on a
scale of 0 to 100. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the survey results indicated that teachers
did not feel they had been given responsibility and authority for determining how to meet central
office goals. Considered along with this finding, that teachers perceive a lack of central office
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

114
communication regarding goals for learning and instruction, it becomes clear that relationships
of defined autonomy (Marzano & Waters, 2009) have yet to be established as the norm in PUSD.
In relationships of defined autonomy, (a) expectations and goals are clearly communicated, (b)
teams are provided with menus of acceptable strategies that they can use as models and
references, and (c) teams have sufficient autonomy to decide how they will use the resources that
have been provided to meet the expectations and achieve the goals.
Interview results. With regard to clear communication from the district, one teacher
expressed a desire to see more explicit communication from the central office. Referring to the
district, he commented, “they already know what works. Start telling us or say… ‘here’s ten
things that have worked. Pick three of them and do them.’…I would like to see that.”
Tri-level results. There was agreement between teachers and school site administrators
(Salinas, 2013) regarding a lack of intentional communication between the central office and the
school site about student achievement goals. This further validates the need for relationships of
defined autonomy to be developed as a norm within the district.
Organizational causes #3 and #4.
Survey results. The Organization items with the second and fourth lowest mean
responses were related by the common factor of time and are, therefore, discussed together. The
items were (a) “My team is provided the necessary time to learn and grow professionally” and
(b) “My team is provided with the time to develop clarity about the essential learning outcomes
that all students are expected to achieve.” The mean responses for these items were 48.2 and
48.6, respectively, on a scale of 0 to 100. The literature has identified time as one the most
important factors for sustaining effective collaboration around student achievement (Donahoe,
1993; Raywid, 1993; Watts & Castle, 1993). Closing teachers’ knowledge and skill gaps requires
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

115
time. Conducting the business of collaboration around student achievement is also time-
intensive. For example, in order to answer the first question of Professional Learning
Communities, What must all students know? (DuFour et al., 2010), teachers need focused time to
unpack standards and develop clarity about essential learning outcomes. This is fundamental to
the work of collaborative teacher teams. Time is also required to create high-quality assessments,
which was validated earlier as a high priority knowledge cause. Creating and managing tiered
systems of intervention and enrichment also require substantial amounts of time. Teachers need
time together in order to share practice as well.
Interview results. Lack of time was a dominant theme in the qualitative interviews. One
teacher shared that while the principal verbally supports collaboration, the principal has not
provided adequate time for collaboration. Speaking on behalf of his subject department, another
teacher said with a sense of embarrassment and regret, “It’s a bad year to ask me these things
[about collaboration]. I feel the lack of time more this year and last year. So I don’t know if
that’s district directive, or if that’s school site, or what it is, but we’ve met less these last two
years than…we just haven’t met really...and a lot of that is missed”.
Tri-level results. The organization findings in Llamas’ (2013) examination of central
office administrators, and in Salinas’ (2013) examination of school site administrators, coincide
with the findings in the current study in some interesting ways. For example teachers and school
site administrators both indicated that they were not provided adequate time to learn and grow
professionally. Teachers, school site administrators, and central office administrators agreed that
insufficient time has been allocated to the process of clarifying essential student learning
outcomes. Bearing in mind the notion that learning is the fundamental purpose of schools, and
considering the first question of PLCs, ‘What must all students learn?’, it is imperative for
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

116
PUSD to ensure adequate time allocation for educators to (a) develop clarity about the essential
learning outcomes and (b) learn and grow professionally so that they can create the conditions
that support the desired learning outcomes. For a comparison of the validated organization
causes among the three levels, see Appendix K.
Summary of Teachers’ Strengths and Challenges
Teachers, school site administrators, and central office administrators, alike, are
motivated to collaborate and welcome knowledge and skill building efforts. Teachers are
encouraged by the district’s stated commitment to collaboration. As one teacher commented, “at
least there is more focus on collaboration; there is more cognizance of the fact we need to do
certain things differently. Whereas before, that was not such a critical issue. They have at least
put it on our minds.” Overall, the results of the current study, as well as those of two concurrent
studies (Llamas, 2013; Salinas, 2013) suggest that organizational factors represent the largest
impediments, and the highest-leverage points of intervention, as PUSD pursues its organizational
goal of institutionalizing effective collaboration around student achievement. Specific solutions
to address the organizational dimension will be proposed in Chapter Five.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

117
Chapter Five: Solutions and Implementations
Author: Anthony Carruthers
The overall purpose of this project was to assist the Pasadena Unified School District
(PUSD) in closing the performance gap relative to its organizational goal to institutionalize
effective collaboration around student achievement. Toward that end, the project was driven by
two inquiry questions:
3. For PUSD teachers, what are the causes, in the areas of knowledge and skills,
motivation, and the organizational dimension, that explain the gap between
PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize collaboration around student
achievement, and its current performance in that regard?
4. What solutions, in the areas of knowledge and skills, motivation, and the
organizational dimension, would address the root causes of PUSD teachers’
underperformance and thereby close the performance gap?
Utilizing the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Process PUSD identified the
organizational goals and the gap between the goal and current performance. Informal scanning
interviews and observations revealed potential causes of the gap. These assumed causes were
also identified from theories of learning, motivation, and organization, and from the literature on
collaboration around student achievement. Survey and interview items were designed to validate
potential causes of the performance gap. Data from teacher surveys and interviews were used to
validate and prioritize assumed causes. This chapter will address Inquiry Question #2.
Thus, the purpose of this chapter is to discuss solutions that have been designed to
address the highest priority validated causes of PUSD’s teacher performance gap. This chapter
will also provide recommendations for implementing these solutions. Chapter Six will provide
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

118
recommendations for evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed solutions once they have been
implemented.
Solutions
Inquiry Question #2: What solutions, in the areas of knowledge and skills, motivation, and the
organizational dimension, would address the root causes of PUSD teachers’ underperformance
relative to PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student
achievement?
Knowledge and Skill
Survey and interview data validated the assumed causes related to PUSD teachers’
knowledge and skills. The following were the two highest priority validated causes and will be
addressed in this section. First, teachers perceive that they have not been given adequate
authority and responsibility for determining how they will meet central office goals. Second,
teachers perceive a need to increase their own capacity to develop high quality assessments that
produce useful data about whether students have met essential learning outcomes. These two
problems and their solutions will be discussed next.
Promote teacher autonomy. The extent to which teachers perceive that they have
autonomy has important motivational implications. According to self-determination theory (Deci
& Ryan, 1987), autonomy is a basic human need. Autonomy-supportive conditions are those that
encourage the process of choice and the experience of autonomy. Autonomy-supportive
conditions have been empirically linked to enhanced motivation, interest, self-efficacy, cognitive
functioning, learning, creativity, persistence with change behaviors, and affect (Deci & Ryan,
1987). Results from Pearson and Moomaw (2005) suggest that teacher autonomy enhances
teachers’ feelings of empowerment and professionalism while attenuating job stress and burnout.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

119
On the other hand, empirical research confirms that the mere perception that one’s
environment is controlling, as opposed to autonomy-supportive, erodes intrinsic motivation
(Deci & Ryan, 1987).
Teacher autonomy is important for more straightforward reasons as well. For example,
collective inquiry and experimentation, which are part and parcel of the cycle of continuous
improvement, require teachers to exercise professional autonomy. Effective collaboration around
student achievement relies upon teachers’ capacity to enact the cycle of continuous
improvement. Collaboration around student achievement, therefore, requires that teacher teams
have adequate autonomy and exercise it appropriately.
Teachers’ perceptions regarding the autonomy they have will impact PUSD’s ability to
attain its goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student achievement. The fact that
PUSD teachers reported relatively low levels of perceived autonomy is, therefore, cause for
concern. A more nuanced investigation into the exact nature of teachers’ perceptions of their
autonomy would allow PUSD leaders to hone in on the particular issues that need to be
addressed. Pearson and Hall (1993) present the Teaching Autonomy Scale (TAS), a 20-item
scale assessing two constructs of teacher autonomy: (a) curriculum autonomy and (b) general
teaching autonomy. Friedman (1999) presents the Appropriate Teacher Work Autonomy (ATA)
scale along with a host of valuable resources for measuring teacher autonomy. The ATA is a 32-
item scale with six subscales measuring teachers’ autonomy with regard to: (a) Establishing
school identity and praxis, (b) Teaching and achievement evaluation, (c) Parental involvement,
(d) Staff development, (e) Extra-curricular subjects, and (f) Curriculum change and development.
Friedman (1999) identifies five well-defined levels of autonomy, as follows:
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

120
1. No autonomy. Teachers are not authorized to take initiative and are not given
discretion in introducing changes in teaching methods and curriculum or in any
other elements of school life.
2. Scant autonomy. Teachers are allowed scant freedom of choice within the clear
boundaries of existing programs, norms, and regulations as defined by school
administrators.
3. Moderate autonomy. Teachers are permitted, or even encouraged, to initiate new
ideas and programs but are required to go through stringent authorization
procedures prior to execution.
4. High autonomy. Teachers are granted the liberty to innovate and implement new
curriculum and methods within the boundaries of general, previously agreed upon
principles and norms.
5. Complete autonomy. Teachers are granted complete freedom to initiate and
implement new ideas, programs, or curriculum within commonly accepted moral
and legal principles.
It is recommended that PUSD devise a plan to administer the TAS and ATA to all
teachers, or a scientific sample thereof. Care should be taken to choose a unit of analysis (e.g.,
individual teachers, teams, or schools) that lends itself to the desired types of analyses. Once
PUSD analyzes the results of the teacher autonomy scales, district leaders can develop a targeted
approach to address the identified needs.
It is hypothesized, here, that the results of the teacher autonomy scales will indicate that
(a) teachers do, in fact, possess some types and degrees of autonomy but are either unaware of
their autonomy or do not know how to exercise it and (b) there are ways in which teachers are
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

121
discouraged, hindered, or prohibited from exercising autonomy. The former case calls for
knowledge solutions while the latter case would best be addressed through organizational
solutions.
Increase teacher knowledge. In some instances teachers are lacking factual, and possibly
low-level procedural, knowledge. Examples of this would include areas of autonomy designated
by the California Education Code. For example, many new teachers do not know that they have
the authority to suspend a disruptive student from their classroom for two instructional periods.
Information would suffice to enable teachers to exercise this type of autonomy.
In other instances, teachers need metacognitive knowledge regarding the nature of
exercising autonomy in a bureaucratic organization, and the strategies for doing so. Teachers
should know that exercising autonomy in a bureaucratic organization requires resourcefulness,
assertiveness, persistence and diplomacy. It also requires knowledge of the organizational
hierarchy. Teachers need to have knowledge of the channels through which they must go in order
to get authorization for various exercises of autonomy. Equipped with this type of metacognitive
knowledge, teachers would hopefully come to view resistance to autonomy as a natural feature
of bureaucratic organizations rather than interpreting this resistance as evidence that that they do
not possess autonomy.
Effective modeling is one of the key techniques for teaching metacognitive strategies.
Within the context of collaborative learning communities dialogue, it is recommended that
teacher leaders discuss the strategies they have used to exercise autonomy. Through this
conversation-based modeling (Horn, 2005), other teachers would learn strategies for exercising
autonomy. This would also serve as a form of social persuasion (Bandura, 1997).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

122
Additionally, attributional retraining techniques (Försterling, 1985) might be employed to
encourage teachers to attribute instances of low perceived autonomy to inadequate effort or
ineffective strategies. The effectiveness of attributional retraining techniques with adult workers
in group situations has been established by Wang (1994). Specifically, it is recommended that
CLC leaders be trained to facilitate autonomy-related conversations among their teams. The
conversations might include the following, or similar, components: (a) identification of the area
in which autonomy was desired, (b) description of the efforts and strategies that were employed
in the attempt to exercise autonomy, (c) perceived success or failure of the attempt to exercise
autonomy, and (d) suggestions for attributing the success or failure to effort and strategy choice.
Create autonomy-supportive conditions. From an organizational standpoint, autonomy
support can be achieved using three means: (a) giving a rationale for doing a task, (b) offering
some choice about how to do the task, and (c) acknowledging feelings about the task (Gagné,
Koestner, & Zuckerman, 2000). The authors found that implementing these three autonomy
supportive factors increased employees’ acceptance of profound organizational change. Deci,
Connell and Ryan (1989) designed and implemented an intervention to help managers use
autonomy supportive strategies with their subordinates. The intervention focused on developing
managers’ capacity to (a) provide subordinates with opportunities to take initiative, (b) use non-
controlling language for informational feedback, and (c) use perspective taking as a strategy to
treat subordinates as the managers, themselves, would like to be treated.
It is recommended, then, that PUSD leadership develop and adopt a group of core
principles related to creating autonomy-supportive conditions. These principles should be
communicated to all stakeholders, and leaders at all levels should have the opportunity to
collaboratively identify ways to apply the principles in their dealings with the teams they lead.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

123
Finally, with regard to developing teacher autonomy, consideration should be given to the
recurrent theme of facilitating the growth and development of teacher leaders. Teacher leaders
need to learn to advocate for their teams’ autonomy. They need to learn to lead their teams in the
exercise of autonomy. Teacher leaders also need to learn to foster a culture of personal mastery
and professional accountability on their teams so that their teams can be trusted to handle
autonomy competently and reliably.
Create high quality assessments. As part of an important feedback loop in the cycle of
continuous improvement, teachers need access to valid evidence of student progress toward the
intended learning outcomes. Formative assessment, by definition, provides evidence of learning
that teachers use to improve instruction (Wiliam, 2011). Empirical studies have found that
teachers who have implemented high-quality formative assessment systems in their classrooms
have raised student achievement for all students, and to an even greater extent for low achieving
students (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Thus, teacher teams need to increase their capacity to develop
high-quality assessments as one component in a comprehensive formative assessment system
(Wiliam, 2011).
Stiggins (2002) explains that competence in assessment has not been a requirement for
teacher certification or administrator certification at any level. For this reason, he suggests,
teacher and administrator preparation programs have neglected assessment training. As a result,
teachers and administrators at all levels typically lack important knowledge and skills related to
assessment. Results from the current project, along with findings from two concurrent projects
(Llamas, 2013; Salinas, 2013) confirm that developing assessment competence is, in fact, a
critical need area for PUSD teachers, school site administrators, and central office
administrators.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

124
Assessment has a dual purpose. It is an instructional tool used during the learning process
and an accountability tool used to determine if the required learning has taken place (Ainsworth,
2007). Several authors have made the important distinction between these two purposes,
regarding the latter purpose as ‘assessment of learning’ and the former as ‘assessment for
learning’ (Ainsworth, 2007; Black & Wiliam, 1998; Stiggins, 2002). While assessment of
learning is pervasive in education, assessment for learning has not received adequate attention
(Stiggins, 2002). Meta-analyses of empirical research (e.g., Black & Wiliam, 1998) have found
that creating and using high quality assessments for learning enhances student learning and
improves performance on internally- and externally-created assessments.
Creating assessments requires procedural knowledge (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001).
Depending upon task complexity and learners’ knowledge and skill levels, procedural knowledge
can be developed via (a) job aids that list the procedures to be done, (b) job aids that explain how
the procedures are to be done, or (c) training (Clark & Estes, 2008). Training is the most
expensive of these three interventions. In order to be cost-effective, PUSD should determine
whether individuals are able to benefit from job aids alone before providing training to these
individuals(Clark & Estes, 2008). Job aids should be disseminated to teachers, and also stored on
the district’s website so that they are accessible to all teachers in the district.
For some teachers, training will be indicated. It is, therefore, recommended that PUSD
design a training program to develop teachers’ ability to create high-quality assessments. To
increase the likelihood that trainees will be able to remember and apply what they have learned
on the job, the training should be organized in research-proven ways (Clark & Estes, 2008). In
his synthesis of instructional design theories, Merrill (2002) identified five ‘first principles’ of
instructional design that can be used as a research-based framework for providing PUSD
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

125
teachers with training to develop assessment competence. A discussion of each principle, applied
to the context of training PUSD teachers to create high quality assessments, follows.
Learning will be promoted when PUSD teachers are engaged with authentic problems
of practice—problems that teachers will be able to solve once they have learned to create high-
quality assessments. According to this principle, the training should present teachers with
scenarios describing assessment-related problems that they might reasonably encounter on the
job. For example, one possible scenario might describe a situation wherein a principal has
requested that teachers, in preparation for an upcoming staff meeting, collect evidence of their
students’ procedural fluency and conceptual understanding with regard to the key standards
being assessed on the upcoming district quarterly exams. Only after teachers understand how
developing their capacity to create high-quality assessments will enable them to solve real
problems of practice, should the training move on to the tasks, operations, and actions required
to create assessments (Merrill, 2002).
Learning will be promoted when PUSD teachers’ existing knowledge is activated as a
foundation for learning to create high-quality assessments. Most teachers have attempted to
create assessments. Most have engaged in some type of informal assessment practice to gauge
student learning in order to make instructional decisions. So, while teachers may not know
exactly how to create high-quality assessments, they do have valuable prior experience and
knowledge related to assessment. Merrill (2002) would suggest giving teachers appropriate
opportunities to demonstrate what they already know about assessment. This might entail having
teachers discuss a time when they have successfully identified a need to reteach an important
concept. Alternately, it might entail having teachers choose an important topic from their field of
expertise and design a short quiz related to the topic.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

126
If it is apparent that teachers do not have adequate prior experience with assessment, trainers
should attempt to provide experiences that prime teachers’ cognitive architecture to receive the
training. For example, the trainers might ask teachers to devise a strategy for checking to see if
their son or daughter is prepared for their upcoming driving test. This would give teachers the
opportunity, in a non-threatening way, to engage in the type of thinking that is required when
designing assessments.
In this phase, trainers should also build cognitive structures (i.e., mental models and
schema) that teachers can use to organize the content of the training. One effective way to lay
cognitive framework would be to provide advanced organizers that show the procedure—in this
case the heuristic that trainees will be learning to implement as they create assessments.
Learning will be promoted when the creation of high-quality assessments is
demonstrated for PUSD teachers. In this phase, assessment experts would demonstrate the
procedure that will be used to create high-quality assessments. Ainsworth (2007), in ahead of the
curve: The Power of Assessment to Transform Teaching and Learning (ed., Reeves, 2007)
presents a sequence for designing common formative assessments that could serve as a training
resource. The sequence is as follows:
1. Identify the prioritized Power Standards.
2. Select an instructional topic.
3. Unwrap the Power Standards and create a graphic organizer to show the cognitive
level, big ideas, and essential questions associated with each standard.
4. Collaboratively design assessment items to address the unwrapped Power Standards
(p. 93).

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

127
Similarly, Marzano and Waters (2009) recommend the following sequence:
1. Reconstitute standards for each subject
into
no
more
than
20
measurement
and

reporting
topics
per
course.

2. Develop
formative
assessment
scales
for
each
measurement
and
reporting
topic.

3. Develop
common
formative
assessments
and
common
item
banks
for
all
subject

matter
courses.

One of these sequences, a sequence derived through cognitive task analysis (Clark,
Feldon, van Merrienboer, Yates, & Early, 2008), or a hybridized version of two or more of these,
should be adopted and properly segmented (Mayer, 2011) to facilitate knowledge acquisition.
Finally, each segment should be thoroughly demonstrated for teachers prior to teachers
practicing it. As an aside, it should be noted that part of the work required for creating the
district’s assessment system is already in progress as part of the CRW.
Learning will be promoted when PUSD teachers are required to use their new
knowledge of creating high-quality assessments. Since teachers are learning to create
assessments, they should have the opportunity to create assessments. It is recommended that
after each demonstration segment, teachers would be engaged in guided practice on the content
of the particular segment. As teachers practice the procedures, they should receive coaching,
feedback, and correction. This support should be gradually withdrawn. For example, in the initial
stages a coaching prompt might be phrased, ‘Tell me what level of Bloom’s Taxonomy is
implied by the language of ‘Power Standard X’ and then craft an item to assess student learning
at that level’. Later, as support is withdrawn, the trainer might merely say ‘Craft an item to assess
‘Power Standard Y’ and be prepared to provide a rationale for having crafted it the way you did’.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

128
Feedback is another critical element in the application phase of the training. Wiliam
(2011) identifies providing feedback that moves learners forward as one of the key strategies of
assessment for learning. Thus, the feedback that trainers give to teachers not only moves teacher
learners forward; it also provides effective modeling for the types of feedback trainers would
hope to have teachers provide to students to move their learning forward.
Learning will be promoted when PUSD teachers integrate their new knowledge of
creating high-quality assessments into their professional practice. As a follow-up to training,
teachers should have opportunities to present and defend assessments they have created to the
training community, or to colleagues on the job. Teachers should also have opportunities to
discuss and defend ways in which they have adapted their new knowledge to fit local needs.
Creating high-quality assessment as one component in a comprehensive assessment for
learning system. While creating assessments is important, it should be viewed as one component
in a larger assessment system. Thompson and Wiliam (2008) present Keeping Learning on Track
(KLT) as a sustained professional development program for institutionalizing assessment for
learning (AfL). The KLT program is built upon three components that Thompson and Wiliam
(2008) describe as follows:
1. A content component (what we would like teachers to learn about and adopt as a
central feature of their teaching practice): minute-to-minute and day-by-day
assessment for learning (AfL);
2. A process component (how we support teachers to learn about and adopt AfL as a
central part of their everyday practice): an ongoing program of school-based
collaborative professional learning; and
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

129
3. An empirical/theoretical component (why we expect teachers to adopt AfL as a
central part of their everyday practice, and the outcomes we expect to see if they
do): the intervention’s theory of action buttressed by empirical research (p. 2).
The professional development associated with KLT is designed to develop the big idea
of assessment for learning and five key strategies of assessment for learning. According to the
authors, the big idea of assessment for learning is:
Students and teachers
Using evidence of learning
To adapt teaching and learning
To meet immediate learning needs
Minute-to-minute and day-by-day (p. 6, formatting in original)
The five key strategies of assessment for learning are: (a) clarifying and sharing learning
intentions and criteria for success, (b) engineering effective classroom discussions, activities and
tasks that elicit evidence of learning, (c) providing feedback that moves learners forward, (d)
activating learners as instructional resources for one another, and (e) activating learners as
owners of their own learning (p. 7).
Thompson and Wiliam (2008) make the case that teachers need to understand the ‘why’
as well as the ‘how-to’ of AfL in order for teachers to permanently transform their practice. As
such, PUSD teachers need to be conceptually grounded in the theory of action set forth by
Thompson and Wiliam, which reads:
1. Teachers learn extensively and deeply about minute-to-minute and day-by-day AfL
via an initial workshop and sustained engagement in teacher learning communities
(TLCs).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

130
2. Teachers make minute-to-minute and day-by-day AfL a central part of their everyday
teaching practice, implementing the Big Idea and five strategies of AfL through
judiciously chosen practical techniques.
3. Student learning improves as a result of the particular ways in which the teaching is
made more responsive to the immediate learning needs of students and the changed
classroom contract. (p. 21)
It should be noted that in 2011 and 2012, PUSD teachers participated in training on
Formative Assessment Lessons (FALs). The training was founded on the principles set forth in
Thompson and Wiliam (2008). It is recommended that a new cadre of teachers participate in the
initial workshop. It is further recommended that the teachers who participated in the first round
of trainings be re-engaged in follow-up activities to ensure that the knowledge gains made during
the training are sustained in their individual practice, and scaled up within their respective
teacher communities.
As one way of sustaining learning gains and scaling up the training, Thompson and
Wiliam (2008) highlight the importance of providing extended support and guidance for learning
community leaders. They explain that teacher leaders need (a) knowledge of the research base
supporting learning communities to use as leverage when advocating for time and resources and
(b) ongoing, structured opportunities for new learning, practice, reflection, and adjustment about
leadership of learning communities (p. 19). Currently, the KLT program is offered to schools and
districts through the Northwest Evaluation Association. More information can be found at
http://keepinglearningontrack.nwea.org/

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

131
Motivation
Survey and interview data revealed that many teacher teams struggle to find respectful
ways of addressing group tensions that arise during collaboration. Survey and interview data also
validated that teachers lack motivation to develop their professional knowledge and skills so that
they can achieve the outcomes for which they are accountable. These problems and their
solutions will be discussed next.
Address group tensions. Persistent, unresolved conflict and tension produce negative
emotions. Negative emotions lower commitment to goals (Clark, 1999). Moreover, tension
should be viewed as a natural and necessary part of collaboration. Teams that fail to embrace
conflict and address group tensions severely limit their potential for organizational learning and
change (Achinstein, 2002). It is therefore important for teacher teams to find productive ways to
address conflict and tension.
According to Lencioni (2002) having unresolved group tensions is a symptom of the
team dysfunction: fear of conflict. However, before addressing this dysfunction, the underlying
dysfunction—lack of trust—should be addressed first.
Teams that do not trust each other will not engage in healthy conflict. In fact, teams that
lack trust dread meetings and find reasons to avoid spending time together. Trust, in the way
Lencioni uses it, refers to team members’ willingness to be vulnerable with one another, and to
have faith that the vulnerabilities and weaknesses they expose to the group will not be used
against them. Lencioni suggests that trust-building is a gradual process that requires shared
experience over time, various demonstrations of trustworthiness, and deep understanding of each
team member’s individual makeup. Lencioni (2002) provides various trust-building exercises
(Personal Histories Exercise; Team Effectiveness Exercise; Personality and Behavioral
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

132
Preferences Profiles; and 360-degree Feedback, pp. 198-200). Finally, Lencioni points out that
team leaders play a critical role in building trust by authentically demonstrating vulnerability and
creating an environment that does not punish vulnerability.
With regard to fear of conflict, Lencioni (2002) explains that teams who are willing to
engage in conflict realize that the only purpose of the conflict is to arrive at the best possible
solution in the shortest possible time. Teams that engage in conflict “discuss and resolve issues
more quickly and completely than others, and they emerge from heated debates with no residual
feelings or collateral damage, but with an eagerness and readiness to take on the next important
issue” (p. 203). Teams that fear conflict, on the other hand, ignore controversial topics that are
critical to team success. Lencioni recommends that a good starting point for overcoming fear of
conflict is to acknowledge that conflict is productive and that teams tend to avoid it. Lencioni
also suggests practical methods for embracing conflict. First, he recommends that members of
the team alternately assume the role of the “miner of conflict”. The role of this team member is
to surface underlying disagreements and tensions and force team members to work through them
until they are resolved. Another strategy for addressing fear of conflict is “Real-Time
Permission”, which involves giving team members validation, in the moment, that the conflict in
which they are engaging is healthy and in the best interest of the team. Similarly, when meetings
end, it is good to remind team members that the conflict that has just happened is good for the
team and not something to be avoided (p. 205). Lencioni describes the role of team leaders in
promoting healthy conflict as (a) resisting the temptation to protect team members from conflict
and allowing conflict resolutions to occur naturally and (b) modeling appropriate conflict
behavior.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

133
It is recommended that PUSD promote Lencioni’s (2002) The Five Dysfunctions of a
Team as essential reading for collaborative teams. It is an easy ready and equips teams with
valuable language and strategies for avoiding dysfunction and attaining high levels of team
functioning. It is also recommended that teacher leaders develop their capacity to fulfill the
leader’s role in developing trust and working through conflict (See Lencioni, 2005).
Develop personal mastery. The problematic nature of teachers not being committed to
their own professional growth and development is self-evident, as an ethic of continuous learning
and growth is foundational to organizational learning and effective collaboration around student
achievement.
Senge (1990) cautions “It must always be remembered that embarking on any path of
personal growth is a matter of choice. No one can be forced to develop his or her personal
mastery” (p. 161). Senge suggest that leaders who want to develop personal mastery should work
to (a) model personal mastery and (b) create a climate that supports the practice of personal
mastery in everyday situations on the job. As Senge explains, this means allowing people to have
their own visions, and creating a culture in which inquiry and challenging the status quo are
organizational norms. Senge reiterates, “There is nothing more important to an individual
committed to his or her own growth than a supportive environment” (p. 162). An organization
committed to personal mastery encourages personal vision, commitment to honest reality, and a
willingness to face gaps between the two. In essence, Senge’s position validates the
recommendations set forth in the section in this chapter on providing autonomy support.
Therefore, it is hypothesized that implementing the recommended solutions to the teacher
autonomy challenge will greatly improve the teacher motivation issue. As Rueda (2011)
explains, motivational and learning gaps are often rooted in organizational factors.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

134
Organizational Factors
Survey results indicated a perception on the part of teachers that resource allocation
criteria are not applied consistently in the district. According to Marzano and Waters (2009)
resource allocation is one of the foundations for ensuring that non-negotiable goals for learning
and instruction are met. Time appears to be the most sought-after resource. Teachers perceive
that the allocation of time has been insufficient for them to develop clarity about the essential
learning outcomes. Providing teachers time to engage with reform artifacts such as essential
learning outcome documents or Common Core Standards documents is critical because teachers,
by engaging with these artifacts, reify the aims and objectives of the reform (Horn, 2005). To put
it another way, the standards and essential learning outcomes are inert documents until teacher
teams engage in critical reflection around these documents and abstract their larger meanings and
implications for individual and collective practice. It is through teachers’ engagement with
reform artifacts that these artifacts gain their real power to transform practice (Horn, 2005).
Teachers also report that they do not have adequate time to learn and grow
professionally. This likely contributes to teachers not being fully committed to developing their
professional knowledge and skills. According to the CANE model of motivation (Clark, 1999),
contextual factors that act as barriers to a given goal negatively impact capability beliefs and, in
so doing, dampen motivation to pursue the goal.
These organizational challenges can be addressed through a comprehensive effort to
develop collaboration capacity within the district. While lack of time is certainly a barrier,
simply allocating more time and space for teams to meet would not solve the problem. As Gajda
and Koliba (2008) explain, principals need to help their teacher teams learn how to spend their
time together wisely. In other words, collaboration capacity must be developed.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

135
Develop collaboration capacity. Once per week, all schools in PUSD have a shortened
instructional day for teacher professional development. Half of these days are designated as
administration-driven ‘A-Mondays’, and the other half are teacher-driven ‘B-Mondays’. If the
district has a vision for teacher professional development to take place within the context of
collaborative learning communities, it is recommended that central office leadership reflect on
how best to communicate their valuing of this vision through the manner in which A-Monday
professional development time is utilized. To be plain, it is recommended that A-Monday time
be used to engage collaborative teams in collaboration-based professional development that
strengthens teams in order to increase their capacity to impact student achievement.
A related issue is that teacher-driven B-Mondays are not being used to their full
advantage for collaboration. There is a disconnect between teachers saying that they need more
time to clarify essential learning outcomes and to learn and grow professionally and, at the same
time, not using an available bi-weekly two hour time slot to address these needs. It is
hypothesized that teachers who feel a general lack of autonomy, or who are overwhelmed by the
demands of teaching, become possessive and territorial with respect to any ‘free time’ over
which they do have autonomy. Based on this hypothesis, it is expected that once teachers
experience the intrinsic rewards of collaboration on A Mondays, and once autonomy supportive
conditions are in place, teachers will be motivated to make the active choice to use B-Mondays
(and possibly other non-mandated times) for collaboration around student achievement.
To begin the process, it is recommended that central office administrators collaborate
with school site leaders to develop clear, non-negotiable goals regarding professional learning to
improve teacher collaboration. The ensuing design of professional learning activities should
employ the two-phase Thompson & Wiliam (2008) approach, which includes (a) initial exposure
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

136
and motivation and (b) ongoing guided learning, practice, reflection, and adjustment.
Additionally, it is recommended that the district train school site administrators to use the
Teacher Collaboration Improvement Framework (TCIF), presented in Gajda and Koliba (2007,
2008) or a modified version thereof. The TCIF is a six-step process for supervising, assessing
and improving teacher collaboration.
In the first step, site leaders would design professional development activities to raise
collaboration literacy (Gajda & Koliba, 2007, 2008). To reiterate a key point, central office
administrators and school site administrators, possibly in consultation with outside experts and
teacher leaders, would develop (a) clear, non-negotiable goals for the professional learning that
would take place as a result of the professional development activities at each site and (b) a
reference library of acceptable strategies for designing the professional development activities.
The next step at each site would be to identify and inventory communities of practice
(Gajda & Koliba, 2007, 2008). The authors describe this step as a systematic determination of
who is working with whom and for what purpose, to ensure that teams are optimally configured.
The goal of this step would be to make sure that every teacher is aligned with at least one
community of practice that is focused intently on improving teaching and learning.
The third step would be for school site administrators to reconfigure teams, as needed, to
ensure that team assignments are equitable and purposeful.
In step four, the Communities of Practice Collaboration Assessment Rubric (CoPCAR)
(Gajda & Koliba, 2007) or the Teacher Collaboration Assessment Rubric (TCAR)(Gajda &
Koliba, 2008) would be used to periodically assess teacher teams on their dialogue, decision-
making, action-taking, and evaluation.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

137
In step five, school site administrators would intervene to build capacity and offer support
in areas of need identified during the CoPCAR/TCAR evaluation phase.
Step six would involve recognizing and celebrating the accomplishments of teacher
teams. It should be noted that the steps in the TCIF are not necessarily linear. For example
capacity building and recognizing accomplishments should be ongoing processes.
In addition to the steps outlined above, PUSD, through its existing relationship with
EdLeader21, should take advantage of valuable input from other districts that have successfully
built collaboration capacity through CLCs, as this is a key component of step 4 in EdLeader21’s
7-step framework: ‘Building Professional Capacity’.
Survey and interview data also validated that teachers perceive a need for intentional
communication from the central office regarding clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and
instruction. Adding to the validity of this finding, school site administrators echoed the need for
intentional communication from the central office (See Salinas, 2013). Lack of communication
in this regard creates ambiguity with respect to goals and expectations, leaves room for
speculation, misinformation, and distrust, and undermines central office administrators’ authority
to hold teachers accountable for results.
Develop communication infrastructure. In order to develop relationships of defined
autonomy, infrastructure must be in place to ensure clear and consistent two-way communication
from the central office down to the classroom level and back again. Toward this end, it is
recommended that all schools in PUSD convene school leadership teams comprised of all lead
teachers, department chairs, and school site administrators. The purpose of these leadership
teams would be to create a venue for two-way communication between the site administrator
level and the teacher level. In these meetings, teacher leaders would bring the teacher perspective
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

138
to collaborative decision-making processes. Teacher leaders would also advocate for the needs of
teachers on their teams. At the same time, these meetings would provide a venue for school site
administrators to communicate expectations and visions for school improvement so that teacher
leaders would be clear on their roles in supporting the principal’s vision. Similarly, school site
administrators should regularly convene with central office leadership to create two-way
communication between the site level and the central office.
Finally, teacher leaders should meet independently of school site administrators, as a
community of practice, to develop a shared repertoire of strategies and to build collective
knowledge on how to lead collaborative learning communities.
Table 8 provides an overview of the solutions that are being proposed to address the
challenges relevant to PUSD teachers. These solutions are designed to aid PUSD in reaching its
organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student achievement.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

139
Table 8
Summary of Solutions to Address Teacher Challenges and Implementation of the Solutions
Solution Implementation
Promote
Teacher
Autonomy
1. Administer teacher autonomy scales.
2. Create information job aids related to teacher autonomy.
3. Prepare teacher leaders to facilitate reframing conversations around autonomy.
a. Conversation-based modeling of teacher autonomy
b. Attributional retraining related to teacher autonomy
4. Adopt guiding principles for creating autonomy-supportive conditions.
a. Create opportunities for leaders to collaboratively reflect on ways of putting the
guiding principles into practice.
Develop
teacher
competencies
related to high-
quality
assessment for
learning
1. Offer a training institute on creating high-quality assessments.
2. Initiate and develop infrastructure for a sustained professional development program,
embedded within collaborative learning communities, aimed at helping teachers to adopt
minute-to-minute and day-by-day assessment for learning as a central feature of their
classroom practice (Thompson & Wiliam, 2008).
a. Develop training curriculum
b. Train teacher leaders to facilitate the training curriculum
Address Group
Tensions
1. Provide literature for team reading (e.g., Lencioni’s (2002) The Five Dysfunctions of a
Team; Crucial Conversations by Patterson, Grenny, McMillan & Switzler (2011)
2. Provide processes and protocols for surfacing and addressing conflicts and tensions.
3. Develop the capacity of teacher leaders to use the processes and protocols to manage
conflict.
Develop
Personal
Mastery
1. Create autonomy-supportive conditions.
2. Collaborate with teachers to identify and adopt guiding principles related to the discipline
of personal mastery.
3. Provide, promote, and/or advertise opportunities for professional growth and development.
a. In particular, develop teachers’ capacity to enact the cycle of continuous
improvement
Develop
Collaboration
Capacity
1. Use A Monday Professional Development time to lead collaborative learning communities
in collaboration-based training
2. Require teachers to account for their use of B Monday time, explaining how their choice of
activity supports district and/or school professional development goals.
3. Train school site administrators to use the Teacher Collaboration Improvement Framework
(Gajda & Koliba, 2008)
4. Develop the capacity of teacher leaders.
Develop
Communication
Infrastructure
1. All sites convene school leadership teams comprised of school site administrators, teacher
leaders, and key staff.
2. Promote the establishment of communities of practice for teacher leaders.

Table 9 summarizes the cascading organizational goals for PUSD and the performance
goals that are designed to support the attainment of these goals.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

140
Table 9
Summary of Cascading Organizational Goals and Short-Term Performance Goals
Organizational Goal: To institutionalize effective collaboration around student achievement.
Cascading Goal 1: All
PUSD teachers belong to at
least one high-functioning
collaborative team that is
focused intently on
improving learning and
instruction
Cascading Goal 2: PUSD
teachers competently and
reliably exercise autonomy
in a cycle of continuous
improvement in order raise
student achievement.
Cascading Goal 3: All PUSD teachers
effectively employ the five strategies of
Assessment for Learning, minute-to-minute
and day-by-day (Thompson and Wiliam,
2008)
Performance Goal:
A PUSD steering
committee will develop
and publish essential
resources for raising
collaboration literacy, and
associated professional
development choices, by
July 2013
Performance Goal:
COAs and SSAs will
collaborate to develop
guiding principles for
autonomy support and
non-negotiable goals for
learning and instruction by
July 2013
Performance Goal:
COAs will contact Northwest Evaluation
Association regarding the Keep Learning on
Track professional development program by
August, 2013.
Performance Goal:
SSAs will be trained to use
the Teacher Collaboration
Improvement Framework
(TCIF) by August 2013
Performance Goal:
SSAs and teacher leaders
will meet to discuss non-
negotiable goals for
learning and instruction by
August, 2013.
Performance Goal: All teacher leaders will
attend training on creating high-quality
assessments for Learning by October, 2013
Performance Goal:
SSAs will plan specific
professional development
activities aimed at raising
collaboration literacy by
August 2013
Performance Goal:
SSAs will collaborate with
teacher leaders to plan
professional development
on the cycle of continuous
improvement by October,
2013
Performance Goal:
All teacher leaders will have coordinated the
creation and administration of at least one
high-quality assessment for learning by
November, 2013
Performance Goal:
SSAs will begin using the
TCIF by October, 2013.
Performance Goal:
All Teacher teams begin
conducting action research
by November, 2013, and
publish by January, 2014.
Performance Goal:
All teachers will demonstrate the five
strategies of Assessment for Learning in
classroom observations by June, 2014.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

141
Chapter Six: Discussion
Author: Anthony Carruthers
The purpose of this project, in essence, was to identify ways to improve teacher
performance in PUSD in order to support the district’s goal to institutionalize effective
collaboration around student achievement. The project required an intensive study of various
topics related to collaboration around student achievement and organizational change.
The inquiry questions driving this project were:
1. What are the challenges for PUSD teachers in knowledge and skills, motivation,
and the organizational dimension that may impede the achievement of PUSD’s
organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student
achievement?
2. What solutions would address PUSD teachers’ challenges in knowledge and
skills, motivation, and the organizational dimension, and thereby support PUSD’s
organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student
achievement?
Synthesis of the Results
The results of this project revealed critical gaps in the following areas:
1. Organizational
support
for
effective
collaboration
around
student
achievement

2. Teacher
commitment
to
professional
learning

3. Teacher
capacity
related
to
curriculum
and
assessment

Organizational Support
In order for effective collaboration around student achievement to take root as an
institutionalized aspect of PUSD operations, organizational supports need to be in place. First
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

142
and foremost teams must be provided time to collaborate. Additionally, job-embedded training in
the use of procedures and protocols for structuring dialogue, managing conflict, and making
decisions would enhance the quality of collaboration in PUSD. Quality assurance, in the form of
regular monitoring and feedback (see Gadjda & Koliba, 2007, 2008) is needed to continuously
improve the quality of collaboration.
Teacher Commitment to Professional Learning
PUSD is pursuing its vision of a learning organization (Senge, 1990). This vision
represents a paradigm shift and calls for stakeholders at all levels of the organization to take
different views of themselves and their roles within the organization. Teachers, in particular, are
invited to step into new roles of autonomy and empowerment. Autonomy and empowerment
inevitably come with increased personal responsibility and the cognitive demands of decision-
making. Therefore, teachers need to seek new knowledge and skills that will increase their
capacity to wield autonomy competently and reliably. This demands that teachers develop an
ethic of continuous learning and the discipline of personal mastery (Senge, 1990). In the teaching
profession, knowledge is the tool of the trade, so to speak. Therefore, teachers should always be
investing personal time, energy, and material resources toward the acquisition of new knowledge
that will increase their capacity to create the results they truly desire.
Teacher Curriculum and Assessment Capacity
Curriculum and assessment in American education is undergoing fundamental change.
The advent of the Common Core State Standards and next-generation assessments calls for
teachers to transform their conceptions and practices related to curriculum and assessment. To be
clear, this will require significant amounts of substantive learning on the part of teachers. District
leaders must, therefore, view teachers as learners and create environments that are conducive to
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

143
professional learning. As a basic approach, strategies should employ the two-phase Thompson &
Wiliam (2008) approach, which includes (a) initial exposure and motivation, and (b) ongoing
guided learning, practice, reflection, and adjustment. Additionally, the relevant literature on 21
st

century professional learning should be studied rigorously.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
Strengths
Various forms of triangulation added to the methodological strength of the project. For
example, having qualitative data to clarify and add depth to the quantitative findings was
extremely valuable. Having access to three stakeholder perspectives added another form of
triangulation and made for very interesting comparisons.
Weaknesses
The methodology relied on teachers’ self reports of their knowledge rather than directly
assessing teachers’ knowledge. It is possible that teachers’ assessments of their own knowledge
were not accurate.
Also, although survey and interview items directed respondents to provide responses
from a team perspective, the unit of observation for this study was still individual teachers.
Valuable insights that might have been gained studying teams as the unit of observation were
likely lost due to the strict focus on individuals.
Finally, because the Gap Analysis Framework neatly classifies challenges and solutions
into the three categories of knowledge, motivation, and organization, there can be a tendency to
assume that these should each receive one-third of the attention during the analysis. For example,
the survey and interview results of this study, as well as that of the two concurrent studies
(Llamas, 2013; Salinas, 2013), overwhelmingly implicated organizational factors as most
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

144
problematic. In fact, when prioritizing the root causes of PUSDs performance gap, based on the
results of the survey, the eight with the highest priority are all related to organizational factors. If
not for one knowledge item that asked teachers whether they have the authority and
responsibility for determining how to accomplish central office goals—and it could be argued
that this item actually assessed an organizational factor—the top 14 highest priority root causes
would have all been related to organizational factors. While allocating attention to the knowledge
and motivation aspects of performance gaps was certainly beneficial, because attention was a
finite resource in this study, other higher-leverage factors may have been excluded in order to
ensure balanced attention to knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors.
Recommendations and Implications
Before moving into solutions, it is important to keep in mind that the teacher level is only
one part of this tri-level project. Kofman and Senge (1993) describe how organizations are
fractals of society, each part a representation of the whole. Thus, attempts to alter how one part
of an organization operates must give consideration to the larger culture of which it is a part. As
such, altering how one level of PUSD operates cannot be considered as isolated from the other
levels or from the district as a whole. Therefore the proposed solutions for teachers are
incomplete solutions if they are viewed in isolation.
Without consideration of the whole, implementation of these incomplete solutions could
prove ineffective. Kofman and Senge (1993) warn against the fragmentation that occurs when
complex situations are broken into smaller components and treated in isolation with separate
solutions. Thus, the proposed solutions should be viewed within the context of the larger system.
Implementing only one level of the solutions would contribute to a pattern of fragmentation and
reactiveness (Kofman & Senge, 1993). To fully appreciate this complexity, PUSD executive
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

145
leadership will need to consider the interconnectedness of the gaps and solutions identified for
each level of the organization, and how each of these is connected with the larger organization.
“The behavior of the system doesn’t depend on what each part is doing, but on how each part is
interacting with the rest” (Kofman & Senge, 1993, p. 14).
Thoughtful and systematic implementation of the solutions proposed by this tri-level
project will help to close gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors and improve
culture and performance in PUSD. It is recommended that implementation begin in Summer
2013. This will give time for central office administrators to collaboratively devise a strategy for
moving forward.
A recurring theme in this project is that effective leadership is crucial. Therefore,
leadership capacity at all levels of the organization must be systematically developed. Not one
person—not even a handful of people—can lead PUSD to where it wants to go. PUSD’s vision
requires effective leadership at every level of the organization.
With respect to teacher leadership, in particular, there must be an intentional and
sustained effort, on the part of teacher leaders, themselves, school site administrators, and central
office administrators, to systematically develop the capacity of teacher leaders. The role of
teacher leader is being redefined constantly and it cannot be assumed that all who hold teacher
leadership positions are equipped to fulfill the demands of the position. It would be a powerful
learning experience for a team of PUSD central office administrators, school site administrators,
and teacher leaders to sit down together and collaboratively develop job descriptions for teacher
leaders. In explicitly defining the roles of grade-level team leaders, academic department chairs,
and career academy leads, the team would be forced to grapple with the essential question ‘What
is effective leadership within a collaborative learning community?’ This would bridge
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

146
communication gaps, clarify expectations, and provide valuable information regarding the types
of capacity building and support that are needed at all levels. It is highly recommended that the
central office create the conditions to make this happen.
Evaluation
Four main solutions were proposed in this project:
1. Develop communication infrastructure.
2. Build collaboration capacity of individual teams.
3. Support teacher autonomy.
4. Train teachers to create high-quality assessments for learning.
Each of these solutions will be evaluated in its own way.
Develop Communication Infrastructure
The effectiveness of this solution can be evaluated through surveys and focus groups to
evaluate level-1 and level-2 outcomes (Kirkpatrick, 2006). More specifically, the effectiveness of
this solution will be apparent through stakeholders appraisals of the their satisfaction with the
level of intraorganizational communication and their accounts of the impact that improved
communication has had on their work.
Build Collaboration Capacity of Individual Teams
Evaluation of this proposed solution should occur on an ongoing basis using the Teacher
Collaboration Assessment Rubric (TCAR)(Gajda & Koliba, 2008) and other available resources
(e.g., Gajda & Koliba, 2007; Bernhardt, 2011; Foord & Haar, 2012). The TCAR assesses teams
on their dialogue, decision-making, action-taking, and evaluation procedures. School site
administrators can be trained to use the rubric to track the quality of teacher collaboration.
Impact on student outcomes is naturally built into the collaborative community model as teams
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

147
will be conducting ongoing action research on the effectiveness of their collaboratively
developed instructional practices.
Support Teacher Autonomy
It was recommended that the district administer teacher autonomy scales (TAS and ATA)
to reveal teacher perceptions of professional autonomy, and devise a strategy for creating
autonomy-supportive conditions. To evaluate the effectiveness of this solution, PUSD could use
a pre-post design. After applying the strategy for a reasonable amount of time (to be determined
by the district) the autonomy scales would be administered again to assess the impact of the
strategy. Additionally, leaders at all levels should periodically be given opportunities to reflect
on, and share, ways they have intentionally created autonomy-supportive conditions.
Train Teachers to Create High-Quality Assessments for Learning
The training should be evaluated using the four-level Kirkpatrick (2006) evaluation
framework. For level one, teachers should be given the opportunity on each day of the training to
write a short reflection explaining how they felt about the structure and content of the day’s
activities so that improvements can be made before the next session. For level two, teachers
should be asked to reflect on what they have learned. For level three, which is embedded in the
proposed training, teachers should report back to the training community how they have applied
the training on the job. This would include showing examples of tests created and student work
samples. Finally, for level four, pre- and post-test data for classroom assessments would indicate
the impact the training is having on organizational goals, i.e., student achievement.
Limitations
One limitation of the project is that it did not measure collaboration around student
achievement directly, but rather measured important factors related to collaboration around
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

148
student achievement. The project did not include focus groups with any particular collaboration
team. Nor did it formally observe actual collaboration at any time. Therefore, the results of this
study should not be used to draw conclusions about the nature or quality of collaborative teams
in PUSD.
Another limitation is that not all teachers responded to the survey and not all types of
teachers were represented by the interview sample. This is a possible limitation if the
characteristics of the survey respondents and interviewees were markedly different than those of
non-respondents and those not interviewed. Therefore, care should be taken when attempting to
generalize the results of this study to non-participants.
Future Research
Case studies of successful collaborative learning communities within PUSD, using the
positive deviance approach (Lapping et al., 2002; Spreitzer & Sonehshein, 2004), would be
valuable. These teams could be used as exemplars and the information gained through the case
studies could be used to inform the district’s efforts to build collaboration capacity throughout
PUSD.
Research on the impact of collaborative culture on job-satisfaction and student
achievement is also needed. If PUSD is successful in institutionalizing collaboration around
student achievement, it will have access to data that could be used to study the impact that
collaborative culture has had on various employee and student outcome variables.
Finally research on what constitutes effective teacher leadership, and how it impacts team
functioning and student achievement, would be beneficial.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

149
Conclusion
A PUSD stakeholder team comprised of the superintendent, the chief academic officer, a
central office administrator, a school site administrator, and a teacher, out of care and concern for
the district and the students it serves, collaboratively conceived this project. The project was
completed using the Gap Analysis Framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) to identify, and propose
solutions for addressing, the root causes that impede PUSD as it aims to institutionalize effective
collaboration around student achievement. The root cause analysis, the proposed solutions, and
the research base to support these, is now in the hands of the Pasadena Unified School District.
The project team does not intend for this document to be read as a manifesto, nor should
the recommendations herein be seen as rigid prescriptions or magic bullets that will solve
PUSD’s collective challenges. To reiterate a position the project team has advocated throughout
this document, the professionals who are charged with actually implementing reforms and
solutions must have the flexibility to adjust any plan or strategy to fit local needs. The project
team believes that this document (and the collective work it represents) can be a valuable
resource that PUSD, as a learning organization, can call upon and build upon as it creatively and
collaboratively finds ways of bringing its most deeply held aspirations into reality.
If nothing else, this project’s completion is a testament to the fact that through hard work,
passionate commitment to goals and processes, and a true belief in the power of collaboration,
stakeholders from all levels of the educational enterprise can, in fact, come together and persist
to bring a common vision into concrete existence.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

150
References
Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. The
Teachers College Record, 104(3), 421-455.
Ainsworth, L. (2007). Common Formative Assessments: The centerpiece of an integrated
standards-based assessment system. In D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of
assessment to transform teaching and learning (pp. 79-101). Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree Press.
Anderson, L. W. Krathwohl (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Auman, M. (2003). Step Up To Writing. Longmont, CO: Cambium Learning.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bernhardt, V. L. (2011). Measuring School Processes. Retrieved from
http://eff.csuchico.edu/downloads/MeasuringProcesses.pdf
Berryhill, J., Linney, J. A., & Fromewick, J. (2009). The effects of education accountability on
teachers: Are policies too stress provoking for their own good?. International Journal of
Education Policy & Leadership, 4(5), 1–14.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education,
5(1), 7-74.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

151
Borman, K. M., Carter, K., Aladjem, D. K., & Carlson LeFloch, K. (2004). Challenges for the
future of comprehensive school reform. In Putting the pieces together: Lessons from
comprehensive school reform research (3). Retrieved from
http://elschools.org/sites/default/files/PTPTLessonsfromCSRResearch.pdf
Boyd, V., & Hord, S. M. (1994). Principals and the new paradigm: Schools as learning
communities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Brooks, J. S., Hughes, R. M., & Brooks, M. C. (2008). Fear and Trembling in the American High
School: Educational Reform and Teacher Alienation. Educational Policy, 22(1), 45–62.
doi:10.1177/0895904807311296
Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross
state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305-331.
Center on Education Policy. (2007). Answering the question that matters most: Has student
achievement increased since No Child Left Behind ?. Washington, DC: Author.
Childress, S., Elmore, R., Grossman, A., & King, C. (2007). Note on the PELP coherence
framework. Public Education Leadership Project, January 2007, 1-14.
Childress, S., & Marietta, G. (2008). A problem-solving approach to designing and implementing
a strategy to improve performance. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school districts.
Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 55.
Clark, R. E. (1998). Motivating performance: Part 1—Diagnosing and solving motivation
problems. Performance Improvement, 37(8), 39-47.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

152
Clark, R. E. (1999). The CANE model of motivation to learn and work: A two-stage process of
goal commitment and effort. In J. Lowyck (Ed.), Trends in Corporate Training. Leuven,
Belgium: University of Leuven Press.
Clark, R.E. (2005). Research-Tested Team Motivation Strategies. Performance Improvement,
44(1), 13-16.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Clark, R. E., Feldon, D. F., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Yates, K., & Early, S. (2008). Cognitive
task analysis. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. Van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll
(Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (3rd
ed.). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership,
51, 49-49.
Cranston, J. (2009). Holding the reins of the professional learning community: Eight themes
from research on principal’s perceptions of professional learning communities. Canadian
Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 90(2), 1-22.
Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing
school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Center on
Educational Governance, USC Rossier School of Education, Los Angeles, CA.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024-1037.
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P. , & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580-590.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

153
Dee, T., & Jacob, B. (2013). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement
(NBER Working Paper 15531). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic
Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w15531
Deering, A., Dilts, R., & Russell, J. (2003). Leadership cults and culture. Leader to Leader,
28(2), 31-38.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Donahoe, T. (1993). Finding the way: Structure, time, and culture in school improvement. Phi
Delta Kappan, 75(4), 298-305.
Dooner, A. M., Mandzuk, D., & Clifton, R. A. (2008). Stages of collaboration and the realities of
professional learning communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 564-574.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2010). Raising the bar and closing the gap:
Whatever it takes. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for
professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work; Best practices for
enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
DuFour, R., Eaker, R. E., & DuFour, R. B. (2005). On common ground: The power of
professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. (2009). High-leverage strategies for principal leadership.
Educational Leadership, 66(5), 62–68.
DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. J. (2011). Leaders of Learning: How district, school, classsroom
leaders improve student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

154
Eaker, R., & Keating, J. (2012). Every school, every team, every classroom. Bloomington, ID:
Solution Tree Press.
Easton, L. B. (2008). Powerful designs for professional learning. National Staff Development
Council. Oxford, Ohio.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for
professional development in education. Albert Shanker Institute. Washington, D.C.
Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Fallon, G., & Barnett, J. (2009). Impacts of school organizational restructuring into a
collaborative setting on the nature of emerging forms of collegiality. International
Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 4(9).
Flinders, D. J. (1988). Teacher isolation and the new reform. Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision, 4(1), 17-29.
Foord, K. A., & Haar, J. M. (2012). Gauging Effectiveness: how to know whether your district's
PLCs are contributing to better student outcomes. School Administrator, 69(1), 33-36.
Försterling, F. (1985). Attributional retraining: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 98(3), 495-
512.
Friedman, I. A. (1999). Teacher-perceived work autonomy: The concept and its measurement.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 58-76.
Fullan, M. G. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational leadership, 50(6),
12-17.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

155
Fullan, M. (2004). Systems Thinkers in Action: Moving Beyond the Standards Plateau: Teachers
Transforming Teaching. London, England: Department for Education and Skills.
Fullan, M. (2009). Large-scale reform comes of age. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2), 101
113.
Fullan, M. (2010). All systems go: The change imperative for whole system reform. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gagné, M., Koestner, R., & Zuckerman, M. (2000). Facilitating acceptance of organizational
change: The importance of self‐determination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
30(9), 1843-1852.
Gajda, R., & Koliba, C. J. (2007). Evaluating the imperative of intraorganizational collaboration:
A school improvement perspective. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(1), 26-44.
Gajda, R., & Koliba, C. J. (2008). Evaluating and improving the quality of teacher collaboration:
A field-tested framework for secondary school leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 92(2), 133-153.
Goddard, R.D., Hoy, W.K., & Hoy A.W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning,
measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal,
37(2), 479-507.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical
developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3-
13. doi:10.3102/0013189X033003003.
Goddard, R. D. & Skrla, L. (2006). The influence of school composition on teachers’ collective
efficacy beliefs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 216-235.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

156
Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical
investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in
public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877-896.
Goodlad, J. I. (1983). A study of schooling: Some implications for school improvement. Phi
Delta Kappan, 64(8), 552–558.
Goldberg, M. F., & Sizer, T. (1996). An interview with Ted Sizer: Here for the long haul. The
Phi Delta Kappan, 77(10), 685-687.
Graham, P. (2007). Improving teacher effectiveness through structured collaboration: A case
study of a professional learning community. Research in Middle Level Education, 31(1),
1-17.
Graham, P., & Ferriter, W. (2010). Building a professional learning community at work: A guide
to the first year. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Gratch, A. (2000). Becoming teacher: student teaching as identity construction. Teaching
education, 11(1), 119-126.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough?: An experiment
with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). Analyzing lists of the characteristics of effective professional development
to promote visionary leadership. NASSP Bulletin, 87(637), 4-20.
Hall, J. N. (2010). Investigating internal accountability and collective capacity: Taking a closer
look at mathematics instruction. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 4(2), 9.
Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1979). Implementing innovations in schools: A concerns-based
approach. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education,
University of Texas.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

157
Hall, G. E., Loucks, S. F., Rutherford, W. L., & Newlove, B. W. (1975). Levels of use of the
innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher
Education, 26(1), 52-56.
Handley, K., Sturdy, A., Fincham, R., & Clark, T. (2006). Within and beyond communities of
practice: Making sense of learning through participation, identity, and practice. Journal
of Management Studies, 43(3), 641-653.
Hargreaves, A., & Dawe, R. (1990). Paths of professional development: Contrived collegiality,
collaborative culture, and the case of peer coaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 6(3),
227–241.
Hargreaves, A., & Macmilan, R. (1992). Balkanized secondary schools and the malaise of
modernity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA.
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2010). Professional learning communities and system improvement.
Improving Schools, 13(2), 172–181.
Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75,
124-134.
Hipp, K. K., Huffman, J. B., Pankake, A. M., & Olivier, D. F. (2008). Sustaining professional
learning communities: Case studies. Journal of Educational Change, 9(2), 173-195.
Hord, S . M. (1986). A synthesis of research on organizational collaboration. Educational
Leadership, 43(5), 22–26.
Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: What are they and why are they
important? Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

158
Hord, S., & Rutherford, W. (1998). Creating a professional learning community: Cottonwood
Creek School. Issues About Change, 6(2), 1-8.
Horn, I. S. (2005). Learning on the job: A situated account of teacher learning in high school
mathematics departments. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 207-236.
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational
health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 355-372.
Hughes, T. A., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2007). Professional learning communities and the positive
effects on student achievement: A national agenda for school improvement. The Lamar
University Electronic Journal of Student Research, Spring.
Johnson, L. B. (1964). Lyndon B. Johnson: Remarks in Providence at the 200th anniversary
convocation of Brown University. Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/
Kagan, Spencer & Kagan, Miguel. (2009). Kagan Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, CA:
Kagan Publishing.
Kerr, K. A., Marsh, J. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., & Barney, H. (2006). Strategies to
promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from
three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 496-520.
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four
levels (3
rd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Kofman, F., & Senge, P. M. (1993). Communities of commitment: The heart of learning
organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 1-33.
Langer, G. M., Colton, A. B., & Goff, L. S. (2003). Collaborative analysis of student work:
Improving teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision &
Curriculum Development.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

159
Lapping, K., Marsh, D. R., Rosenbaum, J., Swedberg, E., Sternin, J., Sternin, M., …Schroeder,
D. G. (2002). The positive deviance approach: Challenges and opportunities for the future.
Food & Nutrition Bulletin, 23(2), 128-135.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, H. (2004). The logic of collaboration in education and the human services. Journal of
Interprofessional Care, 88(3), 225–237.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1998, April), Distributed leadership and student engagement in
school. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Diego, CA.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Lencioni, P. (2005). Overcoming the five dysfunctions of a team: A field guide for leaders,
managers, and facilitators. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Liebman, H., Maldonado, N., Lacey, C. H, & Thompson, S. (2005). An investigation of
leadership in a professional learning community: A case study of a large, suburban,
public middle school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Educational
Research Association, Miami.
Little, J. W., Gearhart, M., Curry, M., & Kafka, J. (2003). Looking at student work for teacher
learning, teacher community, and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(3), 184-192.
Llamas, S. (2013). An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using
the gap analysis approach: Central office leadership factors. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

160
Louis, K. S., & Kruse, S. D. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming
urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom?
Teachers' work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of
Education, 532-575.

MacMullen, M. M. (1996). Taking stock of a school reform effort: A research collection and
analysis (No. 2). Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform.
Mandinach, E. B., Honey, M., & Light, D. (2006). A theoretical framework for data-driven
decision making. In EDC Center for Children and Technology. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San
Francisco, CA.
Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of
transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly,
39(3), 370-397.
Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making
in education: Evidence from recent RAND research. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Retrieved from RAND Education website: www.rand.org
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research on
what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum
Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

161
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning
communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement (Vol. 45).
Teachers College Press.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50(3), 43-59.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 74, 5-12.
Miller, D. L. (2003). The stages of group development: A retrospective study of dynamic team
processes. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20(2), 121-134.
Mills, G. E. (2006). Guide for the Teacher Researcher. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Mullen, C. A., & Schunk, D. H. (2010). A view of professional learning communities through
three frames: Leadership, organization, and culture. McGill Journal of Education, 45(2).
Muncey, D. E., & McQuillan, P. J. (1993). Preliminary findings from a five-year study of the
Coalition of Essential Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6) 486-489.
Murphy, J., Smylie, M., Mayrowetz, D., & Louis, K. S. (2009). The role of the principal in
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

162
fostering the development of distributed leadership. School Leadership and
Management, 29(2), 181-214.
Musanti, S. I., & Pence, L. (2010). Collaboration and teacher development: Unpacking
resistance, constructing knowledge, and navigating identities. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 37(1), 73-89.
Nair, C. S., & Adams, P. (2009). Survey platform: A factor influencing online survey delivery
and response rate. Quality in Higher Education, 15(3), 291-296.
National School Reform Faculty. (2012). National School Reform Faculty. Retrieved from
http://www.nsrfharmony.org
Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the
public and educators. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Center
on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
Olsen, E. M., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2009). A pathway forward to school change: Leading together
and achieving goals. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(4), 380-410.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Pearson, L. C., & Hall, B. W. (1993). Initial construct validation of the teaching autonomy scale.
The Journal of Educational Research, 86(3), 172-178.
Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress,
work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational research quarterly,
29(1), 38-54.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn
knowledge into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

163
Prestine, N. A. (1993). Extending the Essential Schools metaphor: Principal as enabler. Journal
of School Leadership, 3(4), 356-79.
Rasberry, M. A., & Mahajan, G. (2008). From isolation to collaboration: Promoting teacher
leadership through PLCs. Center for Teaching Quality: Hillsborough, NC. Retrieved
from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED503637.pdf
Raywid, M. A. (1993). Finding Time for Collaboration. Educational Leadership, 51(1), 30-34.
Reeves, D. (2011). Elements of grading: A guide to effective practice. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree Press.
Ross, R., Smith, B., & Roberts, C. (1994). The wheel of learning. In P. Senge, et al., The fifth
discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization (pp. 59-
64). New York: Doubleday.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Sahlberg, P (2010). Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational
Change, 11, 45-61. DOI 10.1007/s10833-008-9098-2
Salinas, E C. (2013). An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement
using the gap analysis approach: School site leadership factors (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., & Horn, S. P. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on
student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 11(1), 57-67.
Schlicte, J., Yssel, N., & Merbler, J. (2005). Pathways to burnout: Case studies in teacher
isolation and alienation. Preventing School Failure, 50(1), 35- 40.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

164
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results Now. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor: The challenge of
leading 21st-century schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy, 22(1), 181
203. DOI: 10.1177/0895904807311291
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research
and applications (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York, NY: Doubleday.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization.
New York, NY: Doubleday.
Senge, P., Ross, R., Smith, B., Roberts, C., & Kleiner, A. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook:
Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building community in schools (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2005). The virtues of leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 112-123.
Servage, L. (2008). Critical and transformative practices in professional learning communities.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 63–77.
Shih, T. H., & Fan, X. (2009). Comparing response rates in e-mail and paper surveys: A meta
analysis. Educational Research Review, 4(1), 26-40.
Sizer, T. R. (1986). Rebuilding: First steps by the coalition of essential schools. Phi Delta
Kappan, 68(1), 38-42.
Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. (2004). Toward the construct definition of positive deviance.
American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 828-847.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

165
Stephenson, L. E., & Bauer, S. (2010). The role of isolation in predicting new principals'
burnout. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 5(9), 1-17.
Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta
Kappan, 83(10), 758-765.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional
design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
Tan, H. H., & Lim, A. K. (2009). Trust in coworkers and trust in organizations. The Journal of
Psychology, 143(1), 45-66.
Tan, H. H., & Tan, C. S. F. (2000). Towards the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in
organization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126(2), 241–260.
Taylor, B. M., Pressley, M., & Pearson, D. (2000). Effective teachers and schools: Trends across
recent studies. Ann Arbor, MI: CIERA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
450 353).
Thessin, R. A., & Starr, J. P. (2011). Supporting the growth of effective professional learning
communities districtwide. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 48-54.
Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2008). Tight but loose: A conceptual framework for scaling up
school reforms. In C. Wylie (Ed.), Tight but loose: Scaling up teacher professional
development in diverse contexts (pp. 1-45). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Thompson, S. C., Gregg, L., & Niska, J. (2004). Professional learning communities, leadership,
and student learning. Research in Middle Level Education, 28(1), 1-15.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to
improve instruction and achievement in all schools: A leadership brief. Learning First
Alliance.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

166
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A.W., & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning
and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature,
meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547-593.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A.W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group
& Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427.
Tye, K. A., & Tye, B. B. (1984). Teacher isolation and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 65(5),
319–322.
Van Merriënboer, J. J., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner's
mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5-13.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional
learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24(1), 80–91.
Wagner, T. (2003). Making the grade: Reinventing America's schools. New York, NY:
Routledge Falmer.
Waite, D. (2010). On the shortcomings of our organizational forms: with implications for
educational change and school improvement. School Leadership and Management, 30(3),
225–248.
Wang, Z. M. (1994, 2007). Group attributional training as an effective approach to human
resource development under team work systems. Ergonomics, 37(7), 1137-1144.
Waters, T., & Cameron, M. A. (2007). The balanced leadership framework: Connecting vision
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

167
with action. Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved
from http://www.mcrel.org/~/media/Files/McREL/Homepage/
Products/01_99/prod54_BL_Framework.ashx
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Retrieved from
http://www.sai-iowa.org/storage/BalancedLeadership.pdf
Watts, G. D., & Castle, S. (1993). The time dilemma in school restructuring. Phi Delta Kappan
75(4), 306-10.
Wayman, J. C. (2005). Involving teachers in data-driven decision making: Using computer data
systems to support teacher inquiry and reflection. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 10(3), 295-308.
Wayman, J. C., Midgley, S., & Stringfield, S. (2006). Leadership for data-based decision-
making: Collaborative data teams. In A. Danzig, K. Borman, B. Jones, & B. Wright
(Eds.), New models of professional development for learner centered leadership (pp. 189-
206). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Welch, M. (1998). Collaboration: Staying on the bandwagon. Journal of Teacher Education,
49(1), 26–37.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 9(5),
2-3.
Wenger, E. (2009). Communities of practice. Communities, 22, 57. Retrieved from
www.ewenger.com/theory/
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A
guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

168
Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). The organizational frontier. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Business Review.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2011). Understanding by design guide to creating high quality
units. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.
Williams, R., Brien, K., Sprague, C., & Sullivan, G. (2008). Professional learning communities:
Developing a school-level readiness instrument. Canadian Journal of Educational
Administration and Policy, 74(6), 1–17.
Wood, D. (2007). Teachers' learning communities: Catalyst for change or a new infrastructure
for the status quo?. The Teachers College Record, 109(3), 699-739.
Zboralski, K. (2009). Antecedents of knowledge sharing in communities of practice. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 13(3), 90-101.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

169
Appendix A
Definition of Key Terms
The following terms will be used throughout the study. For the purposes of consistency and
clarity, they are defined as follows:
Action Research. Any systematic inquiry conducted by teacher researchers, principals, school
counselors, or other stakeholders in the teaching/learning environment to gather information
about how their particular schools operate, how they teach, and how well their students learn.
This information is gathered with the goals of gaining insight, developing reflective practice,
effecting positive changes in the school environment, and improving student outcomes and the
lives of those involved. Action research is research done by teachers for themselves; it is not
imposed on them by someone else. Action research engages teachers in a four-step process: (a)
identify a focus area, (b) collect data, (c) Analyze and interpret data, and (d) develop an action
plan (Mills, 2006, p. 5).
Collaborative Analysis of Student Learning (CASL). A teacher development system that
helps educators develop a culture for collaborative inquiry and gain a deeper understanding of
the link between their instruction and their students' learning around a standards-based target
learning area" (p. 3). "CASL has four components: a guiding conceptual framework, a culture for
collaborative inquiry, shared inquiry into students' learning, and supportive facilitation and
leadership" (p. 24).
Collective Efficacy. The teachers’ shared beliefs that the staff as a whole has the ability to
perform in such a way as to ensure a positive effect on students (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004).
Cycle of Continuous Improvement. Alternately called the Deming Cycle, it is a continuous
quality-improvement model developed by W. Edwards Deming in which a sequence of the four
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

170
repetitive steps (plan, do, check, and act) comprise a feedback loop that allows for identification
and correction of deficiencies. (http://business.yourdictionary.com/deming-cycle)
Defined Autonomy. Ability to set clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction, yet
providing school leadership teams with the responsibility and authority for determining how to
meet those goals.
Institutionalization. Process which translates an organization's code of conduct, mission,
policies, vision, and strategic plans into action guidelines applicable to the daily activities of its
officers and other employees. It aims at integrating fundamental values and objectives into the
organization's culture and structure
(http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/institutionalization.html).
Learning Organization. Organizations in which participants continually expand their capacities
to create and achieve, where novel patterns of thinking are encouraged where collective
aspirations are nurtured, where participants learn how to learn together, and where the
organization expands its capacity for innovation and problem solving (Senge, 1990, p. 5).
Professional Learning Communities. Educators committed to working collaboratively in
ongoing processes of collective inquiry and action research in order to achieve better student
results (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2006; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2010).
Self-Efficacy. The “…beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute a course of action
required to produce a given attainment” (Bandura, 1997, p. 2).
Shared Leadership: Contains Capacity building, defined autonomy and resource allocation
(Hord, 1997)
Shared Vision: Answers the question “what do we want to create?” and “creates a sense of
commonality that permeates the organization and gives coherence to diverse activities…where
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

171
each individual has a similar picture and are committed to one another having it (Senge, 1990, p.
206).
SMART Goals: Strategic, specific, measurable, attainable, results-based and time-bound
(SMART) goals that are agreed upon and supported by the school community are
critical for supporting student achievement (O’Neill, Conzemius, Commodore, & Pulsfus, 2006).
Teacher Efficacy: The extent to which the teacher believes he or she has the capacity to affect
student performance (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

172
Appendix B
Concepts and Characteristics of Model Communities of Collaboration in
Educational Settings
Model Concepts and Characteristics
Coalition of
Essential Schools
Sizer (1986)
Instructional improvement through inquiry and collaboration
Ten principles for school-wide reform:
• Intellectual focus that helps students use their minds well
• Goals that value depth and mastery over breadth of content covered
• Universal goals that apply to all students
• Personalization of teaching and learning
• Student-as-worker and teacher as coach to teach students how to
learn, then teach themselves
• Student exhibitions of mastery
• Tone of decency, high expectations, trust, values of fairness,
generosity and tolerance
• Staff are first generalists, then specialists
• Resources dedicated to teaching and learning
• Democracy and equity
Critical Friends
Costa & Kallick
(1993)
A critical friend is “a trusted person who asks provocative questions,
provides data to be examined through another lens, and offers critiques of
a person’s work as a friend.”
• Promotes meaningful interaction, learning and problem solving
• Reflection, public practice, meaningful questions and substantive
feedback that challenges assumptions, habits and practices
• Use of processes and protocols
Communities of
Commitment
Kofman & Senge
(1993)
“The learning organization vision is grounded in a culture based on values
of love, humility, wonder, empathy, and compassion; a set of practices for
generative conversation and coordinated action; and a capacity to see and
work with the flow of life as a system”
• Promotes systems thinking and team building
• Addresses dysfunction of isolation, competition, and reactiveness

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

173
Appendix B (continued)
Model Concepts and Characteristics
Professional
Learning
Communities
Hord
(1997, 1998)
“A school in which the professionals (administrators and teachers)
continuously seek and share learning to increase their effectiveness for
students and act on what they learn.”
• Shared values and mission
• Collective learning and application of that learning
• Shared personal practice
• Supportive conditions
• Share and supportive leadership
Professional
Learning
Communities
DuFour & Eaker
(1998)
• Three
Big
Ideas:
(1)
The
purpose
of
school
is
to
ensure
that
all

students
learn.
(2)
Ensuring
that
all
students
learn
requires
a

culture
of
collaboration.
(3)
Ensuring
that
all
students
learn

requires
a
focus
on
results.
PLCs
are
characterized
by:

• Collaboratively developed and shared mission, vision values and goals
• Collective inquiry into best practices and current reality
• Action orientation and experimentation
• Collaborative teams that work interdependently to achieve common
goals
• Results orientation: focus on results as evidenced by a commitment to
continuous improvement

Communities of
Practice
Wenger & Snyder
(2000)
“Groups of people informally bound together by shared expertise and
passion for a joint enterprise”
• Interdisciplinary membership
• Use of processes and a diverse menu of protocol choices
• Decentralized structure
Purposeful
Community
Marzano, Waters, &
McNulty
(2005)
“A purposeful community is one with the collective efficacy and
capability to develop and use assets to accomplish goals that matter to all
community members through agreed upon processes”
• Accomplish a purpose and produce outcomes that matter to all
• Use of all available assets, tangible and intangible
• Agreed-upon processes
• Collective efficacy
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

174
Appendix C
Common Characteristics of Collaboration Around Student Achievement
Regardless of the collaborative model or setting in which it operates there are inherent
dynamics and best practices related to collaboration around student achievement. Five common
characteristics of collaboration around student achievement were identified from relevant
literature. These characteristics include (a) supportive and shared leadership, (b) learning as a
fundamental purpose, (c) culture of collaboration, (d) focus on results and (e) collective efficacy.
These and their associated competencies are further explored in the following sections.
Supportive and Shared Leadership
Supportive and shared leadership is an essential characteristic of collaboration around
student achievement (NAESP, 2008). From relevant literature emerge three competencies that
define supportive and shared leadership. These competencies include (a) capacity building, (b)
defined autonomy, and (c) resource allocation.
Capacity building. An important function within collaborative learning communities is
to build capacity of teams and team members (Costa & Kallick, 1993). Capacity building
requires the ability to (a) identify the specific knowledge and skill deficits that inhibit teachers
and administrators from achieving the outcomes for which they are accountable and (b) engaging
them in knowledge- and skill-building activities that raise their capacity to achieve these
outcomes (Hord, 1997). In this process it is important that team members believe their
contributions are vital and valued (Sizer, 1986). Collectively, the team must be committed to
developing their knowledge and skills so they can achieve the outcomes for which they are
accountable (Waters & Cameron, 2008). It is also important that teams be provided the necessary
time and resources for professional growth (DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Marzano & Waters,
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

175
Appendix C (continued)
2009). When these conditions have been met, leadership can systematically release the
responsibility and authority for determining how to meet district goals to the teams that are
accountable for meeting them (DuFour & Marzano, 2011).
Defined autonomy. Collaborative learning communities define autonomy. Defined
autonomy provides independence within parameters (Marzano & Waters, 2009). It is the task of
central office to set clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction while providing
school leadership teams with the responsibility and authority to determine how to meet those
goals (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). Central office must set goals and expectations for site
performance (Eaker & Keating, 2012). Intentional communication between the central office and
school sites regarding these clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction must occur
(Marzano & Waters, 2009). Under these conditions, teams are entrusted to take on increasing
responsibility and authority for determining how to meet district goals (NAESP, 2008).
Resource allocation. The success of collaborative learning communities relies on
effective resource allocation. Resource allocation is the ability to make the decisions that provide
the greatest benefit to student achievement outcomes (Hord, 1997). Criteria for resource
allocation must be set by central office then consistently applied and managed at the both the
central office and school site levels (Marzano & Waters, 2008; DuFour & Marzano, 2011). It
requires central office and school sites to prioritize available resources then make decisions
about how to spend allocated resources in order to provide the greatest benefit to student
achievement. Effective resource allocation also relies on intentional communication between the
central office and school sites surrounding student achievement goals (Eaker & Keating, 2012).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

176
Appendix C (continued)
Learning as the Fundamental Purpose
The fundamental purpose of schools is to ensure that all students learn at high levels
(DuFour et al., 2010). Students who have learned at high levels can transfer what they have
learned to new situations appropriately (Wiggins & McTighe, 2011). Teaching for transfer
involves schema building (Sweller, Van Merrienboer, & Paas, 1998) and strategies for managing
cognitive load (Van Merrienboer, Kirschner, & Kester, 2003). Therefore, instruction must be
intentionally designed with transfer outcomes in mind (Wiggins & McTighe, 2011). It is
important, then, for teachers and administrators to develop clarity about what it is that all
students must learn (DuFour et. al., 2010).
Learning as the fundamental purpose is an essential characteristic of collaboration around
student achievement (DuFour et al., 2010). From relevant literature emerge four competencies
that operationalize Learning as a fundamental purpose. These competencies include (a) building
collective knowledge regarding essential learning outcomes, (b) developing and deploying an
assessment and monitoring system, (c) developing timely, directive, systematic interventions for
remediation and enrichment, and finally, (d) evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in
producing the essential learning outcomes.
Building collective knowledge regarding essential learning outcomes. Collaborative
learning communities build collective knowledge about essential learning outcomes (DuFour et
al., 2010; Hord, 1997). Teams develop clarity about essential outcomes by considering content
and process standards as well as dispositions and habits of mind that students are expected to

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

177
Appendix C (continued)
acquire by the end of a particular learning progression (Marzano & Waters, 2009). In order for
teams to develop clarity about the essential learning outcomes, they must be provided with
processes, resources, and adequate time (Eaker & Keating, 2012).
Developing and deploying an assessment and monitoring system. Collaborative
learning communities develop and deploy assessment and monitoring systems (DuFour & Eaker,
1998). Assessment and monitoring systems communicate to all team members the extent to
which students are achieving essential learning outcomes (Eaker & Keating, 2012). This requires
that teams know how to develop high quality assessments that produce useful data about whether
students have met essential learning outcomes (DuFour et. al, 2010). Additionally, it requires an
accessible data management system that can store data and communicate to all stakeholders the
extent to which students are achieving essential learning outcomes. Student learning is at the
center of an effective assessment and monitoring system (DuFour et. al, 2010). Supporting
factors include collaboration, data systems, knowledge and skills, and structural supports
(Datnow et al., 2007).
Assessment and monitoring systems make it possible to engage in Data-Driven Decision
Making. Marsh (2006) defines data-driven decision making (DDDM) as “teachers, principals,
and administrators systematically collecting and analyzing various types of data, including input,
process, outcome and satisfaction data, to guide a range of decisions to help improve the success
of students and schools” (p. 1). As Datnow et al. (2007) writes, the ability to gather and make use
of data is an integral part of a culture and system of continuous improvement that is geared
toward improving student learning outcomes.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

178
Appendix C (continued)
Factors can support or hinder effective data-driven decision-making (Datnow et al., 2007;
Mandinach et al., 2006; Marsh, 2006). Synthesizing data from four large-scale RAND studies,

Marsh (2006) presented findings on the ways in which data are used in education and the factors
that influence the extent to which educators use data to make decisions. Among the most salient
factors she noted were (a) accessibility, quality and timeliness of data, (b) staff motivation and
skills to use data, and (c) organizational factors such as time, pressure to adhere to pacing
guidelines, and overall culture/leadership.
Developing timely, directive, systematic interventions for remediation and
enrichment. Collaborative learning communities develop timely, directive, systematic
interventions for remediation and enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need (DuFour et.
al, 2010). This mandates that students receive additional time and support or enrichment
opportunities when needed. Teams need to know how to identify struggling students who need
remediation as well as identify students who are already achieving at proficient and advanced
levels and are in need of enrichment opportunities (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). Systems,
processes and resources must be in place (Hord, 1997, 1998) to provide remediation and
enrichment. Teams must then be committed to making a concerted effort (Kofman & Senge,
1993) to connect students with the appropriate remediation and enrichment opportunities
whenever the need is demonstrated (DuFour & Marzano, 2011).
Evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in producing the essential learning
outcomes. Collaborative learning communities evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

179
Appendix C (continued)
producing the essential learning outcomes for students (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Teams collect
various data to determine how effective a particular intervention has been. Protocols, models,
and other resources are made available and are used to determine the effectiveness of
interventions.
Culture of Collaboration
Culture of collaboration is an essential characteristic of collaboration around student
achievement (NAESP, 2008). Two competencies emerged from the literature that are used here
to operationalize culture of collaboration. These competencies are (a) providing collaborative
teams with time to meet and (b) collaborative teams working interdependently to gather, analyze,
and determine best practices and transfer these best practices across all team members (Sizer,
1986; Hord, 1997, 1998).
Collaborative teams are given time to meet. Collaborative learning communities
require time to meet (NAESP, 2008). Additionally, collaborative teams are allowed to establish
the tasks and purposes for their time working together (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005).
Administrators at both central office and school site levels support and facilitate collaboration
time through helpful scheduling arrangements.
Collaborative teams work interdependently to gather, analyze, and determine best
practices and transfer best practices across all team members. Continuous improvement
requires feedback. When identifying and implementing best practices, feedback offered by
trusted colleagues regarded positively (Costa & Kallick, 1993). However, collaborative teams
also understand that there are inherent tensions embedded in the collaborative process (Graham

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

180
Appendix C (continued)
& Ferriter, 2010). To persist and accomplish their goals, collaborative teams implement
strategies to overcome these interpersonal challenges (Costa & Kallick, 1993). When group
tension arises, team members respectfully address the tension. Collaborative learning
teams consistently use norms and protocols for working collaboratively to gather, analyze,
and transfer best practices across all team members (Wenger & Snyder, 2000).
Focus of Results
Focus on results is an essential characteristic of collaboration around student achievement
(NAESP, 2008). Two related competencies that emerged from the relevant literature define a
focus on results. These competencies are (a) using common assessment data to identify needs for
intervention and enrichment and (b) using assessment data to identify strengths and weaknesses
in individual and collective teaching as part of a cycle of continuous improvement (DuFour &
Eaker, 1998; Schmoker, 2011; Waters & Cameron, 2008).
Using common assessment data to identify needs for intervention and enrichment.
Collaborative learning communities use common assessment data to identify needs for
intervention and enrichment (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Common assessments are developed and
aligned with essential learning outcomes using a systematic and collaborative process (Langer et
al., 2003). Teams then use specific protocols and processes for analyzing common assessment
data (Little et al., 2003; Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Using common assessment data, collaborative
teams then refer students for interventions for remediation and enrichment (DuFour & Eaker,
1998; DuFour et al., 2010).
Using assessment data to identify strengths and weaknesses in individual and
collective teaching as part of a cycle of continuous improvement. Collaborative learning
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

181
Appendix C (continued)
communities use assessment data to drive conversations aimed at identifying practices that have
been effective and those that need to be re-evaluated (Langer et al., 2003; Schmoker, 2011).
Collective Efficacy
Collaborative learning communities share the belief that, as a team, they can organize and
execute a course of action that positively impacts achievement (Waters & Cameron, 2008). This
competency requires teams to identify clear actionable steps that lead to achievement goals.
Administrators at the central office and school site levels must provide structured time for teams
to engage in action planning. Collective efficacy is enhanced when school culture fosters the
notion that working collectively makes it possible to produce desired student achievement
outcomes (Marzano & Waters, 2009). Collective efficacy underscores the essential role that all
members play in positively impacting student achievement (NAESP, 2008).
Collective efficacy is an important motivational construct that moderates the other four
characteristics of collaboration around student achievement and their associated competencies
(Goddard & Goddard, 2001; Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004). Collective efficacy, as applied to the
12 competencies of collaboration around student achievement, indicates the extent to which team
members believe that the team, working together as a whole, can demonstrate the competencies
(Waters & Cameron, 2008). To be clear, the teams collective efficacy beliefs impact the teams
actual ability to demonstrate the competencies.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

182
Appendix D
CASA Team Characteristics and Competencies

CASA Team
Characteristics
& Competencies

Frameworks

Factual,
Conceptual,
Procedural,
Metacognitive
(Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2005)
CANE Model
(Clark, 1999)
Processes, Material
Resources,
Organizational
Culture
(Clark & Estes,
2008)
Coding
Characteristic #1
SUPPORTIVE &
SHARED
LEADERSHIP
Knowledge &
Skill
Motivation Organization Possible Artifacts
1. Capacity Building

Ability to identify the
specific knowledge and
skill deficits that inhibit
people from achieving the
outcomes for which they
are accountable.

Ability to engage teachers
and administrators in
knowledge- and skill-
building activities that raise
their capacity to achieve
the outcomes for which
they are accountable.
• My team
members know
the specific
knowledge and
skills required
for our team to
achieve the
outcomes for
which we are
accountable.
• My team knows
how to engage
in team learning
activities that
raise our
capacity to
achieve the
outcomes for
which we are
accountable.
• It is important
to my team to
make all
members feel
that their
contribution is
vital to our
success.
• My team is
committed to
developing our
professional
knowledge and
skills so that we
can achieve the
outcomes for
which we are
accountable.
• My team is
provided the
necessary time to
learn and grow
professionally
• My team is
provided the
necessary
resources to learn
and grow
professionally
• PD plan
• District PD plan
• Team activities
• Schedules
• Calendars
• Budget allocation

2. Defined Autonomy

Ability to set clear, non-
negotiable goals for
learning and instruction,
yet providing school
leadership teams with the
responsibility and authority
for determining how to
meet those goals.
• My team has
been given the
responsibility
and authority
for determining
how to meet the
goals set by
central office.
• My team values
being given the
responsibility
and authority
for determining
how to meet
district goals.
• Intentional
communication
occurs between
central office and
school sites
regarding clear,
non-negotiable
goals for learning
and instruction.
• Central office sets
clear goals and
expectations for
site performance
• Yearly goals
(individual)
• Mid-year
• Single school plan
• Mid-year updates
• Instructional
updates
• Data advance
• Staff evaluations
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

183
Appendix D (continued)

3. Resource Allocation

Ability to make resource
allocation decisions that
provide the greatest benefit
to student achievement
outcomes.
• My team knows
how to
prioritize
resources that
benefit student
achievement
outcomes.
• It is important
that my team
can make
decisions about
how to spend
allocated
resources that
provide the
greatest benefit
to student
achievement
outcomes.
• Intentional
communication
occurs between
central office and
school sites
surrounding
student
achievement goals.
• Resource
allocation criteria
are consistently
applied and
managed.
• Budgets
• Budget
prioritization
process

Characteristic #2
LEARNING AS THE
FUNDAMENTAL
PURPOSE
Knowledge &
Skill
Motivation Organization Possible Artifacts
4. Building collective
knowledge regarding
essential learning
outcomes
Develop clarity among
all team members
regarding the essential
learning outcomes that
all students are expected
to achieve.
• My team has
clarity about the
essential
learning
outcomes that
all students are
expected to
achieve.

• It is important
for my team to
develop clarity
about the
essential
learning
outcomes that
all students are
expected to
achieve.
• My team is
provided with the
time to develop
clarity about the
essential learning
outcomes that all
students are
expected to
achieve.
• My team is
provided with the
processes and
resources that
enable us to
develop clarity
about the essential
learning outcomes
that all students
are expected to
achieve.
• Lesson plan
objectives aligned
with standards
• Lesson plans
objectives aligned
with common core
standards
• Schedules
• Calendars
• Team protocols
used

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

184
Appendix D (continued)
5. Developing and
deploying an assessment
and monitoring system.
Implement an assessment
and reporting system that
communicates to all team
members the extent to
which students are
achieving essential
learning outcomes.
• My team knows
how to develop
high quality
assessments
that produce
useful data
about whether
students have
met essential
learning
outcomes.
• My team knows
how to use a
data
management
system (e.g.
Data Director)
to store and
communicate
assessment
data.

• My team values
having access
to a data
management
system that can
communicate to
all team
members the
extent to which
students are
achieving
essential
learning
outcomes.
• My team has
access to a data
management
system that
communicates to
all stakeholders the
extent to which
students are
achieving essential
learning outcomes.
• Assessments
• Reports generated
from Data Director
• Meeting minutes
from SSC, ELAC,
PTA, AAPC, etc.,
of when student
achievement
results were shared
with stakeholders
• Newsletter or
newspaper articles
describing student
achievement
6. Developing timely,
directive, systematic
interventions for
remediation and
enrichment.
Provide students with
additional time and
support whenever there is
a demonstrated need.
Provide students with
enrichment opportunities
whenever there is a
demonstrated need.
• My team knows
how to identify
struggling
students in need
of remediation.
• My team knows
how to identify
proficient and
advanced
students in need
of enrichment
opportunities.
• My team knows
how to connect
students with
interventions
for remediation
and enrichment
when there is a
demonstrated
need
• It is important
that students
are provided
with
interventions
for remediation
and enrichment
whenever there
is a
demonstrated
need.
• My team makes
a concerted
effort to
connect
students with
interventions
for remediation
and enrichment
whenever there
is a
demonstrated
need.
• My team is
provided the
systems, processes
and/or resources
necessary to
provide students
with interventions
for remediation
and enrichment
whenever there is
a demonstrated
need
• List of struggling
students
• List of possible
interventions
available
• List of enrichment
opportunities
• Lesson plans of
differentiated
instruction
• Documentation
that measures
student growth
before and after
the application of
an intervention
• Data Director
student reports
• Budget allocations
for intervention
teachers
7. Evaluating the
effectiveness of
interventions in
producing the essential
learning outcomes.

Use data to measure the
impact of interventions

• My team knows
how to collect
various data to
determine how
effective a
particular
intervention has
been.
• It is important
to use data to
determine how
effective an
intervention has
been.

• Protocols, models,
and/or other
resources for
determining the
effectiveness of
interventions, have
been made
available to my
team.
• Student data
• CST data
• Formative test data
• Data

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

185
Appendix D (continued)

Characteristic #3
CULTURE OF
COLLABORATION
Knowledge &
Skill
Motivation Organization Possible Artifacts
8. Collaborative teams
are given time to meet.
• My team knows
how to establish
the tasks and
purposes for
working
together.
• My team values
the time we
spend together
collaborating.
• Administration
supports and
facilitates
collaboration time
through helpful
scheduling
arrangements.

• Team task list
• Schedule of
meetings
9. Collaborative teams
work interdependently to
gather, analyze and
determine best practices
and transfer best
practices across all team
members.

Ability to collaborate in
order to identify and scale
up best practices
• My team works
together to
gather, analyze,
and implement
best practices.
• My team
understands that
there are
inherent tensions
embedded in the
collaborative
process but we
implement
strategies to
overcome these
interpersonal
challenges.
• My team values
feedback from
colleagues when
identifying and
implementing
best practices.
• My team
respectfully
addresses group
tension when
working
collaboratively
to gather,
analyze and
transfer best
practices across
all team
members
• My team
consistently uses
norms and
protocols for
working
collaboratively to
gather, analyze, and
transfer best
practices across all
team members.
• Team minutes
showing discussion
of best practices
• Shared strategies
used to overcome
interpersonal
challenges
• Team norms
• Protocols
Characteristic #4
FOCUS ON RESULTS

Knowledge &
Skill
Motivation Organization
Possible Artifacts
10. Using common
assessment data to
identify needs for
intervention and
enrichment
Ability to use common
assessment data to identify
needs for intervention and
enrichment
• My team knows
how to use
common
assessment data
to refer students
for interventions
for remediation
and enrichment.
• Using common
assessment data
to refer students
for interventions
for remediation
and enrichment
is important to
my team.
• My team has
specific protocols
and processes for
analyzing common
assessment data.

• My team uses a
systematic,
collaborative
process to develop
common
assessments that are
aligned with
essential learning
outcomes.

• Assessment data
used to refer
students
• Protocols used for
analyzing data
• Documented
collaborative
process to develop
common
assessments

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

186
Appendix D (continued)
11. Using assessment data
to identify strengths and
weaknesses in individual
and collective teaching as
part of a continuous
improvement cycle.

Ability to identify strengths
and weaknesses
collectively and
individually as part of
ongoing improvement.

• My team
analyzes student
achievement
data in order to
identify
instructional
strengths and
weaknesses as
part of ongoing
improvement.
• My team values
comparing
assessment
results and
sharing
instructional
strategies to
identify
strengths and
weaknesses in
individual and
collective
teaching.
• My team is
provided an
environment where
we can safely share
and examine
strengths and
weaknesses in
individual and
collective teaching.
• List of strategies
implemented as a
result of analyzing
student
achievement data
• Shared ways in
which instructional
weaknesses have
been addressed

Characteristic #5
COLLECTIVE
EFFICACY

Knowledge &
Skill
Motivation Organization Possible Artifacts
12. Shared belief that
they can organize and
execute a course of action
that positively impacts
achievement

Ability to organize and
execute a course of action
based on a shared belief
that collectively the team
could positively impact
achievement.
• Members of my
team know how
to organize and
execute a course
of action to
positively impact
student
achievement
• My team is
committed to the
belief that
collectively we
have the ability
to produce the
student
achievement
results we
desire.
• My team
believes that all
members of our
team play an
essential role in
positively
impacting
student
achievement.

• School culture
fosters the notion
that working
collectively we
have the ability to
produce the student
achievement
outcomes we truly
desire.
• My team is
provided structured
opportunities to
develop the clear
actionable steps
(i.e. action plans)
necessary to impact
student
achievement results
we truly desire.
• Team action plans
for student
achievement
• Student
achievement results
• List of clear
actionable steps
taken
• Schedules or
calendars showing
team meetings
• Meeting minutes

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

187
Appendix D (continued)
Perceived Collective Team Efficacy
The statements below describe activities that are important to collaborative teams.
For each statement, please rate how certain you are that your team, by working together as a whole, can accomplish
the following activities.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cannot do Can do Can do
at all moderately with high certainty
Supportive & Shared Leadership
1 Identify the specific knowledge and skill deficits that inhibit our team from achieving the outcomes for
which we are accountable.
2 Engage ourselves in knowledge- and skill-building activities that raise our team’s capacity to achieve the
outcomes for which we are accountable.
3 Agree to be held accountable to clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction set by site and/or
district leadership.
4 Accept and carry out the responsibility and authority for determining how to meet the clear, non-negotiable
goals set by site and/or district leadership.
Supporting Artifacts:
● List of knowledge and skill-building activities
Learning as the Fundamental Purpose
1 Make resource allocation decisions that provide the greatest benefit to student achievement outcomes.
2 Develop clarity among all team members regarding the essential learning outcomes that all students are
expected to achieve.
3 Provide students with additional time and support whenever there is a demonstrated need.
4 Provide students with enrichment opportunities whenever there is a demonstrated need.
5 Use data to measure the impact of interventions.
Supporting Artifacts:
● Budget used or allocated for student achievement
● Student intervention schedule
● Student enrichment schedule
● Single School Plan
● Grade level and Department goals
Culture of Collaboration
1 Make use of available time to hold productive collaboration meetings.
2 Collaborate interdependently to gather, analyze and determine best practices and transfer best practices
across all team members.
Supporting Artifacts:
● Collaboration meeting schedule
● Student work produced as a result of implementing best practices
Focus on Results
1 Use common assessment data to identify needs for intervention and enrichment.
2 Identify strengths and weaknesses in our collective and individual practice as part of an ongoing cycle of
improvement.
Supporting Artifacts:
● Common Assessments
● Plan to address weaknesses
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

188
Appendix E
The 21 Responsibilities of the School Leader
Responsibility The extent to which the Principal…
1. Affirmation Recognizes & celebrates accomplishments & acknowledges failures
2. Change Agent Is willing to challenge & actively challenges the status quo
3. Contingent Rewards Recognizes & rewards individual accomplishments
4. Communication Establishes strong lines of communication with & among teachers & students
5. Culture Fosters shared beliefs & a sense of community & cooperation
6. Discipline Protects teachers from issues & influences that would detract from their teaching
time or focus
7. Flexibility Adapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of the current situation & is
comfortable with dissent
8. Focus Establishes clear goals & keeps those goals in the forefront of the school’s attention

9. Deals/Beliefs Communicates & operates from strong ideals & beliefs about schooling
10. Input Involves teachers in the design & implementation of important decisions & policies
11. Intellectual Stimulation Ensures faculty & staff are aware of the most current theories & practices & makes
the discussion of these a regular aspect of the school’s culture
12. Involvement in
Curriculum, Instruction, &
Assessment
Is directly involved in the design & implementation of curriculum, instruction, &
assessment practices
13. Knowledge of
Curriculum, Instruction, &
Assessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction, & assessment practices
14. Monitoring/ Evaluating Monitors the effectiveness of school practices & their impact on student learning
15. Optimizer Inspires & leads new & challenging innovations
16. Order Establishes a set of standard operating procedures & routines
17. Outreach Is an advocate & spokesperson for the school to all stakeholders
18. Relationships Demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of teachers & staff
19. Resources Provides teachers with materials & professional development necessary for the
successful execution of their jobs
20. Situational Awareness Is aware of the details & undercurrents in the running of the school & uses this
information to address current & potential problems
21. Visibility Has quality contact & interactions with teachers & students

Source. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005)
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

189
Appendix F
CASA Team Competency Survey Protocol
Q1.1 We are conducting a tri-level analysis (Central office, Site Leadership, and Teachers) of
how we professionally collaborate to increase student achievement throughout the
Pasadena Unified School District. Your participation is crucial to gathering meaningful
data to build greater capacity within our teams. If you belong to two or more collaborative
teams, please respond to the survey with the team in mind that most directly impacts
student achievement. The survey will require 15 to 20 minutes of your time. Once again,
thank you for taking the time to complete this survey

Q2.1 Gender.
m Male (1)
m Female (2)

Q2.2 Age.
m 21-28 (1)
m 29-34 (2)
m 35-40 (3)
m 41-46 (4)
m 47-52 (5)
m 53-58 (6)
m 59 or older (7)

Q2.3 Ethnicity.
m 1. Caucasian (White) (1)
m 2. African American (2)
m 3. Hispanic (3)
m 4. Asian (4)
m 5. Native American (5)
m 6. Multiracial (6)
m 7. Other: Please specify (7) ____________________

Q2.4 Highest level of education attained.
m 1. Bachelor’s Degree (1)
m 2. Some Master's Work (2)
m 3. Master’s Degree (3)
m 4. Some Doctoral Work (4)
m 5. Doctoral Degree (5)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

190
Appendix F (continued)
Q2.5 What is your current position?
m Teacher (1)
m Assistant Principal (2)
m Elementary Principal (3)
m Secondary Principal (4)
m Coordinator (5)
m Director (6)
m Executive Director (7)
m Chief (8)
m Superintendent (9)

Q2.6 How many years have you served in your current position (e.g. teacher, coordinator or
administrator)?
m 1-5 years (1)
m 6-10 years (2)
m 11-15 years (3)
m 16-20 years (4)
m 21-25 years (5)
m 26-30 years (6)
m 31 years or longer (7)

Q2.7 Current work setting.
m Pre K: Preschool (1)
m K-5: Elementary (2)
m K-8: Span School (3)
m 6-8: Middle School (4)
m 6-12: Span School (5)
m 9-12: High School (6)
m Alternative Education School (7)
m District Office (8)

Q2.8 Name of your school. (Example: Blair MS, Rose City HS, and Sierra Madre ES)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

191
Appendix F (continued)
Q2.9 How many years have you served at your current work setting?
m 1-5 years (1)
m 6-10 years (2)
m 11-15 years (3)
m 16-20 years (4)
m 21-25 years (5)
m 26-30 years (6)
m 31 years or longer (7)

Q2.10 Have you received training on a particular model(s) of collaboration (e.g., professional
learning communities, communities of practice, purposeful communities)?
m Professional Learning Communities (1)
m Communities of Practice (2)
m Purposeful Communities (3)
m Other (4) ____________________
m No (5)

Q2.11 Do you feel that your school/department has implemented a particular model of
collaboration?
m Professional Learning Communities (1)
m Communities of Practice (2)
m Purposeful Communities (3)
m Other (4) ____________________
m No (5)

Q2.12 How many collaborative teams do you belong to?
m I belong to one (1) collaborative team. (1)
m I belong to two (2) collaborative teams. (2)
m I belong to three (3) or more collaborative teams. (3)
m I do not belong to a collaborative team. (4)

Q3.1 My team members know the specific knowledge and skills required for our team to achieve
the outcomes for which we are accountable.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q3.2 My team knows how to engage in team learning activities that raise our capacity to achieve
the outcomes for which we are accountable.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

192
Appendix F (continued)
Q3.3 It is important to my team to make all members feel that their contribution is vital to our
success.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q3.4 My team is committed to developing our professional knowledge and skills so that we can
achieve the outcomes for which we are accountable.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q3.5 My team is provided the necessary time to learn and grow professionally.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q3.6 My team is provided the necessary resources to learn and grow professionally
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q4.1 My team has been given the responsibility and authority for determining how to meet the
goals set by central office.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q4.2 My team values being given the responsibility and authority for determining how to meet
district goals.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q4.3 Intentional communication occurs between central office and school sites regarding clear,
non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q4.4 Central office sets clear goals and expectations for site performance.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q5.1 My team knows how to prioritize resources that benefit student achievement outcomes.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q5.2 It is important that my team can make decisions about how to spend allocated resources
that provide the greatest benefit to student achievement outcomes.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

193
Appendix F (continued)

Q5.3 Resource allocation criteria are consistently applied and managed.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q6.1 My team has clarity about the essential learning outcomes that all students are expected to
achieve.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q6.2 It is important for my team to develop clarity about the essential learning outcomes that all
students are expected to achieve.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q6.3 My team is provided with the time to develop clarity about the essential learning outcomes
that all students are expected to achieve.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q6.4 My team is provided with processes and resources that enable us to develop clarity about
the essential learning outcomes that all students are expected to achieve.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q7.1 My team knows how to develop high quality assessments that produce useful data about
whether students have met essential learning outcomes.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q7.2 My team knows how to use a data management system (e.g. DataDirector) to store, analyze
and communicate assessment data.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q7.3 My team values having access to a data management system that can communicate to all
team members the extent to which students are achieving essential learning outcomes.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q7.4 My team has access to a data management system that communicates to all stakeholders the
extent to which students are achieving essential learning outcomes.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q8.1 My team knows how to identify struggling students in need of remediation.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

194
Appendix F (continued)

Q8.2 My team knows how to identify proficient and advanced students in need of enrichment
opportunities.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)
Q8.3 My team knows how to connect students with interventions for remediation and enrichment
when there is a demonstrated need.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q8.4 It is important that students are provided with interventions for remediation and enrichment
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q8.5 My team makes a concerted effort to connect students with interventions for remediation
and enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q8.6 My team is provided the systems, processes and/or resources necessary to provide students
with interventions for remediation and enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q9.1 My team knows how to collect various data to determine how effective a particular
intervention has been.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q9.2 It is important to use data to determine how effective an intervention has been.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q9.3 Protocols, models, and/or other resources for determining the effectiveness of
interventions, have been made available to my team.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q10.1 My team knows how to establish the tasks and purposes for working together.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q10.2 My team values the time we spend together collaborating.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q10.3 Administration supports and facilitates collaboration time through helpful scheduling
arrangements.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

195
Appendix F (continued)

Q11.1 My team works together to gather, analyze, and implement best practices.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q11.2 My team understands that there are inherent tensions embedded in the collaborative
process but we implement strategies to overcome these interpersonal challenges.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q11.3 My team values feedback from colleagues when identifying and implementing best
practices.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q11.4 My team respectfully addresses group tension when working collaboratively to gather,
analyze and transfer best practices across all team members
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q11.5 My team consistently uses norms and protocols for working collaboratively to gather,
analyze, and transfer best practices across all team members.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q12.1 Members of my team know how to organize and execute a course of action to positively
impact student achievement.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q12.2 My team is committed to the belief that, working collectively, we have the ability to
produce the student achievement results we truly desire.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q12.3 My team believes that all members of our team play an essential role in positively
impacting student achievement.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q12.4 School culture fosters the notion that, working collectively, we have the ability to produce
the student achievement outcomes we truly desire.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q12.5 My team is provided structured opportunities to develop the clear actionable steps (i.e.,
action plans) necessary to produce the student achievement results we truly desire.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q13.1 My team knows how to use common assessment data to refer students for interventions
for remediation and enrichment.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

196
Appendix F (continued)

Q13.2 Using common assessment data to refer students for interventions for remediation and
enrichment is important to my team.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q13.3 My team has specific protocols and processes for analyzing common assessment data.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q13.4 My team uses a systematic, collaborative process to develop common assessments that are
aligned with essential learning outcomes.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q14.1 My team analyzes student achievement data in order to identify instructional strengths and
weaknesses as part of ongoing improvement.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q14.2 My team values comparing assessment results and sharing instructional strategies to
identify strengths and weaknesses in individual and collective teaching.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q14.3 My team is provided an environment where we can safely share and examine strengths
and weaknesses in individual and collective teaching.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q15.1 Supportive and Shared Leadership. How certain are you that your team, working together
as a whole, can do the following:
______ Identify the specific knowledge and skill deficits that inhibit our team from achieving the
outcomes for which we are accountable. (1)
______ Engage ourselves in knowledge- and skill-building activities that raise our team’s capacity to
achieve the outcomes for which we are accountable. (2)

______ Agree to be held accountable to clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction set by site
and/or district leadership. (3)

______ Accept and carry out the responsibility and authority for determining how to meet the clear, non-
negotiable goals set by site and/or district leadership. (4)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

197
Appendix F (continued)

Q15.2 Learning as the Fundamental Purpose. How certain are you that your team, working
together as a whole, can do the following:
______ Make resource allocation decisions that provide the greatest benefit to student achievement
outcomes. (1)

______ Develop clarity among all team members regarding the essential learning outcomes that all
students are expected to achieve. (2)

______ Provide students with additional time and support whenever there is a demonstrated need. (3)

______ Provide students with enrichment opportunities whenever there is a demonstrated need. (4)

______ Use data to measure the impact of interventions. (5)

Q15.3 Culture of Collaboration. How certain, working together as a whole, can your team:
______ Make use of available time to hold productive collaboration meetings. (1)

______ Collaborate interdependently to gather, analyze and determine best practices and transfer best
practices across all team members. (2)

Q15.4 Focus on Results. How certain, working together as a whole, can your team:
______ Use common assessment data to identify needs for intervention and enrichment. (1)

______ Identify strengths and weaknesses in our collective and individual practice as part of an ongoing
cycle of improvement. (2)

Q16.1 Thank you for your time in completing the survey. There are two final questions.

Q16.2 Would you be willing to participate in a focus group or an individual discussion on the
topic of collaboration around student achievement?
m Yes (1)
m No (2)

Q16.3 If you would like to be entered in a drawing for one of five $25 gift cards, please be sure
to enter you name and email address below.
Name (1)
Email Address (2)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

198
Appendix G
CASA Interview Protocol
Interviewer: Date:

Name of School/Department: Role: Years of Service:

Interviewer will introduce self and give the information sheet to the participant.
The purpose of this interview is to allow you to provide feedback on your thoughts about
collaboration around student achievement at your site. There are no right or wrong answers to
any of these questions. The purpose of the interview is to gain your perceptions and feedback,
not to evaluate anything that you say. In fact, your identity will be kept confidential as the results
are analyzed.

We find it helpful to audiotape our conversation. Taping ensures that we have an accurate record
of your responses. Are you okay with us taping our conversation? The tape recording will not
reveal your name and will only be reviewed by the interviewers and University committee
members. All tapes will be kept in a locked safe with no identifiable information. Again, we
want to stress that there is no right or wrong response. Your insight is crucial to gathering
meaningful data to build greater capacity within our teams.

We may need to seek clarification throughout the discussion to ensure that we have accurately
captured your perspective.

Do you have any questions? Are you ready to begin?

Lead statement: We are interested in learning about how your team collaborates and what work
you do together during your meetings.

1. What team do you consider to be your primary collaboration team and how long have
you been a member?

2. If I was to drop in on a routine collaborative meeting, can you describe in some detail
what I would observe?
Possible Follow-up Questions:
• What is the structure of the meeting?
• Who is part of the meeting?
• Is there a lead?
• How is student achievement data used?
• How does it guide the instruction of your department or classroom?
• Is there time to work jointly on assignments?
• Assessments?
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

199
Appendix G (continued)

• What do you feel happened in the implementation of CLCs?
• Can you provide me anything that would demonstrate this?

3. What does the team do when a student(s) is (are) performing below/above expectations?
(Or is this the responsibility of the individual teacher/department?)

4. Can you describe a time since the beginning of this year when you felt your collaborative
team worked together exceptionally well?
Possible Follow-up Questions:
• What did you do?
• How did this impact you and students?
• Why was it such a positive experience?

5. Tell me about structured ways in which your team has worked together to gain
knowledge and/or skills in areas that directly affect your work.

6. How do your team members learn from each other in structured ways?

Lead Statement: The district has been engaged with collaborative teams for several years now.

7. In what ways do you feel that your collaborative team is improving student outcomes?

8. What factors seem to be sustaining the collaborative work in your school?

9. What might be getting in the way of sustaining collaboration in your school and/or
district?

Lead Statement: Working with diverse students is a challenge.

10. What opportunities have you had to learn how to be an effective collaborative team?
Possible Follow-up Questions:
• What could the district, site leader, teacher leader do differently?
• What do you see is working?

Lead Statement: The next topic I would like to explore is leadership.

11. How is leadership distributed in your collaborative team?
Possible Follow-up Question:
• What are the assigned roles?

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

200
Appendix G (continued)
12. Share a time when members of your team felt empowered to implement their own
decisions.

Possible Follow-up Question:
• How was administration involved in that process?

13. In what ways does the administrator help collaborative teams to be at their best?
Possible Follow-up Question:
• Are there administrative practices that diminish the work of the team?

14. What support structures would make your collaboration time more meaningful and
productive?
Possible Follow-up Questions:
• How can leadership support this?

15. What have been the pros and cons of collaborating with your team?

16. Please describe how being on a team, rather than working on your own, has impacted
your ability to raise student achievement.

17. To what extent does administration demonstrate their trust in the collective capabilities of
your team to organize and execute a course of action that positively impacts student
achievement?

18. To what extent do you feel your team is provided opportunities to create clear actionable
steps necessary to impact student achievement?
Possible Follow-up Questions:
• To what extent do you feel your team values taking the clear actionable steps
necessary to close the achievement gap?
• To what extent were you involved in the creation of documents such as the Single
School Plan or the Strategic Plan or WASC accreditation?

19. If you had three wishes for making your collaborative team more effective, what would
they be?

20. Do you have any final comments or anything else you want to add?

Thank you for your time on this project.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

201
Appendix H

Tri-Level Data (n=281)
Table H1

Tri-Level Demographic Characteristics of Sample

Characteristic n (%)
Gender
Male 60 21.4
Female 221 78.6
Totals 281 100.0
Age
21-28 12 4.3
29-34 27 9.6
35-40 49 17.4
41-46 52 18.5
47-52 60 21.4
53-58 46 16.4
59 or older 35 12.5
Totals 281 100.0
Ethnicity
Caucasian 147 52.3
African American 37 13.2
Hispanic 52 18.5
Asian 21 7.5
Native American 1 .4
Multiracial 13 4.6
Other 10 3.6
Totals 281 100.0
Highest level of education attained
Bachelor’s degree 27 9.6
Some master’s work 32 11.4
Master’s degree 180 64.1
Some doctoral work 22 7.8
Doctoral degree 20 7.1
Totals 281 100.0

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

202
Appendix H (continued)
Table H2

Tri-Level Demographics of Current Work Setting

Characteristic n (%)
Current position
Teacher 224 79.7
Assistant principal 10 3.6
Elementary principal 15 5.3
Secondary principal 9 3.2
Coordinator 17 6.0
Director 1 .4
Executive director 1 .4
Chief 4 1.4
Superintendent 0 0
Totals 281 100.0
Years served in current position
1-5 67 23.8
6-10 72 25.6
11-15 65 23.1
16-20 43 15.3
21-25 20 7.1
26-30 9 3.2
31 or longer 5 1.8
Totals 281 100.0

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

203
Appendix H (continued)
Table H2 (continued)

Tri-Level Demographics of Current Work Setting

Characteristic n (%)
Current work setting
Preschool 7 2.5
K-5 elementary 103 36.7
K-8 span school 20 7.1
6-8 middle school 51 18.1
6-12 span school 25 8.9
9-12 high school 44 15.7
Alternative school 8 2.8
District office 23 8.2
Totals 281 100.0
Years served at current work setting
1-5 138 49.1
6-10 70 24.9
11-15 40 14.2
16-20 25 8.9
21-25 5 1.8
26-30 1 .4
31 or longer 2 .7
Totals 281 100.0

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

204
Appendix H (continued)
Table H3

Tri-Level Models of Collaboration

Characteristic n (%)
Training on particular models of collaboration
Professional learning communities 110 39.1
Communities of practice 12 4.3
Purposeful communities 2 .7
Other 34 12.1
No 123 43.8
Totals 281 100.0
Implementation of a particular model of collaboration
Professional learning communities 89 31.7
Communities of practice 17 6.0
Purposeful communities 11 3.9
Other 33 11.7
No 131 46.6
Totals 281 100.0
Number of collaborative teams
One team 80 28.5
Two teams 71 25.3
Three teams 76 27.0
Do not belong to team 54 19.2
Totals 281 100.0

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

205
Appendix H (continued)
Table H4

Tri-Level Competency Questions, Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=281)

Mean Std. Deviation
Competency #1 M SD
My team members know the specific knowledge
and skills required for our team to achieve the
outcomes for which we are accountable.
67.37 25.49
My team knows how to engage in team learning
activities that raise our capacity to achieve the
outcomes for which we are accountable.
64.13 26.28
It is important to my team to make all members feel
that their contribution is vital to our success.
72.81 29.04
My team is committed to developing our
professional knowledge and skills so that we can
achieve the outcomes for which we are
accountable.
70.64 26.50
My team is provided the necessary time to learn
and grow professionally.
50.32 30.44
My team is provided the necessary resources to
learn and grow professionally.
51.32 28.72
Competency #2 M SD
My team has been given the responsibility and
authority for determining how to meet the goals set
by central office.
57.58 29.41
My team values being given the responsibility and
authority for determining how to meet district
goals.
69.22 28.02
Intentional communication occurs between central
office and school sites regarding clear, non-
negotiable goals for learning and instruction.
50.39 29.69
Central office sets clear goals and expectations for
site performance.
52.53 28.62
Competency #3 M SD
My team knows how to prioritize resources that
benefit student achievement outcomes.
66.90 26.26

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

206
Appendix H (continued)

Table H4 (continued)

Tri-Level Competency Questions, Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=281)

It is important that my team can make decisions
about how to spend allocated resources that provide
the greatest benefit to student achievement
outcomes.
81.00 24.46
Intentional communication occurs between central
office and school sites regarding clear, non-
negotiable learning and instruction.
52.70 29.05
Resource allocation criteria are consistently applied
and managed.
49.89 27.55
Competency #4 M SD
My team has clarity about the essential learning
outcomes that all students are expected to achieve.
71.42 26.38
It is important for my team to develop clarity about
the essential learning outcomes that all students are
expected to achieve.
82.74 23.38
My team is provided with the time to develop
clarity about the essential learning outcomes that all
students are expected to achieve.
50.71 29.80
My team is provided with processes and resources
that enable us to develop clarity about the essential
learning outcomes that all students are expected to
achieve.
53.02 28.08
Competency #5 M SD
My team knows how to develop high quality
assessments that produce useful data about whether
students have met essential learning outcomes.
62.85 27.58
My team knows how to use a data management
system (e.g. DataDirector) to store, analyze and
communicate assessment data.
70.07 25.55
My team values having access to a data
management system that can communicate to all
team members the extent to which students are
achieving essential learning outcomes.
72.67 26.76

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

207
Appendix H (continued)

Table H4 (continued)

Tri-Level Competency Questions, Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=281)

My team has access to a data management system
that communicates to all stakeholders the extent to
which students are achieving essential learning
outcomes.
68.36 27.83
Competency #6 M SD
My team knows how to identify struggling students
in need of remediation.
78.97 23.25
My team knows how to identify proficient and
advanced students in need of enrichment
opportunities.
78.58 23.68
My team knows how to connect students with
interventions for remediation and enrichment when
there is a demonstrated need.
67.40 26.79
It is important that students are provided with
interventions for remediation and enrichment
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
91.32 17.24
My team makes a concerted effort to connect
students with interventions for remediation and
enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need.
74.59 26.20
My team is provided the systems, processes and/or
resources necessary to provide students with
interventions for remediation and enrichment
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
55.02 28.70
Competency #7 M SD
My team knows how to collect various data to
determine how effective a particular intervention
has been.
64.59 27.61
It is important to use data to determine how
effective an intervention has been.
85.59 19.62
Protocols, models, and/or other resources for
determining the effectiveness of interventions, have
been made available to my team.
56.37 29.73

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

208
Appendix H (continued)

Table H4 (continued)

Tri-Level Competency Questions, Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=281)

Competency #8 M SD
My team knows how to establish the tasks and
purposes for working together.
71.74 25.86
My team values the time we spend together
collaborating.
77.12 26.42
Administration supports and / facilitates collaboration
time through helpful scheduling arrangements.
62.17 30.54
Competency #9 M SD
My team works together to gather, analyze, and
implement best practices.
69.86 26.78
My team understands that there are inherent tensions
embedded in the collaborative process but we
implement strategies to overcome these interpersonal
challenges.
69.36 26.25
My team values feedback from colleagues when
identifying and implementing best practices.
73.70 25.13
My team respectfully addresses group tension when
working collaboratively to gather, analyze and transfer
best practices across all team members.
66.83 27.63
My team consistently uses norms and protocols for
working collaboratively to gather, analyze, and
transfer best practices across all team members.
64.84 28.29
Competency #10 M SD
Members of my team know how to organize and
execute a course of action to positively impact student
achievement.
71.14 25.15
My team is committed to the belief that, working
collectively, we have the ability to produce the student
achievement results we truly desire.
75.41 25.92
My team believes that all members of our team play an
essential role in positively impacting student
achievement.
76.33 26.37

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

209
Appendix H (continued)

Table H4 (continued)

Tri-Level Competency Questions, Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=281)

School culture fosters the notion that, working
collectively, we have the ability to produce the
student achievement results we truly desire.
73.24 27.04
My team is provided structured opportunities to
develop the clear actionable steps (i.e., action plans)
necessary to produce the student achievement
results we truly desire.
61.67 28.84
Competency #11 M SD
My team knows how to use common assessment
data to refer students for interventions for
remediation and enrichment.
71.67 26.22
Using common assessment data to refer students for
interventions for remediation and enrichment is
important to my team.
74.52 25.39
My team has specific protocols and processes for
analyzing common assessment data.
64.84 28.32
My team uses a systematic, collaborative process to
develop common assessments that are aligned with
essential learning outcomes.
60.25 28.13
Competency #12 M SD
My team analyzes student achievement data in
order to identify instructional strengths and
weaknesses as part of ongoing improvement.
69.79 27.95
My team values comparing assessment results and
sharing instructional strategies to identify strengths
and weaknesses in individual and collective
teaching.
69.50 27.01
My team is provided an environment where we can
safely share and examine strengths and weaknesses
in individual and collective teaching.
63.63 30.20
Collective Team Efficacy
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole, can do the
following:

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

210
Appendix H (continued)

Table H4 (continued)

Tri-Level Competency Questions, Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=281)

Supportive and Shared Leadership M SD
Identify the specific knowledge and skill deficits
that inhibit our team from achieving the outcomes
for which we are accountable.
70.07 23.92
Engage ourselves in knowledge- and skill-building
activities that raise our team’s capacity to achieve
the outcomes for which we are accountable.
73.45 24.46
Agree to be held accountable to clear, non-
negotiable goals for learning and instruction set by
site and/or district leadership.
71.49 26.50
Accept and carry out the responsibility and
authority for determining how to meet the clear,
non-negotiable goals set by site and/or district
leadership
73.13 26.00
Learning as the Fundamental Purpose. M SD
Make resource allocation decisions that provide the
greatest benefit to student achievement outcomes.

75.37 24.65
Develop clarity among all team members regarding
the essential learning outcomes that all students are
expected to achieve.
76.58 24.14
Provide students with additional time and support
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
70.28 25.99
Provide students with enrichment opportunities
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
70.18 26.01
Use data to measure the impact of interventions. 75.52 25.65
Culture of Collaboration. M SD
Make use of available time to hold productive
collaboration meetings.
73.77 25.43

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

211

Appendix H (continued)

Table H4 (continued)

Tri-Level Competency Questions, Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=281)

Collaborate interdependently to gather, analyze
and determine best practices and transfer best
practices across all team members.
74.16 24.56
Focus on Results. M SD
Use common assessment data to identify needs for
intervention and enrichment.
75.27 24.66
Identify strengths and weaknesses in our collective
and individual practice as part of an ongoing cycle
of improvement.
73.38 25.01
Note. Items are ranked in ascending order within each characteristic.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

212
Appendix H (continued)
Table H5
Tri-Level Competency Overall Mean and Standard Deviation (SD)
Competency Tri-Level Competency Overall Mean Grand Mean SD
Competency #2 Defined Autonomy 57.43 28.93
Competency #3 Resource Allocation 62.62 26.83
Competency #1 Capacity Building 62.76 27.75
Competency #4 Building collective knowledge regarding essential learning
outcomes
64.48 26.91
Competency #12 Using assessment data to identify strengths and
weaknesses in individual and collective teaching as part of
a continuous improvement cycle
67.64 28.39
Competency #11 Using common assessment data to identify needs for
intervention and enrichment
67.82 27.02
Competency #5 Developing and deploying an assessment and monitoring
system
68.49 26.93
Competency #7 Evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in producing
the essential learning outcomes
68.85 25.65
Competency #9: Collaborative teams work interdependently to gather
analyze and determine best practices and transfer best
practices across all team members
68.92 26.81
Competency #8 Collaborative teams are given time to meet 70.34 27.61
Collective Efficacy Collective Team Efficacy 73.28 25.15
Competency #10 Shared belief that they can organize and execute a course
of action that positively impacts achievement
74.03 26.12
Competency #6 Developing timely, directive, systematic interventions for
remediation and enrichment
74.31 24.31
Note. The 12 competencies were ranked by ascending order of their grand mean.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

213
Appendix H (continued)
Table H6
Overall Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of Tri-Level Competency Questions Organized by
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization

Knowledge Mean SD
My team has been given the responsibility and authority for
determining how to meet the goals set by central office.
57.58 29.41
My team knows how to develop high quality assessments that
produce useful data about whether students have met essential
learning outcomes.
62.85 27.58
My team knows how to engage in team learning activities that
raise our capacity to achieve the outcomes for which we are
accountable.
64.13 26.28
My team knows how to collect various data to determine how
effective a particular intervention has been.
64.59 27.61
My team knows how to prioritize resources that benefit student
achievement outcomes.
66.90 26.26
My team members know the specific knowledge and skills
required for our team to achieve the outcomes for which we are
accountable.
67.37 25.49
My team knows how to connect students with interventions for
remediation and enrichment when there is a demonstrated
need.
67.40 26.79
My team understands that there are inherent tensions
embedded in the collaborative process but we implement
strategies to overcome these interpersonal challenges.
69.36 26.25
My team analyzes student achievement data in order to identify
instructional strengths and weaknesses as part of ongoing
improvement.
69.79 27.95
My team works together to gather, analyze, and implement
best practices.
69.86 26.78
My team knows how to use a data management system (e.g.
DataDirector) to store, analyze and communicate assessment
data.
70.07 25.55
Members of my team know how to organize and execute a
course of action to positively impact student achievement.
71.14 25.15
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

214
Appendix H (continued)
My team has clarity about the essential learning outcomes that
all students are expected to achieve.
71.42 26.38
My team knows how to use common assessment data to refer
students for interventions for remediation and enrichment.
71.67 26.22
My team knows how to establish the tasks and purposes for
working together.
71.74 25.86
My team knows how to identify proficient and advanced
students in need of enrichment opportunities.
78.58 23.68
My team knows how to identify struggling students in need of
remediation.
78.97 23.25
Motivation Mean SD
My team respectfully addresses group tension when working
collaboratively to gather, analyze and transfer best practices
across all team members.
66.83 27.63
My team values being given the responsibility and authority for
determining how to meet district goals.
69.22 28.02
My team values comparing assessment results and sharing
instructional strategies to identify strengths and weaknesses in
individual and collective teaching.
69.50 27.01
How certain are you that your team, working together as a
whole, can do the following: Identify specific knowledge and
skill deficits that inhibit our team from achieving the outcomes
for which we are accountable.
70.07 23.92
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole
can do the following: Provide students with enrichment
opportunities whenever there is a demonstrated need.
70.18 26.01
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole
can do the following: Provide students with additional time and
support whenever there is a demonstrated need.
70.28 25.99
My team is committed to developing our professional knowledge
and skills so that we can achieve the outcomes for which we are
accountable.
70.64 26.50
How certain are you that your team, working together as a
whole, can do the following: Agree to be held accountable to
clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction set by
site and/or district leadership.
71.49 26.50
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

215
Appendix H (continued)
My team values having access to a data management system that
can communicate to all team members the extent to which
students are achieving essential learning outcomes.
72.67 26.76
It is important to my team to make all members feel that their
contribution is vital to our success.
72.81 29.04
How certain are you that your team, working together as a
whole, can do the following: Accept and carry out the
responsibility and authority for determining how to meet the
clear, non-negotiable goals set by site and/or district leadership.
73.13 26.00
How certain, working together as a whole, can your team:
Identify strengths and weaknesses in our collective and
individual practice as part of an ongoing cycle of improvement.
73.38 25.01
How certain are you that your team, working together as a
whole, can do the following: Engage ourselves in knowledge-
and skill-building activities that raise our team’s capacity to
achieve the outcomes for which we are accountable.
73.45 24.46
My team values feedback from colleagues when identifying and
implementing best practices.
73.70 25.13
How certain, working together as a whole, can your team: Make
use of available time to hold productive collaboration meetings.
73.77 25.43
How certain, working together as a whole, can your team:
Collaborate interdependently to gather, analyze and determine
best practices and transfer best practices across all team
members.
74.16 24.56
Using common assessment data to refer students for
interventions for remediation and enrichment is important to my
team.
74.52 25.39
My team makes a concerted effort to connect students with
interventions for remediation and enrichment whenever there is a
demonstrated need.
74.59 26.20
How certain, working together as a whole, can your team: Use
common assessment data to identify needs for intervention and
enrichment.
75.27 24.66
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole
can do the following: Make resource allocation decisions that
provide the greatest benefit to student achievement outcomes.
75.37 24.65

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

216
Appendix H (continued)
My team is committed to the belief that, working collectively,
we have the ability to produce the student achievement results
we truly desire.
75.41 25.92
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole
can do the following: Use data to measure the impact of
interventions.
75.52 25.65
My team believes that all members of our team play an essential
role in positively impacting student achievement.
76.33 26.37
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole
can do the following: Develop clarity among all team members
regarding the essential learning outcomes that all students are
expected to achieve.
76.58 24.14
My team values the time we spend together collaborating. 77.12 26.42
It is important that my team can make decisions about how to
spend allocated resources that provide the greatest benefit to
student achievement outcomes.
81.00 24.46
It is important for my team to develop clarity about the essential
learning outcomes that all students are expected to achieve.
82.74 23.38
It is important to use data to determine how effective an
intervention has been.
85.59 19.62
It is important that students are provided with interventions for
remediation and enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated
need.
91.32 17.24
Organization Mean SD
Resource allocation criteria are consistently applied and
managed.
49.89 27.55
My team is provided the necessary time to learn and grow
professionally.
50.32 30.44
Intentional communication occurs between central office and
school sites regarding clear, non-negotiable goals for learning
and instruction.
50.39 29.69
My team is provided with the time to develop clarity about the
essential learning outcomes that all students are expected to
achieve.
50.71 29.80
My team is provided the necessary resources to learn and grow
professionally.
51.32 28.72

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

217
Appendix H (continued)
Central office sets clear goals and expectations for site
performance.
52.53 28.62
Intentional communication occurs between central office and
school sites regarding clear, non-negotiable goals for learning
and instruction.
52.70 29.05
My team is provided with processes and resources that enable us
to develop clarity about the essential learning outcomes that all
students are expected to achieve.
53.02 28.08
My team is provided the systems, processes and/or resources
necessary to provide students with interventions for remediation
and enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need.
55.02 28.70
Protocols, models, and/or other resources for determining the
effectiveness of interventions, have been available to my team.
56.37 29.73
My team uses a systematic, collaborative process to develop
common assessments that are aligned with essential learning
outcomes.
60.25 28.13
My team is provided structured opportunities to develop the
clear actionable steps (i.e., action plans) necessary to produce the
student achievement results we truly desire.
61.67 28.84
Administration supports and facilitates collaboration time
through helpful scheduling arrangements.
62.17 30.54
My team is provided an environment where we can safely share
and examine strengths and weaknesses in individual and
collective teaching.
63.63 30.20
My team consistently uses norms and protocols for working
collaboratively to gather, analyze, and transfer best practices
across all team members.
64.84 28.29
My team has specific protocols and processes for analyzing
common assessment data.
64.84 28.32
My team has access to a data management system that
communicates to all stakeholders the extent to which students
are achieving essential learning outcomes.
68.36 27.83
School culture fosters the notion that, working collectively, we
have the ability to produce the student achievement results we
truly desire.
73.24 27.04
Note. These items were ranked by ascending order.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

218
Appendix H (continued)
Table H7
Tri-Level Overall Means and Standard Deviations (SD) of Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organization

Overall Mean SD
Knowledge 69.02 21.40
Motivation 74.71 20.05
Organization 57.85 22.43

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

219
Appendix I
Teacher Data (n=219)
Table I1
Teacher Demographic Characteristics of Sample
Characteristic n (%)
Gender
Male 41 18.7
Female 178 81.3
Totals 219 100.0
Age
21-28 12 5.5
29-34 26 11.9
35-40 37 16.9
41-46 38 17.4
47-52 43 19.6
53-58 37 16.9
59 or older 26 11.9
Totals 219 100.0
Ethnicity
Caucasian 120 54.8
African American 23 10.5
Hispanic 41 18.7
Asian 16 7.3
Highest level of education attained
Bachelor’s Degree 25 11.4
Some master’s work 30 13.7
Master’s degree 145 66.2
Some doctoral work 10 4.6
Doctoral degree 9 4.1
Totals 219 100.0

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

220
Appendix I (continued)
Table I2
Teacher Demographics of Current Work Setting
Characteristic n (%)
Current position
Teacher 219 100.0
Totals 219 100.0
Years served in current position
1-5 35 16.0
6-10 60 27.4
11-15 58 26.5
16-20 36 16.4
21-25 18 8.2
26-30 8 3.7
31 or more 4 1.8
Totals 219 100.0
Current work setting
Preschool 5 2.3
K-5 elementary 87 39.7
K-8 span school 16 7.3
6-8 middle school 47 21.5
6-12 span school 19 8.7
9-12 high school 39 17.8
Alternative school 6 2.7
Totals 219 100.0
Years served at current work setting
1-5 97 44.3
6-10 63 28.8
11-15 33 15.1
16-20 18 8.2
21-25 5 2.3
26-30 1 .5
31 or more 2 .9
Total 219 100.0
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

221
Appendix I (continued)
Table I3
Models of Collaboration: Teachers
Characteristic n (%)
Training on particular models of collaboration
Professional learning communities 75 34.2
Communities of practice 4 1.8
Purposeful communities 1 0.5
Other 28 12.8
No 111 50.7
Totals 219 100.0
Implementation of a particular model of collaboration
Professional learning communities 63 28.8
Communities of practice 12 5.5
Purposeful communities 8 3.7
Other 24 11.0
No 112 51.1
Number of collaborative teams
One team 70 32.0
Two teams 60 27.4
Three teams 44 20.1
Do not belong to team 45 20.5
Totals 219 100.0
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

222
Appendix I (continued)
Table I4
Teacher Competency Questions, Means (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (n =219)
Competency #1 M SD
My team is provided the necessary time to learn and grow
professionally.
48.17 32.20
My team is provided the necessary resources to learn and
grow professionally.
49.63 30.26
My team knows how to engage in team learning activities
that raise our capacity to achieve the outcomes for which
we are accountable.
62.88 28.16
My team members know the specific knowledge and skills
required for our team to achieve the outcomes for which we
are accountable.
66.26 27.71
My team is committed to developing our professional
knowledge and skills so that we can achieve the outcomes
for which we are accountable.
68.81 28.50
It is important to my team to make all members feel that
their contribution is vital to our success.
71.1 31.11
Competency #2 M SD
Intentional communication occurs between central office
and school sites regarding clear, non-negotiable goals for
learning and instruction.
48.20 30.09
Central office sets clear goals and expectations for site
performance.
48.95 28.99
My team has been given the responsibility and authority for
determining how to meet the goals set by central office.
54.11 30.66
My team values being given the responsibility and authority
for determining how to meet district goals.
67.08 29.87
Competency #3 M SD
Resource allocation criteria are consistently applied and
managed.
46.48 27.51
My team knows how to prioritize resources that benefit
student achievement outcomes.
65.25 27.95
It is important that my team can make decisions about how
to spend allocated resources that provide the greatest benefit
to student achievement outcomes.
80.05 26.40
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

223
Appendix I (continued)

Competency #4 M SD
My team is provided with the time to develop clarity about
the essential learning outcomes that all students are
expected to achieve.
48.58 31.26
My team is provided with processes and resources that
enable us to develop clarity about the essential learning
outcomes that all students are expected to achieve.
50.64 29.30
My team has clarity about the essential learning outcomes
that all students are expected to achieve.
70.32 27.90
It is important for my team to develop clarity about the
essential learning outcomes that all students are expected to
achieve.
81.00 25.16
Competency #5 M SD
My team knows how to develop high quality assessments
that produce useful data about whether students have met
essential learning outcomes.
62.69 28.39
My team has access to a data management system that
communicates to all stakeholders the extent to which
students are achieving essential learning outcomes.
67.99 27.84
My team knows how to use a data management system (e.g.
DataDirector) to store, analyze and communicate
assessment data.
70.14 25.82
My team values having access to a data management system
that can communicate to all team members the extent to
which students are achieving essential learning outcomes.
71.69 27.15
Competency #6 M SD
My team is provided the systems, processes and/or
resources necessary to provide students with interventions
for remediation and enrichment whenever there is a
demonstrated need.
53.15 29.70
My team knows how to connect students with interventions
for remediation and enrichment when there is a
demonstrated need.
67.17 27.63
My team makes a concerted effort to connect students with
interventions for remediation and enrichment whenever
there is a demonstrated need.
74.02 27.38
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

224
Appendix I (continued)
My team knows how to identify proficient and advanced
students in need of enrichment opportunities.
78.95 24.65
My team knows how to identify struggling students in need
of remediation.
79.18 24.16
It is important that students are provided with interventions
for remediation and enrichment whenever there is a
demonstrated need.
90.73 18.58
Competency #7 M SD
Protocols, models, and/or other resources for determining
the effectiveness of interventions, have been made available
to my team.
54.29 30.36
My team knows how to collect various data to determine
how effective a particular intervention has been.
63.7 28.52
It is important to use data to determine how effective an
intervention has been.
83.88 20.88
Competency #8 M SD
Administration supports and facilitates collaboration time
through helpful scheduling arrangements.
59.54 31.76
My team knows how to establish the tasks and purposes for
working together.
70.64 27.22
My team values the time we spend together collaborating. 76.12 27.99
Competency #9 M SD
My team consistently uses norms and protocols for working
collaboratively to gather, analyze, and transfer best practices
across all team members.
64.02 30.08
My team respectfully addresses group tension when
working collaboratively to gather, analyze and transfer best
practices across all team members.
65.98 29.87
My team understands that there are inherent tensions
embedded in the collaborative process but we implement
strategies to overcome these interpersonal challenges.
68.36 28.37
My team works together to gather, analyze, and implement
best practices.
68.95 28.35

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

225
Appendix I (continued)
My team values feedback from colleagues when identifying
and implementing best practices.
72.19 27.07
Competency #10 M SD
Members of my team know how to organize and execute a
course of action to positively impact student achievement.
70.73 25.96
School culture fosters the notion that, working collectively,
we have the ability to produce the student achievement
results we truly desire.
71.92 28.80
My team is committed to the belief that, working
collectively, we have the ability to produce the student
achievement results we truly desire.
73.84 27.41
My team believes that all members of our team play an
essential role in positively impacting student achievement.
74.66 28.14
Competency #11 M SD
My team uses a systematic, collaborative process to develop
common assessments that are aligned with essential learning
outcomes.
59.82 29.41
My team has specific protocols and processes for analyzing
common assessment data.
63.29 29.45
My team knows how to use common assessment data to
refer students for interventions for remediation and
enrichment.
71.87 26.83
Using common assessment data to refer students for
interventions for remediation and enrichment is important to
my team.
73.79 26.58
Competency #12 M SD
My team is provided an environment where we can safely
share and examine strengths and weaknesses in individual
and collective teaching.
61.69 31.54
My team values comparing assessment results and sharing
instructional strategies to identify strengths and weaknesses
in individual and collective teaching.
68.90 27.95
My team analyzes student achievement data in order to
identify instructional strengths and weaknesses as part of
ongoing improvement.
69.50 29.15
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

226
Appendix I (continued)
Collective Team Efficacy
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole, can do the following:
Supportive and Shared Leadership. M SD
Agree to be held accountable to clear, non-negotiable
goals for learning and instruction set by site and/or district
leadership.
70.05 28.11
Identify the specific knowledge and skill deficits that
inhibit our team from achieving the outcomes for which
we are accountable.
70.27 24.79
Accept and carry out the responsibility and authority for
determining how to meet the clear, non-negotiable goals
set by site and/or district leadership
71.78 27.96
Engage ourselves in knowledge- and skill-building
activities that raise our team’s capacity to achieve the
outcomes for which we are accountable.
72.92 25.61
Learning as the Fundamental Purpose.

M SD
Provide students with additional time and support
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
69.36 27.22
Provide students with enrichment opportunities whenever
there is a demonstrated need.
69.68 26.91
Make resource allocation decisions that provide the
greatest benefit to student achievement outcomes.
74.34 26.33
Use data to measure the impact of interventions. 74.43 26.67
Develop clarity among all team members regarding the
essential learning outcomes that all students are expected
to achieve.
76.07 25.51
Culture of Collaboration. M SD
Make use of available time to hold productive
collaboration meetings.
73.24 26.72
Collaborate interdependently to gather, analyze and
determine best practices and transfer best practices across
all team members.
74.11 25.60
Focus on Results. M SD
Identify strengths and weaknesses in our collective and
individual practice as part of an ongoing cycle of
improvement.
73.29 25.81
Use common assessment data to identify needs for
intervention and enrichment.
75.02 25.48
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

227
Appendix I (continued)
Table I5
Teacher Competencies, Means (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (n =219)
Competency

Grand Mean SD
Competency #2 Defined Autonomy 54.29 24.98
Competency #3 Resource allocation 60.29 22.44
Competency #1 Capacity Building 61.14 25.32
Competency #4 Building collective knowledge regarding essential learning
outcomes
62.64 23.17
Competency #12 Using assessment data to identify strengths & weaknesses
in individual and collective teaching as part of a continuous
cycle of improvement
66.70 26.39
Competency #11 Using common assessment data to identify needs for
intervention & enrichment
67.19 25.43
Competency #7 Evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in producing
the essential learning outcomes
67.29 21.61
Competency #9 Collaborative teams work interdependently to gather,
analyze and determine best practices and transfer best
practices across all team members
67.90 26.59
Competency #5 Developing & deploying an assessment & monitoring
system
68.13 22.84
Competency #8 Collaborative teams are given time to meet 68.77 24.60
Competency #10 Shared belief that the team can organize and execute a
course of action that positively impacts achievement
70.22 24.29
Collective Team
Efficacy
Supportive and shared leadership, learning as the
fundamental purpose, culture of collaboration, collective
efficacy, focus on results
72.66 23.28
Competency #6 Developing timely, directive, systematic interventions for
remediation and enrichment
73.87 20.96
Note. Items are ranked in ascending order.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

228
Appendix J
Tri-Level Competency Means: District Administrators, Site Administrators, and Teachers

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CLASSROOM
TEACHER
FACTORS

229
Appendix K
Common Tri-Level Causes
Validated high-priority causes in knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors at the Teacher, School
Site Administrator, and Central Office Administrator levels. Shaded cells indicate causes that were validated
and deemed high-priority at more than one level.
Teachers School Site Administrators Central Office
Administrators
Knowledge
and Skills
• Team knows how to use data
management system
• Knowledge and skill to
create high quality
assessments
• Knowledge and skill to
create high quality
assessments
• Knowledge and skill to create
high quality assessments
• Responsibility and authority
to meet goals

• Identify essential learning
outcomes

Motivation
• Respectfully address
group tesnsion
• Respectfully address
group tesnsion

• Identify deficits
inhibiting essential
learning outcomes
• Identify deficits inhibiting
essential learning outcomes

• Team values responsibility
& authority to meet goals

Organizational Factors
• Time for professional
development
• Time for professional
development

• Intentional
communication
• Intentional
communication

• *Intentional Communication
• Time to clarify outcomes
for students
• Time to clarify outcomes
for students
• Time to clarify outcomes for
students
• Resource allocation criteria
consistently applied and
managed

• Provide students with
enrichment opportunities as
needed
• Necessary resources to
learn and grow
professionally

• Provided processes & reources
to develop clarity about
essential learning goals
• Uses systematic, collaborative
process to develop common
assessment
Note. * = Not in top 4, but considered an important organizational cause.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Using the Gap Analysis problem-solving framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), this project examined collaboration around student achievement in the Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) from the teacher perspective. As part of a tri-level study, two other projects examined collaboration around student achievement in PUSD from the perspectives of central office administrators (Llamas, 2013) and school site administrators (Salinas, 2013). The primary purpose of the current project was to identify the root causes in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational factors that explain the gap between PUSD teachers’ current performance and that required to achieve PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize collaboration around student achievement. Mixed methods were used to collect quantitative data from 219 teacher surveys and qualitative data from four teacher interviews. These data were used to validate and prioritize assumed causes in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational factors. The findings revealed root causes related to the following: 1. Organizational support for effective collaboration around student achievement

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Addressing the challenges for teachers of English learners in a California elementary school using the gap analysis approach

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

Improving student achievement at a restructured high school academy of health sciences using an innovation gap analysis approach

PDF

A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of english language learners at sunshine elementary school using the gap analysis model

PDF

Moving from great to greater: Math growth in high achieving elementary schools - A gap analysis

PDF

A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English learners in literacy at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on college affordability and student grades

PDF

A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English language learners at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model

PDF

Increasing student performance on the Independent School Entrance Exam (ISEE) using the Gap Analysis approach

PDF

Examining regular high school teachers’ roles in enhancing students academic performance: a gap analysis

PDF

Improving math achievement among fourth graders at Al-Corniche Primary For Girls: a gap analysis

PDF

Positive behavior intervention support plan: a gap analysis

PDF

Examining teachers' roles in English learners achievement in language arts: a gap analysis

PDF

Teacher role in reducing the achievement gap: an evaluation study

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readinesss gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on goals and parent involvement

PDF

Examining the choice of business majors to participate in a short-term study abroad program using the gap analysis model

PDF

An alternative capstone project: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school

PDF

Examining the adoption of electronic health records system in patient care and students’ education using the GAP analysis approach

Asset Metadata

Creator Carruthers, Anthony Steven (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/26/2013

Defense Date 03/07/2013

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

Tag coherence,collaboration,communities of practice,defined autonomy,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional learning communities,purposeful community,reciprocal accountability,student achievement,team development

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Yates, Kenneth A. (committee chair), McDonald, Brian (committee member), Rueda, Robert (committee member)

Creator Email ascarrut@gmail.com,ascarrut@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-244431

Unique identifier UC11287948

Identifier etd-Carruthers-1604.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-244431 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Carruthers-1604.pdf

Dmrecord 244431

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Carruthers, Anthony Steven

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