Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Teacher discourse and practice: the role of discourse in grade-level meetings for teacher learning and changes in practice
(USC Thesis Other)
Teacher discourse and practice: the role of discourse in grade-level meetings for teacher learning and changes in practice
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 1
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE: THE ROLE OF DISCOURSE IN GRADE-
LEVEL MEETINGS FOR TEACHER LEARNING AND CHANGES IN PRACTICE
by
Claudia G. Nguyen
______________________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2015
Copyright 2015 Claudia G. Nguyen
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 2
Acknowledgments
This dissertation process was an unexpected journey. There were wonderful people that
believed in me and came along side to support me in this process. I would like to thank them.
To my dissertation chair, Dr. Julie Slayton, whose patience, guidance, instruction, and
expertise has been invaluable throughout this entire process. I have been very fortunate to be on
the receiving end of your teaching. Who you are, as an educator, inspires me to continue taking
the necessary steps to grow in my profession.
To Dr. Jamy Stillman, whose teaching helped to uncover (unconscious) beliefs about
teaching and learning that were rooted in my experiences as a young student. Your teaching
helped me better understand myself as an educator.
To Dr. Brad Ermeling, who shared his knowledge about learning teams. The research
and work that you do is so interesting to me. Thank you for being part of this journey.
To my husband, Peter Nguyen, who has exercised a great amount of patience to see me
through this long-winded process. I am very grateful for the sacrifices you have made to help me
finish this dissertation. You have always been by my side. Thank you.
To my mom, Rita Draper, who taught me to have a solid work ethic and to persevere.
Mom, this was the foundation I needed to push past the obstacles. Gracias.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments 2
Abstract 5
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 6
Background of the Problem 7
Statement of the Problem 9
Purpose of the Study 12
Research Questions 12
Methods 12
Assumptions 13
Limitations 13
Delimitations 14
Importance of the Study 15
Definition of Terms 16
Organization of the Study 18
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 19
Teacher Learning 19
Teacher Reflection 25
Teacher Discourse 30
Grade-Level Meetings 34
Leadership Models 36
Learning-Focused Leadership 37
Distributed Leadership 41
Transformational Leadership 45
Instructional Leadership 48
Managerial Leadership 51
Conceptual Framework 52
Teacher Learning 54
Teacher Discourse 55
Grade-Level Meetings 56
Leadership 59
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 60
Research Design 60
Sample and Population 61
School 63
Participants 64
Instrumentation 64
Data Collection 65
Data Analysis 67
Discourse Analysis 68
Validity and Reliability 70
Internal Validity 71
Reliability 72
Generalizability 73
Limitations 73
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 4
Delimitations 75
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 76
Background of Northshore Elementary 77
Background of Participants 78
Research Question One: Teacher Discourse and Learning 79
Theme 1 79
Theme 2 84
Theme 3 90
Summary of Research Question One 97
Research Question Two: The Principal and Teacher Learning 98
Theme 1 98
Summary of Research Question Two 125
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH 127
Summary of Findings for Research Question One 128
Summary of Findings for Research Question Two 129
Implications and Recommendations 130
Practice 130
Policy 133
Research 135
Conclusion 137
References 142
Appendix A Grade-Level Meeting Observation Protocol (Meeting Details) 149
Appendix B Grade-Level Meeting Observation Protocol (Map) 151
Appendix C Principal Post-Observation Interview 152
Appendix D Teacher Post-Observation Interview 155
Appendix E Coach Post-Observation Interview 158
Appendix F Informed Consent Form 161
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 5
Abstract
Developing teachers’ skills and knowledge for talk that centers on real classroom
dilemmas leads to their engaging in conversations that can change cognitive patterns and
improve their content-related and pedagogical practice. This study examined the ways an
elementary, grade-level team of teachers utilized discourse as a tool for learning. It also
explored the extent to which the principal’s leadership practice influenced contextual factors to
support teacher learning and changes in practice. The seven grade-level meeting observations
and open-ended interviews of the three teachers, the coach and the principal yielded qualitative
data that uncovered the participants’ paradigm of learning and how it mirrored the ways they
engaged in PL opportunities. The quality of teacher discourse, its enacted purpose, and the
pattern of conversational moves are key in increasing the likelihood teachers discourse focuses
on real instructional dilemmas that led to constructing new understanding. Furthermore, the
principal’s paradigm influenced her choice to provide structural support to foster opportunities
for teachers to develop their instructional skills and knowledge. However, the actions
undertaken by her also revealed less than full knowledge of what was necessary to support a
different type of talk. Overall, the teachers’ discourse practices were not enacted, and the
contextual support provided was not set up to foster professional learning opportunities. This
dissertation emphasizes the need for principals to expand their paradigm of learning and develop
their leadership skills and knowledge to afford teachers with opportunities to develop the skills
and knowledge to participate in critically reflective talk.
Keywords: discourse, professional learning, leadership practice, contextual factors,
grade-level meetings
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 6
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Developing teachers’ skills and knowledge for talk that centers on curriculum,
instruction, and student learning leads to their investigating and improving their content-related
and pedagogical practice (Horn & Little, 2010). To achieve this, principals create and foster the
appropriate conditions for teachers to take up substantive conversations leading to professional
learning. Professional learning (PL) is an approach to learning that transforms cognitive patterns
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Putman & Borko, 2000; Rodgers, 2002; Schön, 1983; Valli,
1997) leading to changes in practice. It is situated in teachers’ social interactions (Putman &
Borko, 2000; Webster-Wright, 2009) in a particular context, such as in a grade-level meeting.
Teachers must be afforded opportunities to develop the knowledge and skills to take up a
conversation that goes beyond sharing an experience. Such discourse requires teachers to reflect
at deep levels (Jay & Johnson, 2002; Rodgers, 2002; Valli, 1997) by generating and answering
questions about their daily classroom practice and articulating that (including an assumption)
which is implicit or taken for granted (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). Critical reflective
discourse requires teachers to grapple with real issues related to content, instructional choices,
and student learning (Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, & Orphanos, 2009).
Principals can affect student achievement by enacting leadership practices or actions that
influence teacher practice (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006). Ultimately, it is
up to the principal to establish conditions that provide teachers the structures and resources
necessary to improve both their practice and student learning. Contextual factors enacted by the
principal facilitate opportunities for teachers to engage in rich conversation (Myers, Sawyer,
Scribner, & Watson, 2007) on such topics, for instance, as the way they use of time to improve
instruction during meetings. Quality instruction refers to gaining a deeper conceptual and
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 7
procedural understanding of the content and pairing it with the appropriate pedagogy. There are
also grade-level meeting (GLM) factors such as goals, indicators, a coach, and leadership
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Goldenberg, 2003) that foster opportunities for teachers’
professional growth. Goals targeting PL and student learning influence the type of indicators or
data used to track goal progress and achievement, and the outcomes reflected by these indicators
influence future goals. Within this process, the coach facilitates meetings (Heckman & Montera,
2009) through in-depth discussions (Heckman & Montera, 2009; Putman & Borko, 2000),
encouraging teacher reflection (Heckman & Montera, 2009), instructing teachers on how to
design lesson plans (Heckman & Montera, 2009), and modeling new teaching practices
(Heckman & Montera, 2009; Putman & Borko, 2000). His role is to foster opportunities created
by the principal for teachers to engage in PL that leads to changes in practice. Subsequently, the
principal can position contextual factors to support effective teachers’ professional development
opportunities.
This study focuses on the extent to which the quality of discourse fosters teacher learning
opportunities during GLMs and explores leadership practices that support effective professional
development opportunities as a segue to PL. Deep levels of learning are likely to result in
improved teacher knowledge, instructional practice, and student learning outcomes (Wei et al.,
2009). The remainder of this chapter presents the background of the problem, statement of the
problem, purpose of the study, research questions, methods, assumptions, limitations,
delimitations, importance of the study, definition of terms, and organization of the study.
Background of the Problem
To illustrate the problem in public schools, Heckman and Montera (2009) and Lortie’s
(1986) analogy of a public school resembling a mid-19th-century industrial revolution factory
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 8
model is apt. This model highlights the factory (public school), the fundamental role of a
manager (principal) and factory workers (teachers), and workers’ end-of-year evaluations
(student end-of-year summative assessments). The factory manager or school principal makes
decisions about everyday activities and routines related to assembling a final product. In this
illustration, the final product is increasing student learning by teaching state standards. The
principal’s daily decisions target first-order change, as she coordinates and supervises curriculum
and instruction (Hallinger, 2003) to improve student learning. She is also preoccupied with
managerial tasks such as coordinating the master school schedule, tending to day-to-day student
discipline, and monitoring budgets (Northouse, 2007). The factory workers, or teachers,
contribute to the assembly of the final product in a prescribed way (primarily transmitting
curriculum) and in a particular time frame (throughout the academic year). Moreover, the notion
of factory workers’ evaluations resembles that of summative student assessments. Workers’
evaluations are based on calculating the average amount of time it takes an average worker to
assemble each product. Similarly, student assessments are based on the standard amount of time
it takes an average student to learn the skills and knowledge required for a particular grade-level.
While an aspect of the principal’s leadership role is to manage the instructional program
(Hallinger, 2003) by providing financial and structural resources (Drago-Severson, 2012),
another aspect requires him/her to foster opportunities for teachers to develop their instructional
skills and knowledge in instructional decision making and student learning (Leithwood, Louis,
Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Lortie, 1986). This requires facilitating the second-order change
processes necessary to alter the organization’s normative culture (Slayton & Mathis, 2010) into
one that is more collaborative and conducive to both teacher learning (Hallinger, 2003; Knapp et
al., 2010) and to changes in practice.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 9
Instructional skills and knowledge shape and mold interactions among individual
teachers, their students, and the content (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2005; Elmore, 2000;
Horn & Little, 2010). When a school’s normative culture is not supportive of teachers’ efforts to
develop instructional skills and knowledge, a principal’s positive influence on student learning
outcomes diminishes (Elmore, 2000; Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Knapp et al.,
2010; Leithwood et al., 2004; Leithwood & Riehl, 2005). For instance, teachers whose practice
is situated in their classroom and whose thought patterns and actions became automatic over time
are more likely to transmit knowledge when teaching and less likely to engage in critical
reflection as a form of PL (Putman & Borko, 2000). Another example is that student assessment
data becomes underutilized when it stops at gauging the amount of content and pedagogical
knowledge a student can recall in a particular time frame. Therefore, the principal and teachers
should adopt a learning stance (Knapp et al., 2010) that allows them to soberly examine data in
relation to their leadership and instructional choices.
Statement of the Problem
Hargraves and Shirley (2009) assert the culture of public school teaching is the most
pressing problem preventing teachers from becoming adaptive experts. Adaptive experts “are
prepared for effective lifelong learning...continuously add[ing] to their skills and knowledge”
(Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005, p. 3). Hargraves and Shirley (2009) also present
Lortie’s (1975) argument about the characteristics of presentism, conservatism, and
individualism embedded in public school teaching which impede educational reform that leads to
changes in instruction and to greater student learning:
Presentism refers to the overwhelming pressures of schools that kept teachers locked into
short-term perspectives and unable or unwilling to envision or plan collaboratively for
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 10
long-term, systemic change. Related to presentism, conservatism referenced teachers'
mistrust of reform initiatives and their loyalty to established classroom practices that
worked for them regardless of research findings or pupil learning outcomes. Finally,
individualism was manifested in teachers’ preferences for working alone without the
intrusion of colleagues or administrators in their own cellular classrooms (Hargraves &
Shirley, 2009, p. 2)
These characteristics represent the most significant impediment to student learning: teachers’
understanding of their instruction and its relation to their practice.
Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2005) assert teachers face three problems in learning
to teach more effectively, which could be related to their not seeing the connection between their
instruction and student learning. The first one is the apprentice of observation (Lortie, 1975 as
cited in Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). Apprentice of observation refers to teachers’
understanding their profession, and how to teach particular content to their students, through the
lens of their own experiences as students. These experiences are grounded in what they observed
their former teachers saying and doing rather than on what they are taught to do throughout their
credentialing program. These teachers must learn to think like teachers who teach with a student
learning goal in mind and design learning activities with a clear objective as to what students
should know and be able to do. The second problem is enactment (Kennedy, 1999). Enactment
requires teachers to deeply understand factual knowledge, understand facts in the context of a
conceptual framework, and organize their knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval and action
(National Research Council, 2005). The third problem is complexity (Hargraves & Shirley,
2009; Jackson, 1974 as cited in Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005), which refers to
instructional modifications teachers make based on evolving student needs and unexpected
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 11
classroom events. Instructional modifications require teachers to develop metacognitive habits
of mind that guide their instructional decisions and teacher practice reflections. These problems
hinder public school teachers from improving their instruction. Teachers are not learning to
teach more effectively because they are not metacognitive when teaching or reflective about their
teaching practice, instructional skills and knowledge, and the relation of these to student
learning.
Heckman and Montera (2009) contest there are three norms of student learning within
this factory model. The first one is the discrete and fixed time-bound learning occurring in
schools. Students are required to learn new curriculum each nine-month long academic year, but
contrasting research suggests students’ emotional and cognitive development happens in periods
of several years (Schallert & Martin, 2003). There is a range in what students know, understand,
do, and can do at any particular age that is not necessarily assessed or indicated on an end-of-
year evaluation. The second norm is the transmission of knowledge; teachers talk and transmit
knowledge while students learn passively. Schallert and Martin (2003) challenge this norm by
arguing students enter school with a wealth of prior knowledge and that teachers should spend
time tapping into what students already know by asking content-related questions. The third
norm is that core skills and knowledge taught do not change over time (Darling-Hammond &
Bransford, 2005; Heckman & Montera, 2009). Heckman and Montera (2009) argue against this
norm, since competitive and evolving job markets seek to hire those with the most relevant
technological knowledge and critical thinking skills. Consequently, teaching and learning are at
a standstill in public schools, and the content and skills taught are not evolving with the job
market.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 12
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to examine the ways an elementary team of grade-level
teachers (GLT) utilized discourse (conversations) as a tool for learning; that is, how teacher
discourse shaped, sustained or supported PL and changes in instruction. The researcher further
investigated the effect the principal’s choice to provide structural support had on teacher
learning. Specifically, this study examined the extent to which GLM factors such as time,
agenda, and the coach’s role provided opportunities for PL that led to changes in practice. GLM
observations, participant interviews, and documentation were used to investigate the extent to
which teacher discourse proved generate PL during GLMs.
Research Questions
The following questions guided this inquiry:
1. How does the quality of teacher discourse shape, sustain or support professional learning and
changes in practice during grade-level meetings?
2. To what extent does the principal influence grade-level meeting structural factors to foster
opportunities for professional learning leading to changes in practice?
Methods
Through observations and interviews, this qualitative study focused on understanding
how participants make meaning of an experience. It was a naturalistic study, which, as
suggested by Patton (2002), minimized the researcher’s manipulation of the setting and
predetermined findings. GLM observations coupled with interviews of the teachers, coach, and
principal were conducted to answer both research questions. GLM observations were used to
capture evidence of the ways teachers engaged in discourse. In addition, because Gill and
Hoffman (2009), Merriam (2002), and Patton (2002) posit post-observation interviews capture
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 13
the participants’ thoughts and clarify intentions, ideas, and interactions, interviews were
conducted after the observations. After collection, Creswell’s (2007) six-step framework was
used to analyze the data and to capture a rich description of the findings. Although multiple data
collection methods were employed, central to analysis was the quality of teacher discourse
regularly taking place during GLMs. In keeping with the research on discourse and discourse
analysis, Horn and Little’s (2010) framework on conversational routines served to analyze the
quality of discourse during GLMs. Lastly, data was examined to understand the extent to which
the GLM factors of principal, time, agenda, and coach influenced the quality of teacher discourse
in terms of fostering PL opportunities.
Assumptions
This qualitative study examined the ways in which teacher discourse supplied
opportunities for PL during GLMs. It was presumed observations exemplified what typically
transpired in GLMs and captured explicit and implicit rationales underlying teachers’
instructional decisions based on their discourse. Gill and Hoffman (2009) posit interview
responses are forthcoming and true to the best of the individual’s knowledge and understanding.
Therefore, it was assumed the interview responses given by the principal, teachers, and coach
were a true reflection of what they knew and understood.
Limitations
Participation was voluntary and relied on the willingness and honesty of the principal,
teachers, and coach. Gill and Hoffman (2009) assert the extent to which PL is captured is based
on the particular conversations happening at the time of the observations. Nonetheless, the
interview process itself has inherent limitations. In both observations and interviews, there may
have been a social desirability bias that caused participants to alter their responses and behaviors
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 14
to what they perceived was the researcher’s expressed interest (Kennedy, 1984) or desired
response (Ermeling, 2005). A second limitation is that self-reporting is shaped by participants’
insightfulness, articulateness, openness (Kennedy, 1984), nervousness, bias or vulnerability
(Patton, 2002). In addition, interviews do not accurately represent the distinction between
teachers’ knowledge and beliefs (Gill & Hoffman, 2009; Kennedy, 1984).
Since the researcher was an observer with an outsider perspective (Creswell, 2007;
Patton, 2002), biases may limit the ability to see the situation from participants’ perspectives
(Merriam, 2002). Initially, the researcher’s paradigm of PL was the lens used to capture
participants’ interactions. This paradigm was influenced and shaped by particular bodies of
literature that, at times, reflected best case scenarios. It also differed from the participants’
conceptualization of PL. Therefore, initial expectations and assumptions of what PL should look
like and why this was the case might have influenced the way data were captured and
interpreted.
To offset these limitations and increase the validity and reliability of the findings, data
were collected over four months. During this time, teachers became used to the researcher’s
presence. Seven GLMs were observed and post-observation participant interviews were
conducted. Teachers’ conversations and interactions were analyzed for a holistic picture of their
natural context. The observation data, interview data, and collected documentation were
triangulated to increase the likelihood of capturing the degree to which teacher learning occurred.
Delimitations
These findings are delimited by the number of GLMs observed and by studying one
grade-level team at an elementary school. Another delimitation is posited by Gill and Hoffman
(2009) in that a researcher can give too much or too little credit to the likelihood of practice
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 15
change. Since follow-up classroom observations were not conducted as a means to witness the
transfer of PL to classroom practice, an opportunity to further strengthen the internal validity of
this study was missed. Furthermore, as the researcher designed the protocols and conducted the
observations and interviews, capturing relevant and significant information was constrained by
novice status and questions selected.
Importance of the Study
Research about PL generally provides rich insight about teachers as they attempt to
change their instructional practices (National Research Council, 2000). The study served as an
example of ways participants’ conceptualization of PL shaped their instructional conversation in
ways consistent with what teachers’ own learning should look like. It depicted circumstances
facing a group of GLTs working to develop their practice to improve student learning. It
examined the influence the principal, time, the agenda, and the coach’s role on developing
teachers’ instructional skills and knowledge. This study investigated interactions leading to
changes in instructional and leadership practice.
However, the main benefactors of this research are students. PL rooted in day-to-day
teaching experiences (Putman & Borko, 2000; Webster-Wright, 2009) leads to improving
instruction and student learning (Leithwood et al., 2004; Lortie, 1986). This occurs when it is
situated in a particular context like GLMs (Putman & Borko, 2000; Webster-Wright, 2009),
focuses on instructional decision making (Leithwood et al., 2004; Lortie, 1986), builds teachers’
content and pedagogical knowledge (Desimone, 2009; Garet et al., 2001), and focuses on
students’ academic needs (Desimone, 2009; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Garet et al., 2001;
Goldenberg, 2003; Morris, Chrispeels, & Burke, 2003). Principals whose leadership practice
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 16
fosters a culture conducive to teaching and learning have an indirect impact on their students’
achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006).
Moreover, critically reflective discourse affords teachers deeper levels of learning,
leading to new understanding (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Putman & Borko, 2000; Rodgers,
2002; Schön, 1983; Valli, 1997) and practice change (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Horn &
Little, 2010; Heckman & Montera, 2009; National Research Council, 2000). Consistent with
this notion, educators and participants gain insight into the relevance and importance of using
critically reflective discourse as a tool for PL. In conclusion, the findings and implications of
this study will benefit educators and participants.
Definition of Terms
1. Accountability is the notion that principals and teachers or the school should be held
responsible for improving student achievement and should be rewarded or sanctioned for
success or lack thereof in doing so (EdSource, 2011).
2. Discourse refers to conversations and/or texts (Cheek, 2004; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).
Over time, teachers develop a common discourse (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999) and a
common set of assumptions that are taken for granted or assumed when describing and
discussing teaching (Cheek, 2004; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).
3. First-order change refers to a principal setting up the structural conditions that affect the
quality of curriculum and instruction (Hallinger, 2003, 2005).
4. Inquiry refers to teachers having conversations about their own and others’ ideologies,
interpretations, and teaching practices. Teachers challenging their own assumptions;
discussing teacher observations and reflections; talking about their own students and
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 17
classrooms when studying them; discussing constructing and reconstructing curriculum; and
posing problems of practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).
5. Leadership refers to a principal “identifying, acquiring, allocating, coordinating and using
the social, material, and cultural resources necessary to establish the conditions for...teaching
and learning” (Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond, 2004, p. 11).
6. Professional learning is the lived experience of continuing to learn as a professional
(Webster-Wright, 2009). It is holistic and transformative in nature; situated in physical and
social contexts; social and distributed across persons (Putman & Borko, 2000; Webster-
Wright, 2009). PL transforms cognitive patterns (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Putman &
Borko, 2000; Rodgers, 2002; Schön, 1983; Valli, 1997) affecting changes in practice. It
occurs when teachers collaboratively construct new understanding as a result of engaging in
critical reflection and structured discourse (Putman & Borko, 2000; Webster-Wright, 2009).
7. Professional learning community “is marked by conversations that hold practice,
pedagogy, and student learning under scrutiny” (Kruse, Louis, & Bryk, 1995, p. 30 cited in
Horn & Little, 2010).
8. Reflection is an individual or collaborative thinking process (Jay & Johnson, 2002) that is
intentional, purposeful, rigorous, and systematic (Jay & Johnson, 2002; Valli, 1997) when
applying it to teacher practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Rodgers, 2002; Schön, 1983;
Valli, 1997).
9. Second-order change requires the principal to create a school culture conducive to teachers
continuously learning and sharing that learning (Hallinger, 2003).
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 18
Organization of the Study
Having established the background of the problem, research questions, and purpose and
limitations of this study, relevant literature was examined in terms of the ways teachers utilized
discourse as a tool for learning. Chapter One presents an overview of the study. It establishes
the background and statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research questions,
importance of the study, methodology, assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and definition of
terms. Chapter Two’s review draws on bodies of literature in five areas: teacher learning
models, teacher reflection, teacher discourse, GLMs, and leadership models. It concludes with a
conceptual framework integral to answering the two research questions. Chapter Three explains
the research design, sample and population, instrumentation, data collection process, and method
of data analysis. Chapter Four presents the findings that emerged from the data and synthesizes
particular themes related to the conceptual framework. Chapter Five concludes the dissertation
with implications and recommendations for practice, policy, and research.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 19
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This dissertation studied an elementary team of teachers and investigated elements
affecting PL and changes in practice. It examined the ways teachers utilize structured discourse
as a tool for learning, meaning how teacher discourse shaped, sustained or supported PL and
changes in instruction. It further investigated the extent to which GLM factors such as the
principal, time, agenda, and coach influenced the quality of teacher discourse to foster PL
opportunities. This chapter illustrates elements of quality teacher discourse, professional
development, and GLMs that foster PL opportunities leading to changes in teacher practice and
student learning outcomes.
There are multiple ways to define and unpack the language presented in the following
bodies of research. Therefore, information was narrowed to best inform the research questions.
The five distinct, but related, bodies of literature are teacher learning, teacher reflection, teacher
discourse, GLMs, and leadership models. This chapter concludes with a conceptual framework
that served as the foundation for this study.
Teacher Learning
This section holistically defines PL to better answer both research questions. “Authentic”
PL is the lived experience of learning as a professional (Webster-Wright, 2009). PL is
constructed, continuous, active, social, and related to practice (Garet et al., 2001; Putman &
Borko, 2000; Webster-Wright, 2009). It is a holistic experience that considers what a teacher
knows and does and who the person is (Webster-Wright, 2009). PL focuses on critical reflection
or questioning and challenging assumptions about one’s practice (Putman & Borko, 2000;
Webster-Wright, 2009). Even “effective” professional development opportunities may not
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 20
positively affect PL, primarily depending on whether teachers critically reflect on their
instructional practice.
Putman and Borko’s (2000) theoretical framework on teachers’ PL is grounded in a
situated perspective: knowledge is situated in context. The argument presented in this theoretical
piece is not against the transfer of knowledge, but that PL should be anchored in an aspect of
teacher practice. PL is on-going and occurs within multiple settings wherein teachers acquire
knowledge about subject matter, learning, and teaching. Teachers acquire theoretical and
research-based knowledge in staff development workshops, apply it in their classrooms, receive
feedback and modeling, critically reflect through discourse on their attempt to implement this
knowledge, and explore different conceptions of subject-matter in workshops. Thus, “how a
person learns a particular set of skills and knowledge, and the situation in which a person learns,
become a fundamental part of what is learned” (Putman & Borko, 2000, p. 4).
Putman and Borko (2000) assert that PL can potentially transform teacher practice when
it is situated in particular physical and social contexts; social in nature; and distributed across
persons and tools (e.g., discourse communities). To be situated in particular physical and social
contexts refers to teachers’ learning experiences being anchored in day-to-day practices. One
example is that most authentic learning activities take place in the classroom. Another is that
teachers bring their experiences to on-going professional development workshops focused on
instructional practices. Social in nature notes group settings where teachers have conversations
about student and teacher observations. One instance is when a staff development member (e.g.,
coach) introduces material and activities in a workshop. Teachers attempt to enact this
instructional knowledge and return to the group to discuss their experiences. Another is for
teachers to come together to examine and discuss written cases or videos of real life classroom
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 21
situations. This activity creates a meaningful setting in which teachers can experience content
like instructional practices and forms of pedagogical thinking in new ways. PL is distributed
across persons when it explores the role of discourse communities. Teachers discuss new
materials and strategies, and the discourse supports risk taking and struggles embedded in
improving instruction. Limitations of discourse communities include a lack of guidance and
support made available for teachers to ensure conversations are educationally meaningful and
that a school may not value or support critical reflection of teaching practices in meetings.
Hence, PL is most likely to occur when contextual factors support teachers’ effort in engaging in
critically reflective conversations about attempted teaching practices and adequately influence
the settings in which learning activities occur.
Webster-Wright (2009) seeks to answer the question, “how do professionals continue
learning through their working lives?” Three bodies of research are reviewed in this study to
better understand authentic PL: community and adult education, workplace learning, and
professional education. The research on community and adult education defines learning as
holistic and potentially transformative. It involves the whole person (teacher) within his/her
sociocultural community. Teachers are integral to the learning experience and engage in self-
directed learning through critical reflection. Critical reflection is an on-going discussion
focusing on questioning and challenging assumptions underlying habitual patterns. Secondly,
workplace learning implies more than the physical location, structures, and interactions among
colleagues. It focuses on what and how employees learn at work and is divided two aspects:
learning is context dependent, or the situated and social nature of continuously learning; and
workplace as a context for learning addresses a range of issues affecting the time, space, and
energy available to discuss teacher practice. It refers to the implicit workplace expectations and
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 22
assumptions that shape practice. For example, a school affords more value to the learning and
development of some practices and teachers use their time to engage in and challenge their
practice versus quietly listening to others. Time and social constraints limit interactions that
support learning, but opportunities for scaffolded participation or mentoring foster PL.
Professional education focuses on knowledge that is co-constructed, not on the transfer of
knowledge, and has two aspects. The first aspect is the application of professional. The goal of
transmitting knowledge shifted from that of teaching to learning, which lead to the introduction
of innovative pedagogical practices. The second one is pedagogical practices used in universities
to prepare future practitioners. The practices selected are influenced by individual’s
understanding of how to develop professional skills. These bodies of literature speak to the
authentic PL theoretical framework.
Furthermore, Webster-Wright (2009) rejects professional development (PD) assumptions
that point to the intersection of a set of PD factors yielding teacher learning. PD focuses on
“developing” a teacher, and PD factors do not necessarily create opportunities that support
authentic PL. It suggests that teachers are incapable of self-directed learning and, therefore, need
someone to train them and that development occurs through the transfer of skills and knowledge
and not through the co-constructing of knowledge. Teachers may not even apply skills they
learned about due to time pressures and stress at work. Webster-Wright (2009) also contests
“effective” PD has the potential to foster conditions for changes in practice as teachers engage in
an activity and critically reflect on it. The section below explores the notion of “effective” PD
characterized by a subset of factors that, when combined, enable teachers to engage in PL
through the transfer of skills and knowledge into their practice.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 23
Professional development is ongoing, continuous, and embedded in teachers’ daily lives
(Desimone, 2009). Teachers learn depth, not breath, of subject matter and methods. Knowledge
applies to current academic challenges facing their students (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, &
Yoon, 2001). “Effective” PD results in improving teachers’ knowledge and instructional
practice as well as in increasing student achievement (Wei et al., 2009). The PD factors
described in this literature review contribute to setting the conditions for teachers’ engagement in
PL.
Desimone (2009) argues teachers’ PL is directly related to their everyday classroom
instruction and interactions. It is embedded in quality PD, which is made up of five factors:
content focus, active learning, coherence, duration, and collective participation. First, content
focus refers to improving and deepening subject matter knowledge. It is making links between
subject matter and how students learn. Second, active learning occurs when teachers lead their
own PD by observing expert teachers, having others observe them, analyzing student work, and
planning lessons. Third, coherence is the extent to which teacher learning aligns to teacher and
school goals, standards for student learning, evaluation of student assessments, on-going
professional communication, and teachers’ beliefs. Fourth, duration is the span of time over
which a learning activity takes place and the number of hours teachers spend engaged in it.
Finally, collective participation refers to teachers from the same school or grade-level sharing
and discussing ideas while learning from one another. Desimone (2009) posits the features of
quality PD promote teacher learning that is meaningful, useful, problem-centered, and gratifying.
Garet et al., 2001 assert PD conducive to PL takes place during the school day. The
authors list structural and core factors as part of PD. The first structural feature is form of
activity. This includes study group, mentoring, coaching; workshop/conference; and induction
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 24
programs. The second feature is duration. This is the number of hours teachers spend in the
activity; time afforded to in-depth discussions of pedagogical content knowledge; and time
allotted for teachers to try out new practices. The third feature is collective participation. It
includes groups of teachers (grade-level teams) from the same school engaging in discussing
concepts, skills, and problems; sharing curriculum materials and assessment; integrating what
teachers learn with other aspects of instruction; discussing students’ needs across classes or
grade-levels; (5) sharing a professional culture; and providing a forum for debate and learning.
Moreover, Garet et al. (2001) state PD has three core factors. The first core factor is
content. This includes an emphasis on subject matter, teaching methods, and/or pedagogical
content knowledge; adapting the PD to goals for student learning; and tailoring PD in ways
students learn particular subject matter. The second factor is active learning. Teachers engage in
a meaningful analysis of teaching and learning by observing expert teachers and being observed
while teaching; planning new curricula and teaching methods that will be implemented in their
classrooms; reviewing student work on the topics covered in PD; and leading discussion and
engaging in written work. The third factor is coherence. This includes connection with goals
(teacher/school) and other activities (earlier activities are followed up with more advance work);
alignment with state and district standards and assessments; and ongoing communication among
teachers to confront similar issues, share solutions to problems, and improve their practice with
time. Garet et al. (2001) conclude there is a positive impact on teachers’ professional skills and
knowledge and changes in classroom teaching practices when these PD features are in place.
Wei et al. (2009) posit there are three key PD factors in designing learning experiences
that can affect teachers’ knowledge and practices related to student achievement gains. These
factors are content of PD, context for PD, and designing learning experiences. The content of
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 25
PD refers to enhancing teachers’ knowledge of specific pedagogical skills, types of content; and
student learning like analyzing the conceptual understanding and skills students are expect to
demonstrate. The context for PD focuses on coherent and collaborative learning experiences.
Coherence is a way of linking what teachers learn about a curriculum, assessments or standards
in PD to what they implement in their classrooms on a daily basis. Collaboration builds trust
among colleagues, creating bridge for inquiry and reflection into practice. Teachers grapple with
content and pedagogy, take risks, solve problems, and tend to dilemmas. Designing learning
experiences consists of modeling the new teaching practices and allotting time for teachers to
practice and reflect upon these and duration, or the number of contact hours. Hence PL related
to increasing student outcomes can occur when the key PD features are sustained over time,
focused, and intensive (Wei et al., 2009).
PL refers to professionals learning in ways that shape their practice, from a diverse range
of activities, through interactions with colleagues, and from PD programs. In this section of the
literature review, multiple scholars agree to different extents that quality PD contributes to
teachers’ experiencing authentic PL (Desimone, 2009; Garet et al., 2001; Webster-Wright, 2009;
Wei et al., 2009). Quality PD consists of structural and core factors. The structural factors are
form of activity, designing learning experiences, duration, and collective participation. The core
factors are content focus, active learning, and coherence. Structural factors fundamentally
contribute to the conditions for teachers to experience coherent, content focused, active PL,
changes in practice, and increases in student achievement.
Teacher Reflection
Both research questions are grounded in the concept of PL. Therefore, this section helps
better understand thinking processes that lead to changes in cognitive patterns or PL. Webster-
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 26
Wright (2009) argues that critical reflection and action are considered integral to on-going PL
that changes practice. Reflection is a purposeful, active process of experimentation and
discovery. The research literature speaks to a range of activities from contemplation to critical
dialogue and describes different levels of reflection. However, teachers need the skills and
knowledge to question and challenge assumptions about self, others, work, or ethical issues for
reflection to lead to changes in practice. Learning through critical reflection involves reassessing
presuppositions, conceiving new and different aspects of one’s world and self, and allowing
these conceptualizations to reinterpret experiences from new perspectives and acting to change
situations (Freire, 1974 as cited by Webster-Wright, 2009). Questioning and challenging
assumptions involves being consciously aware of, exposing, and reflecting upon these
assumptions. Thus, PL that changes practice occurs in the interactions between action and
critical reflection.
Scholars agree teachers’ critical reflection fosters PL (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999;
Rodgers, 2002; Schön, 1983; Valli, 1997). Dewey (1933) defines reflection as the “active,
persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of
the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (p. 9). Valli (1997)
describes teacher reflection as looking back on events, making judgements about them, and
altering teaching practice “in light of craft, research, and ethical knowledge’’ (p. 70). Jay and
Johnson (2002) define reflection as an individual and collaborative process “involving
experience and uncertainty” (Jay & Johnson, 2002, p. 76). Through this process, teachers
articulate their thoughts to themselves and other teachers. They identify key characteristics of a
situation and naturally formulate new questions. Teachers evaluate the insights gained from
additional perspectives, personal values, experiences, and beliefs, and larger context. Through
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 27
reflection, teachers dispositions change based on new found understanding of a situation. These
new or modified dispositions lead to different actions or changes in practice. Thus, reflection is
a conscious, rigorous, and systematic mode of thinking (Dewey, 1933; Valli, 1997).
Schön (1983) asserts there are two modes of reflection: reflection-on-action and
reflection-in-action. Reflection-on-action occurs before or after a situation such as a classroom
lesson. The author explains an individual slows down to see and, then, to describe rich and
complex details and analyze what transpired during the teaching and learning process. The
teacher strategizes steps to take action, carries out the action, and reflects upon this action once
carried out. Reflection-in-action refers to the spontaneous, intuitive decisions executed during an
experience. Teachers make decisions after framing and solving an isolated incident on the spot.
Based on Schön’s (1983) argument, reflection rarely ends with a solution. Rather, it is a tool
used to present material for further reflection, new questions, and improved understanding.
To ignite and cultivate a reflective teaching practice within a school, Jay and Johnson
(2002) propose a typology of reflection for teachers in any stage of their profession. The
typology consists of descriptive, comparative, and critical reflection. Each one is comprised of a
set of questions intended to provide multiple perspectives and a more holistic picture of a
particular situation. Descriptive reflection involves the intellectual process of establishing the
problem that teachers will reflect upon and solve. This process reports facts, recognizes salient
features of the framed problem, extracts causes and effects, recontextualizes these, and envisions
a change. The goal is to define a problem thoroughly enough that it makes sense to the teachers
discussing it. If teachers over simplify the process of finding salient details, a problem can be
incorrectly framed.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 28
Furthermore, Jay and Johnson (2002) posit comparative reflection involves framing a
problem from various perspectives and in distinct ways. Teachers question their beliefs,
assumptions, biases, and experiences. It is a process of reflection that requires an open-
mindedness to others ideas and interpretations. Although comparative reflection expands on a
teacher’s understanding of the problem, it still presents a narrow view of it. Critical reflection,
on the other hand, considers a problem in light of broader perspectives: historical, socio-political,
and moral context of school. Overall, the typology is not intended to be a linear and rigid
process of reflecting. It is an instrument teachers can use to capture their contemplations,
inspirations, and experiences on a particular framed problem.
Rodgers (2002) describes a framework outlining a reflective inquiry process that is
founded on teachers’ learning to see and being present during students’ learning. This process
slows down teachers’ cognitive processes related to teaching, reveals rich details about student
learning, and asks teachers to observe carefully and consider a response. The framework
consists of a four-phase reflective cycle. The first phase, presence in experience, is learning to
observe. It is the ability to pay attention to right now: to concentrate in what and how students
are learning content. This is in contrast to teachers assuming students are learning because they
seem happy, engaged or on-task. The second phase, description of experience, is learning to
describe and differentiate what is seen. It is the process of digging up as many details as possible
from various angles, which are not limited to one teacher’s point of view. The third phase,
analysis of experimentation, is learning to think critically and to create a theory. Here, teachers
generate common definitions for the language of teaching and learning. This language is used to
generate a number of different explanations or conjectures for what is occurring and settling on a
hypothesis that teachers are willing to test in their classrooms. This language is further used to
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 29
explore assumptions that grow out of teachers’ identity, values or prior experiences. The final
phase, analysis of experience, is learning to take intelligent action. Ideas are put into action; they
are tried and tested. This is the final and initial phase of the reflective cycle. Consequently,
Rodgers’s (2002) framework for reflective inquiry involves teachers in a process that moves
from the experience, to description, followed by analysis, and then action.
Valli (1997) argues each of the five types of reflection (Table 2) she proposes consists of
two dimensions: content and quality. The content denotes what teachers think about, for
example, time-on-task, wait time, active learning, student engagement, homework review, and
prior knowledge. The quality considers how teachers think about their practice. Technical
reflection is the first type of reflection, which is the most basic. It describes content as teachers’
teaching techniques or skills. The quality refers to the ways teachers actions are influenced by a
researcher or an evaluator and applied based on the expert’s expectations. The second type is
reflection-in and reflection-on action. The content denotes the teacher’s own situation such as
values, beliefs, classroom context, and students. The quality is based on a teacher’s ability to
justify her decision based on her past teaching experience. The third type is deliberative
reflection, which is determined by teachers’ decisions based on a number of sources like
research, experience, others’ advice or personal beliefs and values. The content refers to
teachers considering their own teaching actions; relationships with students; the subject matter
being taught; and the school’s organization, culture, and climate. The quality depends on the
teachers’ aptitudes to consider competing claims and to justify their decision based on these
claims. The fourth type is personalistic reflection. The content consists of teachers thinking
about their profession in relation to their personal lives and those of their students. The quality is
based on their ability to empathize. The final type is critical reflection, which is the most in-
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 30
depth and complex. The content is comprise of the social, moral, and political dimensions of
schooling while the quality depends upon evaluating the purposes of schooling in light of ethical
criteria.
A critically reflective practice requires teachers to slow down their thinking processes
about teaching and learning. A reflective cycle of inquiry, for example, helps teachers see
connections between real classroom dilemmas and their teaching practice. It allows teachers to
experience deeper levels of learning. Critically reflective discourse is the tool used to empower
teachers to develop their instructional skills and knowledge.
Teacher Discourse
The first research question asks how the quality of discourse influences PL. Thus, this
section presents a general definition of discourse and notions of teacher discourse to help answer
this research question. In Cheek’s (2004) perspective, one engages in discourse or
communicates through printed words, interactions, or conversations. Inherent in discourse is the
organization and structure in which a topic is talked about. It is a patterned way of thinking
made up of a common set of unexplored assumptions found in social circles when speaking
about aspects of reality. However, not all discourse is afforded equal agency. Certain discourse
marginalizes or excludes others and their ways of thinking whereas discourse accepted and heard
depends on the power or authority afforded by sociohistorical influences.
Cheek’s (2004) notion of discourse shows Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1999)
conceptualization of teacher discourse in that it reveals a certain aspect of reality. It represents
current understanding and assumptions. It affords agency to individuals who can articulate their
thought processes in particular social circles. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) posit teachers
engage in discourse about text and through conversations. Teachers’ conversations go beyond
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 31
“describing, discussing, and debating teaching” (p. 294). They engage in an individual and
collective effort to articulate knowledge that is tacit, implicit or taken for granted. Furthermore,
through discourse, teachers create opportunities to question and challenge assumptions about
their instructional practice. A common discourse develops over time as teachers work together
at understanding, articulating, and altering their teaching practice.
According to Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (199) work, teacher discourse revolves around
three conceptualizations of knowledge: knowledge-for-practice, knowledge-in-practice, and
knowledge-of-practice in a contexts targeting PL and improving instruction. Knowledge-for-
practice is knowledge produced by researchers: generalizable behaviors/techniques verified as
best practices. When looking at learning through this paradigm, information is “transferred” to
teachers and their existing understanding of a topic is not necessarily taken into account.
Knowledge-in-practice is constructed by a lead teacher or coach through lesson studies; it uses
the group of teachers’ craft knowledge to collectively design and implement the lesson.
Knowledge-of-practice is the knowledge constructed by the teacher as researcher: the teacher
engages in action research, derives questions and drives conversations, and uses experts’
knowledge to inform her inquiry. Here, the individual facilitating the conversation can select,
organize, and structure the information and take up or exclude certain conversations.
Furthermore, Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1999) find teacher inquiry communities that
conceptualize learning as a knowledge-of practice afford teacher opportunities to engage in PL.
These communities meet regularly to engage in systematic inquiry. Teachers understand a
situation through their own lenses, learn from their teaching, and interpret and theorize their
professional actions. Teachers who engage in long standing oral inquiry or rich conversations
question and challenge their own and others’ ideologies, interpretations, and teaching practices.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 32
They discuss teacher and student observations and reflections, curriculum materials and
practices, and problems of practice. Teachers collectively analyze data like student assessment
data or student work and critically reflect on the intersections between their instructional
practices and student learning outcomes. Ultimately, teachers take charge of their own learning
and are positioned to make the appropriate changes to their practice.
Heckman and Montera (2009) propose the concept of indigenous invention: the notion
that individuals at a school have the responsibility of inventing and implementing their own
ideas. There are two indigenous invention factors: dialogue and a third party. Teachers meet
and engage in dialogue in a designated physical location. Dialogue refers to teachers’ combining
their classroom experiences and ideas and using these to guide their day-to-day practice. At
these meetings, teachers socially construct their reality by openly acting, reflecting, and
revealing what they think and believe about particular experiences. A third party, an outsider
with expertise such as a coach, facilitates dialogue sessions, encourages reflection, inquires,
explores, and invents new ways of thinking and acting with participants. Through these
interactions, the coach and teachers form a level of trust grounded in the coach’s effort to
understand the teachers as an insider (a participant/observer) in their classrooms. By using
dialogue and with the guidance of a coach, teachers take responsibility for their own PL; they
create innovative ideas, solve problems of practice, and are forthcoming about their thinking
patterns, assumptions, and actions.
Horn and Little (2010) argue formally constructed workplace groups are more likely to
generate learning if teachers develop the skills and knowledge to engage in discourse that goes
beyond sharing an experience. There is a difference between sharing a decontextualized account
of what happens in a classroom and engaging in a conversation about content-related and
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 33
pedagogical practice. Sharing an experience is a teacher’s first attempt to describe and
assimilate it, but it is not much of a resource for learning. It is only several attempts that teachers
“recontextualize” or redefine their practice as a group. Teacher discourse becomes a tool to
deconstruct instructional practice when it is used to discuss student work, curriculum, and
instructional choices to improve instruction.
Horn and Little (2010) investigate how teachers’ conversational routines focusing on
problems of classroom practice forge, sustain, and support teacher learning and academic
improvement. Conversational routines are patterns and recurrent ways dialogue unfolds in a
social group. Conversational routines can move teachers past describing or giving quick advice
on a problem and are composed of four factors: normalizing a problem of practice, further
specifying the problem, revising the account of the problem, and generalizing to principles of
teaching. Normalizing a problem of practice refers to teachers’ supplying reassurance of the
character of the problem by making statements such as, “you’ll be fine, don’t worry” and “it
happens to all of us.” It is the starting point for an in-depth conversation about specific classroom
instances related to the problem. Further specifying the problem involves teachers within the
team asking questions of the teacher who introduced the problem. The questions invite analysis
of the problem, provoke conjecture, and transition the conversation to a focused reflection.
Revising the account of the problem denotes contemplating the questions asked, maintaining
agency over the transpiring events, contributing additional details, and providing more resources
related to the problem. It is in this phase the learner does a great deal of learning. The teacher
associates theory (models of teaching) with practice (subject matter). Generalizing to principles
of teaching is the moving back and forth between specific accounts of the problem and general
teaching principles until adequate and satisfactory connections are made. In this phase, teachers
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 34
listen to one another, comparing and contrasting their experiences. They evaluate their own
experiences in light of the group’s understanding and may very likely commit to trying a new
action. It is at this point in the conversation that the group is afforded the greatest opportunities
to learn as teachers and connect the particulars to the general concepts.
Teacher discourse becomes a powerful tool that leads to changes in cognition and
improving instruction when it is used to deconstruct teacher practice. Teachers who investigate
their practice speak candidly about their content-related and pedagogical practice and students’
level of understanding. There are contextual factors that influence the quality of teacher
discourse that takes place during GLMs. Depending on how the principal positions these
elements, they have the potential to foster first- or second-order change.
Grade-Level Meetings
GLMs were the physical context in which opportunities for PL were situated for both
research questions. The second research question examines the extent to which the principal
influenced structural factors to foster opportunities for PL. Thus, this section, speaks to GLM
factors. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) posit teacher collaboration focusing on student
learning is fostered in settings where developed norms, expectations, behaviors, and patterns of
interaction exist; one such setting is GLMs. Also, the interplay between the following GLM
factors influences teacher and student learning: time, norms, discourse, assistance, and
leadership. Teachers have a scheduled time to meet regularly during the school day. Norms help
facilitate teacher collaboration, interactions and staying focused on written goals and objectives.
Teacher discourse revolves around planning lessons, analyzing goals, and analyzing indicators
linked to student academic progress. Teachers discuss and plan what actions they can take to
shape their teaching. They try out and talk about ideas that can increase student learning. They
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 35
also have access to the coach or the assistance of a provider during GLMs, and the principal
actively interacts with GLTs. Ultimately, the principal is responsible for providing teachers the
resources necessary to focus on student learning. Over time, the strategic deployment of these
factors influence teacher’s thinking (expectations) and behaviors (classroom practices) which
influence student learning outcomes.
Goldenberg (2003) notes settings such as GLMs are places where teachers “come
together over a period of time to accomplish tangible and specific ends...” (p. 15). Four factors
comprise GLMs: goals, indicators, assistance, and leadership. Teachers set and share the same
teacher and student goals. These target planning instruction, analyzing the effects of instruction
on student learning, and student learning. Indicators measure success, as these are the tools used
to analyze, discuss, and plan. The principal supports and pressures teachers to engage in teacher
and student learning and enacts leadership practices such as scheduling meeting times,
participating in meetings, and ensuring teachers are on task and following the agenda. Over
time, the strategic deployment of these elements would most likely influence the way teachers
take up conversations about how goals and indicators inform and shape their instructional
practice and students’ academic progress.
Marin (n.d.) posits GLMs are composed of five factors: norms (agreements and
commitments to mission), an agenda (roles and responsibilities), goals (specific, measureable,
attainable, realistic, timely), data (benchmark assessments), and an action plan (written,
reviewed, and revised). Furthermore, the role of GLTs is to adhere to norms, participate in
problem solving; arrive at meetings with necessary materials, data, and action plans; and use data
for decision making. Teachers also share instructional and behavioral strategies with colleagues
and complete action plan items following each meeting. The role of the principal is to provide
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 36
time, resources, guidance, and freedom from distracters during GLMs. The principal also holds
the team accountable for student outcomes by reviewing action plans and agendas and by
attending GLMs until the team members function collaboratively.
Morris, Chrispeels, and Burke (2003) argue GLMs can provide an organized and
collegial team structure for teachers to “explore new ideas, review research, try out new
instructional practices in their classrooms, and discuss experiences with colleagues” (p. 765).
GLM factors conducive to teacher learning are time, data, inquiry, collaboration, facilitators, and
the principal. Teachers need a set time to meet during the regular school day as part of PL. Data
consists of gathering and analyzing student assessments and work; curriculum development, its
alignment to grade-level standards and curriculum map, and mastery of content; instruction or
teaching strategies that promote students’ mastery of skills. Inquiry refers to teachers’ reading
and discussing articles on best practices to inform the design of their lessons and units. Grade-
level teachers collaborate on the aforementioned tasks. Facilitators such as coaches help develop
the teachers’ skills needed to work together on tasks. However, GLMs can only be successfully
structured and implemented with the support of the principal. Principals can model collaboration
in their own practice, encourage and support team maintenance, and value and recognize risk-
taking. GLMs are forums where teachers can systematically share their expertise and are
associated with increasing their content knowledge and confidence in helping students master the
content.
Leadership Models
This section focuses on leadership models that help make connections between a
principal’s leadership practice and the effects it has on a school’s normative culture. The
research on leadership models helped answer the second research question, as it is at the root of
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 37
every school showing clear evidence of gains in student learning (Knapp et al., 2010).
Successful principals increase the quality of the school’s performance over time, which leads to
greater student academic success (Cravens, Elliott, Goldring, Murphy, & Porter, 2007). A
principal indirectly influences student achievement by enacting leadership practices affecting
teacher practice (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006). The research points to
multiple leadership models exploring the indirect relationship between leadership and student
achievement and the direct relationship between leadership and teacher practices. This literature
review focuses on five of these models: learning-focused, distributed, transformational,
instructional leadership, and managerial leadership models. While the research on learning-
focused leadership models is comprehensive and clearly depicts leadership practices affecting
teacher practice and student learning, this section also reviews literature on four other leadership
models. These models speak to distinct, but related practices targeting first- and second-order
change that influence the conditions afforded to teachers to engage in PL. The conceptual
framework presented herein states a principal’s leadership practice is rooted in her paradigm of
PL. Leadership can influence contextual factors to foster first-order change (directly affecting
the curriculum and instruction) or second-order change (developing teachers’ instructional skills
and knowledge). Ultimately, the opportunities designed by a principal determine the extent to
which teacher learning and changes in practice occur.
Learning-Focused Leadership
Knapp, Copland, Honig, Plecki, and Portin (2010) define leadership as the shared work
and commitments shaping the direction of a school, influencing learning improvement agendas,
and engaging the effort and energy of professionals in these agendas. Learning-focused
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 38
leadership prioritizes learning improvement at all levels, and this study focuses on the mobilized
efforts of a principal, coach, and teachers to support, sustain, and achieve learning improvement.
Knapp et al.’s (2010) learning-focused leadership model is composed of five elements:
persistent public focus on learning, investment in instructional leadership, reinvention of
leadership practice within schools, new working relationships and evidence. First, persistent
public focus on learning is the daily professional commitment, not the compliance of external
accountability measures. Second, investment in instructional leadership redefines the positions
of coaches and teachers by investing in building their skills and knowledge and in related
resources like money, time, materials, expertise, and autonomy. Third, reinvention of leadership
practice within schools seeks to reinvent day-to-day work practice. Principals create structures
for learning improvement to occur by building a team of high-quality staff, establishing and
articulating school agendas, building trust and a culture of collaboration, and developing
collaborative solutions existing teaching and learning challenges. Fourth, new working
relationships forge within and between leadership levels. These result in differentiating levels of
support and autonomy and starts conversations centered on classroom instruction. Fifth,
evidence about instruction, learning, and leadership practice is a constant reference point in
conversations and a tool used for improving instruction.
While the elements described above primarily reference teachers, teaching, and student
learning, Knapp et al. (2010) propose these do not address the multiple forms of leadership
support necessary to create opportunities for PL and improve instruction. Leadership support
that engages others in learning is categorized into five elements: providing resources,
opportunities for leaders’ PL, brokering relationships among peer leaders, responsive attention
and legitimizing learning-focused leadership. First, providing resources enable leaders to sustain
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 39
their instructional improvement work by making funds, time, expert consultants, or materials
available to enable leaders to pursue their leadership agendas. Multiple kinds of data and
observation tools help focus and expand the leaders work. Second, opportunities for leaders’ PL
are created by facilitating regular opportunities for leaders to participate in study groups,
workshops, regular meetings, and walk-throughs. Direct teaching of leadership techniques
through modeling practices and reflective debriefing of the observed modeling facilitates
learning opportunities to diagnose leadership practice problems. Third, brokering relationships
among leaders’ peers refers to encouraging interactions among those who face similar problems
of practice. Leaders offer a willing ear to listen; provide ideas, advice, and problem solving;
share frustrations; and forge peer support networks across schools. Fourth, responsive attention
to administrative or management issues creates a one-stop-shop system at the district level for
principals to call in and get the right type of assistance with both expected and unexpected
issues. It frees principals’ time to invest in improving learning. Fifth, legitimizing learning-
focused leadership entails principals’ legitimizing the efforts of new teacher leaders who assume
middle-ground leadership positions. Leadership support elements are foundational in developing
principals’ leadership practice to influence teacher and student learning.
Nonetheless, Knapp et al. (2010) reveal several challenges with a learning-focused
leadership model in that the school system needs to be able to embrace changes. Leaders at all
levels should actively search for and prepare the right people to do this type of leadership work.
Principals, coaches, and teachers should adopt a learning stance as they have a steep learning
curve ahead of them. Professional learning requires them to make fundamental changes in their
leadership practice. Given these challenges, a learning-focused leadership model requires the
commitment and willingness of leaders at all levels to continuously grow and learn.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 40
Knapp et al.’s (2010) research on a learning-focused leadership supports that of Cravens
et al. (2007) which defines a learning-centered leadership as “the individual [principal] or
collective team process of influencing others [teachers] to achieve mutually agreed upon
purposes for the organization [school]” (p. 1). They also ask two essential questions. The first
asks what principals or leadership teams must accomplish to improve academic and social
learning for all students. This question is associated with six core components supporting
learning and teaching: high standards for student learning, rigorous curriculum, quality
instruction, culture of learning and professional behavior, connections to external communities,
and systematic performance. First, high standards for student learning ensure individual, team,
and school goals for student academic and social learning. Second, rigorous curriculum is
ambitious academic content provided to all students in core academic subjects. Third, quality
instruction is effective instructional practices that maximize student learning. Fourth, a culture
of learning and professional behavior ensures the school has an integrated community of
professional practice focusing on student learning. Fifth, connections to external communities
refer to family and community institution relationships that advance learning. Finally,
systematic performance accountability is composed of individual and collective responsibility
among leaders, faculty, and students to achieve the rigorous student academic and social learning
goals.
The second question proposed by Cravens et al. (2007) asks how principals or leadership
teams create those core components. This question is associated with six key processes or
leadership practices shaping school culture and raising teachers’ levels of commitment: planning
(infused into all core factors); implementing (put each plan into action); supporting (ensure
resources are available and utilize them well); advocating (promote the students’ interest),
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 41
communicating (express high-standards for students to all stakeholders), and monitoring
(systematically collect and analyze student data).
Cravens et al. (2007) posit this model highlights the role of leadership in shaping a school
culture where teachers are supported in and committed to improving students’ academic and
social learning, but there are several barriers hindering principals from enacting the core factors
and key processes. Nonetheless, the principals’ experiences, the length of time leading the
school, the student and teacher demographics, and other challenges presented by the school
context should not influence their success in implementing these components and processes.
Distributed Leadership
A principal is responsible for accomplishing a multitude of leadership tasks. The number
tends to be too great for one person to accomplish, so tasks are delegated to other faculty. Gronn
(2002) posits that, within a distributed leadership model, the work of one individual or group of
persons is not privileged “nor is there a presumption about which leader behaviors carry more
weight with colleagues” (p. 429). The distributed leadership model proposed by Gronn (2002,
2010) has two aspects: atomistic and holistic. Atomistic is the leadership influence dispersed
across a number of forward-thinking individuals with existing influence. Holistic refers to a
network of people with an established working relationship for a number of reasons over a
period of time that enables them to operate as a collective unit. Gronn (2002) further suggests a
holistic aspect of distributed leadership takes three forms: spontaneous collaboration, intuitive
working, and institutionalized practice. Spontaneous collaboration brings leaders together in an
effort “to pool their expertise, regularize their conduct for the duration of the task, and then
disband” (p. 657). Intuitive working refers to two or more leaders coming to rely on one another
and developing a close working relationship. This relationship creates the space necessary for
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 42
leaders to share tasks. Institutionalized practice points to formalized structures such as
committees and (grade-level) teams arising from school structures. From the argument presented
by Gronn (2002; 2010), a distributed leadership model is one where all members of an
organization may be leaders in some skills and knowledge and at some point in their careers.
Spillane and Healy (2010) posit a distributed leadership model has two aspects: the
leader-plus aspect and the practice aspect. The leader-plus aspect focuses on identifying and
arranging multiple individuals in formally designated leadership roles to lead and manage the
organization. The practice aspect emphasizes the product of interactions among leaders,
followers, and the context in which they work. Within this conceptualization, teachers who do
not have a formal role can still move in and out of leadership roles depending on the task.
Moreover, Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2004) expand on the practice aspect
factors: leadership tasks and functions, task-enactment, social distribution of task-enactment, and
situational distribution of task-enactment. A leadership task happens in day-to-day work and is
short-term. For example, the principal drafts a school vision, facilitates a meeting to present it,
or revises a draft. A leadership function considers large-scale organizational tasks. This
function can be spread out over several months or even a few years. An example of this is
solidifying the school vision. Task-enactment refers to the principal and teacher leaders
understanding a particular task as it unfolds from the teachers’ perspective and their choice of
teaching and learning theories. Principals should also have a solid grasp of the knowledge,
expertise, and skills teacher leaders bring into executing a task. Social distribution of task-
enactment states leadership tasks are to be stretched over the work of two or more leaders and
followers and requires leaders and followers interact while executing the tasks. Situational
distribution of task-enactment emphasizes the situation or the sociocultural context. It explores
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 43
the ways leadership practice influences the artifacts (externalized representations of ideas and
intentions), language, and organizational structures of a particular situation. Spillane et al.
(2004) propose this leadership model highlights the activities leaders engage in while interacting
with others around specific tasks in particular contexts.
Leithwood, Mascall, Strauss, Sacks, Nemon, and Yashkina (2007) explain their
conception of distributed leadership practices is not to be confused with that of Spillane’s et al.
(2004), which refers to interactions among leaders, followers, and the situation. The authors’
conception is limited to what the principal does while interacting with the teachers. The context
in which the interaction takes place is significant because it influences how the principal and
teachers respond to each other.
Furthermore, Leithwood et al. (2007) posit fundamental to their distributed leadership
model is the realization that leadership practices or actions are what is being delegated to others.
These factors associated with principal practices include setting direction, developing people,
redesigning the organization, and managing the instructional program. First, setting direction
entails helping a group of teachers develop shared understanding about the school, its activities,
and its goals. To help set direction, principals identify and articulate a vision, foster the
acceptance of group goals, create high performance expectations, and promote effective
communication. Second, developing people is influenced by the direct experiences teachers
have with the principal and the organizational conditions in which teachers work. This includes
offering intellectual stimulation, providing individualized support, modeling appropriate values
and practices. Third, redesigning the organization serves to support and sustain teachers’
instructional practice and students’ learning. This entails strengthening school culture,
modifying organizational structures, and building collaborative processes. Finally, managing the
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 44
instructional program refers to principals’ knowing what is required of them to improve teaching
and learning, and how to establish operational procedures to accomplish this. This function
requires staffing the instructional program, monitoring student progress, and overseeing the
school’s overall academic improvement. It requires buffering faculty from unproductive external
demands and allocating resources to foster the school’s improvement efforts. Here, Leithwood
et al. (2007) highlight a set of leadership functions anchored in the principal’s and teachers’
engagement in, collective understanding of, and the context of leadership practices.
Elmore (2000; 2002) argues a distributed leadership model consists of existing
competencies or predispositions (Elmore, 2000), enlisting outside expertise, and sharing tasks
(Elmore, 2002). Elmore asserts distributed leadership starts with the existing competencies or
predispositions of the principal and teachers at a particular school. This requires a principal to
understand his/her and his/her teachers’ competencies and the ways in which these complement
each other. It is also up to a principal to search for and enlist outside expertise when the existing
competencies are not at the level necessary to solve instructional problems. Subsequently,
Elmore (2002) posits leadership tasks be allotted to members of the school based on individual
competencies. This is not to say there is no one leader at the school, as the principal remains the
leader and the one with the ultimate responsibility of moving the school forward.
Scholars argue there are limitations to the distributed leadership model (Leithwood et al.,
2007; Spillane et al., 2004). Spillane et al. (2004) propose two limitations. One is identifying
the aspects of the situation or school context that are critical in defining and constructing
leadership practice. Even though, it is difficult to identify the multiple contexts and intersections
between these that influence leadership practice. The other limitation is that leadership practice
is fragmentary in nature; therefore, it is challenging to make connections between short-term
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 45
tasks and a longer-term function. Leithwood et al. (2007) also propose a couple of weaknesses.
One is competing and conflicting interpretations of what distributed leadership actually means.
The other one is that the principal’s functions do not include building teachers’ skills and
knowledge. Therefore, leadership competencies and expertise are not cultivated at the school.
Thus, the scholars argue the ambiguities inherent to this model are its greatest limitations.
Transformational Leadership
Bass (1990) posits a transformational leadership model seeks to channel leadership
practice into motivating and building the skills and knowledge of the followers. When teachers’
quality of instruction is influenced by their principal, teachers accomplish more than what is
expected of them. Transformational leadership practices reflect second-order change aiming “at
primarily changing the organization’s normative culture” (Slayton & Mathis, 2010, p. 330) by
affording teachers with opportunities to develop their instructional skills and knowledge.
Normative culture is characterized by a principal and teachers working together to achieve a
common goal.
Northouse (2007) presents James McGregor Burns’ notion of a transformational
leadership model. Burns posits the role of a leader is to help followers obtain their fullest
potential and to motivate them. A principal helps teachers obtain their full potential by
increasing awareness of the importance of their tasks and need for personal and professional
growth. A principal motivates teachers to work for the good of others rather than for personal
gain. Burns argues transformational leadership can have a transforming effect on the leader, and
the led and can raise the level of human conduct and ethical aspiration in a principal and
teachers.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 46
Bass’s (1990) declares superb leadership performance occurs when leaders expand the
interest of their employees. Presented here are four factors that comprise Bass’ transformational
leadership model: influence/charisma, inspirational motivation/inspiration, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration. Influence/charisma refers to a leader providing a
vision and instilling pride, respect, and trust in followers. Inspirational motivation/inspiration
refers to a principal communicating high expectations and goals to teachers. Intellectual
stimulation denotes a principal promoting innovation, problem solving, and challenging teacher’s
beliefs. Individualized consideration refers to a principal paying close attention to teacher needs
and acting as coach or mentor to them. Bass attests that once leaders have developed the skills
and knowledge to enact these elements, their role will evolve into a transformational leader.
Hallinger (2003) proposes a transformational leadership model is composed of three
elements: bottom-up leadership, second-order change, and transformational relationships with
teachers. Bottom-up leadership denotes a type of distributed leadership where the principal
focuses on stimulating change through the teachers. Second-order change requires the principal
to create a school culture conducive to teachers continuously learning and sharing that learning.
A transformational relationship centers on principal’s managing existing teacher relationships. A
principal understands teachers’ individual needs and fosters individualized support, intellectual
stimulation, and personal vision. She builds a high tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty and
an ability to live with the process of change. Transformational leadership focuses on principal’s
actions to cultivate a school culture where teachers commit to instructional change and extend
their aspirations beyond what they think is feasible.
Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) assert their conceptualization of a transformational
leadership model is aimed at influencing teachers’ motivation, skills and knowledge, and work
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 47
settings. The model establishes three dimensions: setting directions, developing people, and
redesigning the organization. Each dimension has a set of factors. Setting directions includes
building a school vision, developing specific goals and priorities, and holding high performance
expectations. Developing people refers to providing intellectual stimulation, offering
individualized support, and modeling desirable professional practices and values. Redesigning
the organization is composed of developing a collaborative school culture, creating structures to
foster participation in school decisions, and creating productive community relationships. The
specificity of these dimensions aim at affecting teacher practice and student achievement.
Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) and Northouse (2007) agree a transformational leadership
models lacks conceptual clarity. Thus, five limitations are identified here. The first one is
ambiguity of leadership practices (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006). These are unclear, or there is a
wide range of factors anchored in the philosophical underpinnings of individual researchers
(Northouse, 2007). Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) address this weakness by assigning each of the
three model dimensions a set of leadership practices. The second limitation is the omission of
leadership practices (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006). An explanation of what a principal says or
does to influence teachers’ ideas and behaviors is missing (Northouse, 2007). To address this,
Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) list leadership practices: clearly articulating a vision, increasing
followers’ self-efficacy, and facilitating agreement about objectives and strategies. The third one
is an overemphasis on a dyadic relationship involving only the principal’s influence (Leithwood
& Jantzi, 2006). Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) address this limitation by integrating both
individual and group processes. The fourth limitation states transformational leadership is
treated as a personality trait and not actions than can be developed (Northouse, 2007). Finally, it
is confused and treated synonymously with a charismatic leadership model. While, the
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 48
charismatic model is considered part of the transformational model, these are two separate
models with different factors attributed to each one (Northouse, 2007).
Instructional Leadership
Hallinger (2003) maintains an instructional leadership model emphasizes the role of the
leader in carrying out particular tasks to build a positive school culture. These tasks include
creating a school mission, aligning the mission with the school, and solely shaping, developing,
and supervising instructional practices. Thus, a principal contributes to student achievement
through the mission, instructional program, and a positive school climate.
Hallinger’s (2003) conceptualization of an instructional leadership model is composed of
three elements: top-down leadership, first-order change, and a managerial relationship to staff.
Top-down leadership denotes an instructional leader coordinates and controls the curriculum and
instruction implemented in classrooms. First-order change refers to a principal setting up the
structural conditions that affect curriculum and instruction. A principal sets school-wide goals,
directly supervises teachers’ instruction, and coordinates the curriculum seeking to change the
school’s culture. In a managerial relationship, the principal focus is on curriculum and
instruction while the teachers set out to achieve the school’s predetermined instructional goals.
In this scenario, instructional leaders tend to limit uncertainty by controlling the curriculum and
instruction.
According to Hallinger (2000), this instructional model has three factors: defining the
school’s mission, managing the instructional program, and promoting a positive school-learning
climate. First, defining the school’s mission refers to a principal ensuring the school has a clear,
academic mission and communicating it to the teachers. Second, managing the instructional
program denotes a principal supervises and evaluates instruction, coordinates the curriculum, and
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 49
monitors student progress. Third, promoting a positive school-learning climate refers to a
principal that fosters high expectations and standards for student learning. A principal protects
instructional time, promotes professional development, maintains high visibility, and provides
incentives for teachers.
Within an instructional leadership model, there are limitations worth noting. There is an
excessive focus on the principal as the center of expertise, power, and authority (Hallinger 2003;
Northouse, 2007). A principal is looked to as solely responsible for cultivating a school culture
that fosters high expectations and standards for students and teachers. Changing the prevailing
culture of a school is difficult work, as it dictates how things are carried out and accomplished.
Alone, a principal is incapable of changing the normative culture. However, s/he can develop
leadership practices that invite teachers to transform their instructional practice into what they
would like to do. A principal’s primary focus is to indirectly influence student learning
outcomes by directly affecting instructional practice (Hallinger 2003; 2005). Within this model
lies the assumption that a school will improve if the principal establishes the right structural
conditions to support instruction.
Blasé and Blasé (2000) present an instructional leadership model based on teachers’
perspectives on principals’ everyday leadership characteristics, and the effect of these on
teachers. This model has two dimensions, and each dimension has a set of factors. The first
dimension, principals talking with teachers to promote reflection, consists of five factors. First,
principals make suggestions by listening, sharing their experiences, using examples and
demonstrations, giving teachers a choice, and contradicting outdated or destructive policies.
They also make recommendations by encouraging risk taking, offering professional literature,
recognizing teachers’ strengths, and maintaining a focus on improving instruction. Second,
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 50
principals give feedback on observed, specific, teacher classroom behaviors, express interest,
provide praise, establish a problem-solving orientation, respond to concerns about students, and
stress their availability for follow-up talk. Third, modeling is when principals demonstrate
teaching techniques in the classroom and model positive interactions with students. Fourth,
principals use inquiry to approach teachers and solicit their advice and opinions about
instructional practices. Fifth, principals focus their praise on specific and concrete teaching
behaviors.
The other dimension noted by Blasé and Blasé (2000), principals promoting teachers’
professional growth, is composed of six factors. First, principals emphasize the study of
teaching and learning by providing professional development addressing teachers’ emergent
needs. Second, they support collaboration efforts by modeling teamwork, providing time to
collaborate, and actively advocating the exchange of instructional ideas and peer observation.
Third, they design coaching relationships when teachers become peer coaches. Fourth,
principals encourage and support the redesign of programs by supporting diverse approaches to
teaching and learning. Fifth, they apply the principles of adult learning to staff development as
they create cultures of collaboration, inquiry, lifelong learning, and reflection. Finally, principals
implement action research (i.e., the integration of classroom data to diagnose instructional
problems) to inform their instructional making decisions. Blasé and Blasé conclude the
strategies principals implement within this model have “enhancing effects” on teachers’
emotions, cognition, and behaviors.
Blasé and Blasé (2000) argue a limitation to an instructional leadership model includes
de-emphasizing the principal’s “control of and encouragement of competition among teachers”
(p. 138). Principals who showcase particular teachers’ work, inadvertently or overtly, foster
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 51
competition. A different approach may be for principals to focus more on teachers’ professional
dialogue and collegiality. In addition, principals should learn about group development, adult
learning theories, and reflective practices. This model requires principals to relinquish control of
situations and decisions and to lead with an understanding that teachers are knowledgeable about
their practice.
Managerial Leadership
Strong leadership central to improving instruction “is in short supply in most schools,
largely because the typical principal’s working day is consumed by managerial tasks having little
or no direct bearing on the improvement of curriculum and instruction” (Camburn, Rowan, &
Taylor, 2003, p. 347). A managerial leadership model is associated with management, and “to
manage means to accomplish activities and master routines” (Northouse, 2007, p. 10).
Management reduces chaos in organizations by maintaining existing arrangements (Spillane et
al., 2004) that make the organization run more effectively and efficiently. Managers’ primary
role is to execute managerial tasks: planning, organizing, staffing, coordinating, and controlling
(Fayol, 1916 as cited in Northouse, 2007). However, a principal who prioritizes managerial
tasks over developing the skills and knowledge of teachers, shaping a school culture that is
conducive to learning, and increasing student outcomes limits the influence of her role
(Northouse, 2007) on improving instruction.
Northouse (2007) argues a managerial leadership model includes leaders’ individual
endeavor and managerial tasks. Leaders take a more individualist approach rather than collective
one. They tend to be the decision makers, as they focus on managerial tasks, and these tasks take
precedence over leading. To lead means to “create visions for change” (Northouse, 2007, p. 10)
and to have an incremental influence on others (Northouse, 2007; Spillane et al., 2004). Thus,
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 52
principals compel teachers to go beyond complying with routine tasks (Spillane et al., 2004) by
developing their instructional skills and knowledge and shaping the normative culture to foster
PL and increasing student outcomes. When principals’ focus is on managerial tasks, their
actions can prevent the school from moving forward.
Drago-Severson (2012) declares a managerial leadership model is commonly found in
public schools. Public school principals tend to occupy their time primarily with financial
resources and structural resources. Financial resources refer to making funds available to pay for
substitutes while teachers collaborate and to paying teachers for the time they collaborate.
Structural resources consist of the time allocated for teachers to work together and the type of
support afforded to them. One example is that meetings are scheduled and the building teachers
use functions well. While financial and structural resources are essential for teachers to execute
their duties, the principals’ focus should also be on creating and fostering conditions for PL.
Leadership practice is the most influential factor in setting up the proper conditions to
foster professional opportunities. It is also anchored in a principal’s paradigm of learning, as this
paradigm will influence his/her choice to position contextual factors and resources to support
either first- or second-order change. The outcomes for teacher and student learning will differ
depending on this choice. Therefore, the section below expounds on the ways these bodies of
literature helped construct the conceptual framework around the ideas of PL, reflection,
discourse, contextual factors, and leadership.
Conceptual Framework
This framework intends to distill the most important ideas and concepts from the
literature to answer the two research questions. The conceptual framework is founded in
research on teacher learning, teacher reflection, teacher discourse, GLMs, and leadership models.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 53
This section covers several concepts, core features, and operationalized features that emerged
from the literature and that aided in analyzing the data. Presented first is a visual model of the
conceptual framework and a description of the model (Figure 1). That is followed by a synthesis
of the concepts most pertinent to this study: teacher learning, teacher discourse, GLMs, and
leadership.
Figure 1. Presentation of Conceptual Framework
As Figure 1 illustrates, a principal’s leadership practice is anchored in her PL paradigm.
This paradigm influences her choice to position contextual factors to foster first- or second-order
change during GLMs. If learning is understood as the acquisition of knowledge, then contextual
factors are positioned as first-order elements, and the role of the coach is to be a resource to
teachers and facilitator of meetings. However, setting up these factors as first-order elements
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 54
means discourse is superficial and procedural, as the quality of discourse is influenced by its
purpose to acquire instructional strategies and by teachers’ pattern to not take up substantive
conversations about teaching and learning. Superficial discourse reinforces cognitive patterns
and does not lead to changes in practice. It also keeps teachers’ talk centered on proven
instructional strategies that yield immediate increases in student performance. If learning is
conceptualized as co-constructing knowledge, then contextual factors are set up as second-order
elements to build teachers’ instructional skills and knowledge, and teachers focus on one agenda
item or subject during a GLM. The coach facilitates in-depth conversations and teacher learning
activities. In addition to providing structural elements, the principal provides discourse protocols
and someone who knows how to facilitate conversations using them to afford opportunities for
teachers to engage in PL. These tools help guide teachers’ thinking process and engage them in
critically reflective conversations about their content-related and pedagogical practice and
students’ understanding. Therefore, critically reflective discourse leads to new understanding
since it requires teachers to describe real classroom dilemmas, investigate their practice in
relation to student learning outcomes, and articulate knowledge that is implicit or taken for
granted. Modified cognitive patterns lead to improving instruction and student learning
outcomes over time.
Teacher Learning
Drawing on the literature from professional development and PL influencing changes in
teacher practice, teachers must engage in critically reflective discourse to construct new
understanding and improve their content-related and pedagogical practice. Furthermore, to
increase the likelihood that teachers experience PL, it is necessary for the principal to set up the
conditions for teachers to engage in discourse fostering reflective processes to improve
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 55
instruction. Thus, when principals put certain elements in place, teachers will engage in
discourse that equals PL and influences their cognitive structures.
This section provides a holistic definition of PL as the lived experience of continuing to
learn as a professional (Webster-Wright, 2009). Teachers experience it when they
collaboratively engage in critical reflection and structured discourse practices (Putman & Borko,
2000; Webster-Wright, 2009). Over time, a critically reflective practice transforms cognitive
patterns (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Putman & Borko, 2000; Rodgers, 2002; Schön, 1983;
Valli, 1997) leading to changes in instructional practice. Teachers participating in professional
development opportunities designed to position them as self-directed learners are most likely to
enrich their content knowledge in relation to their pedagogical skills. Self-directed learning is
most likely to take place when conversations revolve around teachers’ local knowledge that
values formal and practical knowledge (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). Cochran-Smith and
Lytle (1999) describe local knowledge as generated by questions arising from a teacher
community where participants systematically analyze documents, situate topics within multiple
contexts to understand their particularities, and relate topics to other teachers’ research and
research-based literature. Consequently, professional development opportunities designed to
foster critically reflective discourse lead to teachers’ constructing new understanding about
teaching and learning.
Teacher Discourse
This section expounds upon the idea of critically reflective discourse to help answer the
first research questions, “How does the quality of teacher discourse shape, sustain or support
professional learning and changes in practice during grade-level meetings?” Horn and Little’s
(2010) framework on conversational routines was used to analyze the quality of teacher
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 56
discourse during GLMs. It is composed of four factors originally operationalized in particular
ways: normalizing a problem of practice, further specifying the problem, revising the account of
the problem, and generalizing to principles of teaching. To engage in critically reflective
discourse, teachers need to have the skills and knowledge to grapple with real issues about their
content-related and pedagogical practice and examine their and others’ assumptions. It is only
then that teachers deconstruct existing and construct new understanding about their instructional
practice. Equally important is that the setup of this framework is not intended to presume
teachers are not willing or capable of taking up a different type of talk with the right support.
Operationalizing this framework requires leadership to create and foster the conditions necessary
to support the GLT’s efforts and actions to engage in deeper levels of PL.
Grade-Level Meetings
This section focuses on contextual factors influencing the social setting in which PL
opportunities are afforded to teachers and that helped answer the second research question, “To
what extent does the principal influence grade-level meeting structural factors to foster
opportunities for professional learning leading to changes in practice?” The term contextual
factors is used in this section to include elements from the GLM and professional development
bodies of literature. For the purpose of this dissertation, GLM is defined as a social setting
shaped by a principal’s leadership practices or actions to foster PL opportunities. The GLM
factors of goals, indicators, the coach, and leadership best help answer the second research
question (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Goldenberg, 2003). Drawing on the work of
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) and Goldenberg (2003), well-structured and developed GLMs
are designated settings where teachers can set and share learning goals for themselves as
professionals, their classroom practice, and their students’ learning. Teachers establish and meet
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 57
student goals by using indicators or student assessment data to systematically track these goals.
In GLMs, the coach works with the teachers to examine the data, to compare its results to
existing goals, and to establish new ones. His role is also to facilitate the meetings and teacher
conversations in ways that improve instruction. Lastly, the role of leadership is to facilitate a
normative culture conducive to PL. It is also essential principals support and pressure teachers in
ways that help them meet performance expectations. Moreover, drawing on the work of
Desimone (2009), Garet et al. (2001), and Wei et al. (2009), principals who establish meeting
times to improve the quality of instruction increase the likelihood teachers will develop
instructional skills and knowledge.
This section expounds on contextual factors mentioned in the previous section and others
that are a significant part of the findings. Contextual factors such as goals, coach, indicators,
leadership, time, tools, content, and quality instruction can foster or impede PL opportunities.
This section also considers how the principal’s actions influence these factors to support teacher
learning. To help teachers meet their goal, the coach instructs them on how to design lesson
plans (Heckman & Montera, 2009). He facilitates in-depth discussions and models new teaching
practices (Heckman & Montera, 2009; Putman & Borko, 2000) to encourage teacher reflection
(Heckman & Montera, 2009). However, it is also likely the coach primarily focuses on keeping
teachers on task and desegregating assessment data to meet learning goals. Indicators of teachers
working to achieve are them trying out new methods and discussing problems that arose (Blasé
& Blasé, 2000; Garet et al., 2001; Putman & Borko, 2000), observing students’ behaviors to
assess understanding, and receiving constructive input from the coach and their grade-level
colleagues (Blasé & Blasé, 2000; Garet et al., 2001; Putman & Borko, 2000).
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 58
Equally important is the way the principal influences meeting time to improve
instruction. A principal regularly calendars GLM times (Blasé & Blasé, 2000; Goldenberg,
2003) during the school days (Desimone, 2009; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Morris et al.,
2003; Garet et al., 2001; Wei et al., 2009) and provides freedom from distracters by leaving
teachers to work and by not frequently canceling or rescheduling (Marin, n.d.) meetings. A
principal is also responsible for providing tools that support higher quality discourse. These
consist of discourse protocols and someone skilled at facilitating critically reflective
conversations. Evidence indicating the time was used to foster PL opportunities include
teachers’ discussing students’ conceptual understanding (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Putman
& Borko, 2000), trying out new teaching methods with other GLTs (Garet et al., 2001; Putman &
Borko, 2000; Wei et al., 2009); and identifying and challenging their own assumptions of
practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). Furthermore, the findings revealed that a principal
utilizes the GLM content as written on the agenda to influence the use of time, which also serves
as a contextual factor. The agenda is set up for teachers to facilitate a meeting or to engage in
rich conversations that foster critical reflection. It is ultimately an indicator of how intentional
the participants were about what they discussed.
For the purpose of this dissertation, quality instruction is defined as teachers’ making
instructional choices aimed at improving students’ understanding. Indicators suggesting the
focus of teachers is improving their instruction include their conversations when planning a
lesson and examining student assessment data and copies of instructional resources (Garet et al.,
2001). These resources include a pedagogical tool like a lesson plan template and a “formal”
student inquiry lesson plan. Consequently, the way a principal positions contextual factors
determines if these will create opportunities for teachers to engage in PL (Hallinger, 2003).
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 59
Leadership
This section narrows the concept of leadership and focuses on leadership practices that
help answer the second research question. For the purpose of this dissertation, leadership is
established through a principal’s practices or actions. A principal’s actions suggest the extent to
which she developed leadership skills and knowledge to create and foster PL (Spillane et al.,
2004).
Leadership practices position contextual factors to foster first- or second-order
organizational change. However, it does not aim and, therefore, is not likely to foster second-
order organizational change. A likely outcome of a critically reflective practice is that teachers
experience changes in cognitive patterns that influence their instruction and student learning
outcomes. To design opportunities for teachers to develop their practice and to indirectly
influence student learning outcomes, the principal positions structural factors to create and
support a collaborative normative culture (Cravens et al., 2007; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood et
al., 2007; Slayton & Mathis, 2010). This culture is characterized by the willingness and
commitment of the principal, coach, and teachers to work together and effectively to improve
teaching and learning at all levels.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 60
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the qualitative approach, research framework, instrumentation,
and data collection methodologies applied to this study. It is divided into six subsequent
sections: research design, sample and population, instrumentation, data collection, data analysis,
discourse analysis, limitations, and delimitations of the study. The purpose of the study was to
examine the ways an elementary team of GLTs utilized discourse as a tool for learning, meaning
how teacher discourse shaped, sustained or supported PL and changes in instruction. It further
investigated the effect the principal’s choice to provide structural support had on teacher
learning. Specifically, it examined the extent to which GLM factors such as time, agenda, and
the coach’s role provided opportunities for PL that changes practice. The rationale behind this
study was to examine the extent to which teachers engaged in, and the opportunities afforded to
them to engage in, critically reflective discourse. The research questions informing this study
were as follows:
1. How does the quality of teacher discourse shape, sustain or support professional learning
and changes in practice during grade-level meetings?
2. To what extent does the principal influence grade-level meeting structural factors to
foster opportunities for professional learning leading to changes in practice?
Research Design
This case study was guided by a qualitative research methodology. Merriam (2002)
posits a qualitative research design will best capture participants’ experiences from their
perspectives during a particular frame and in a particular setting. Since the intent was to capture
the participants’ experiences from their points of view during a four-month period in their natural
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 61
setting, the research questions were best answered through a qualitative research design. This is
worth noting, as participants’ interpretations of interactions change over time (Merriam, 2002).
Although GLM observations and interviews were conducted to gain a richer
understanding of the participants’ experiences, Patton (2002) argues it is still possible for
teachers to have altered their conduct during the meetings and interviews. Changes in behavior
are attributed to teachers’ awareness of the researcher’s presence and actions such as taking
notes. In an attempt to minimize the likelihood participants altered their conduct, the
observations and interview took place where the participants chose to meet, as a familiar location
makes the participants feel more comfortable. To increase the validity and reliability of the
findings, observation data, interview data, and collected documentation were triangulated.
Sample and Population
The focus of this study was to investigate the extent to which teachers engaged in
critically reflective discourse as a PL tool and the degree to which GLM factors (fostered
opportunities for substantive conversations. Three criteria helped increase the likelihood of
studying teachers who experienced PL by engaging in quality discourse. The first criterion was
that the principal should be at least in her third year leading the school and the school’s
Academic Performance Index (API) must have increased each academic year. The first part of
this criterion was grounded in Cravens et al.’s (2007) argument that principals who are new to
their schools have not yet established long-standing patterns of leadership behaviors affecting
school performance or student success. The second part of it is rooted in Gallimore’s (2003)
assertion that “meaningful change at a school can be expected to take a minimum of 3 to 5 years”
(p. 10). The effects of a principal’s leadership actions are not immediately visible; rather, good
leadership leads in ways that increase performance over time. Thus, student achievement
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 62
becomes evident in time. The second criterion was that the principal must have required teachers
to examine student assessment data to inform their instructional decisions and evaluate their
teaching practice (Gallimore, 2003; Cravens et al., 2007; Knapp et al., 2010). The last one was
that there must be at least three, full-time teachers in a grade-level team. By purposefully
selecting a sample, the findings of this study yielded an in-depth understanding of the conditions
necessary to create opportunities for teachers to engage in substantive conversations proving to
generate teacher learning.
The sampling process started when by asking colleagues if they knew of schools that
met the criteria. A search of the California Department of Education’s website helped to confirm
the suggested schools met the criteria, as the School Accountability Progress Reporting page
yields a school’s API pattern. Then, the researcher contacted a principal to see if she might be
interested in having her school be part of this study. Explanations included that participation was
voluntary and that all GLTs needed to be willing to participate along with the purpose of this
study and an offer to provide the participants with a copy of the findings. The principal showed
interest and invited the researcher to present this information at a faculty meeting. Prior to the
faculty presentation, she mentioned the fifth grade-level team was a good fit for this study since
members continuously collaborated with one another. After the presentation, the principal asked
the faculty if any grade-level team that met the criteria was interested in participating. When she
did this, a sampling issue arose. She looked, consciously or subconsciously, in the fifth grade-
level team’s direction. The implication was that she thought they were a good fit for the study.
One of the team members readily showed interest and gathered the other teachers’ thoughts
before the team agreed to participate. Each of the participants received an Informed Consent
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 63
Form (Appendix F). It outlined the purpose, procedures, right, privacy, and risks and benefits of
this study.
After attending the first GLM observation, one of the teachers asked how I knew the
principal. I met the principal when I reached out to her about the study. The GLTs thought we
knew each other and that we were colleagues, so they agreed to participate. During the second
GLM observation, the teachers’ interactions did not appear as natural as they did during the first
observation. Perhaps it was the misunderstanding. However, they appeared to speak more freely
and became more comfortable with my observing when they saw me the third time.
School
The elementary school was representative of schools that tend to underperform on end-
of-year student evaluations and was led by a principal who appeared to be moving the school
forward. This school was selected to better understand how the principal and teachers
implement teaching and learning processes (Fullan, 1985). The fieldwork took place in Los
Angeles County at Northshore Elementary, a kindergarten through fifth grade school. The
school was chosen to participate in the study since it met the study’s criteria. The school’s
student population was representative of schools that tend to underperform on end-of-year
student evaluations. Of approximately 500 students, 95% were Latinos, 2% were White, and 3%
were listed as other. The English learner population accounted for approximately 20%, of which
19% spoke Spanish. About 76% of the student population qualified for free or reduced price
meals (Ed-Data, 2012). Secondly, the school’s principal was at least in her third year leading the
school and appeared to be moving the school forward. The school’s API for the 2012 academic
year was 840. It increased from 786 in 2011, and 785 in 2010 (Ed-Data, 2012).
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 64
Participants
The participants were the principal, three GLTs, and the coach. Except for one, all of
the participants in this study had worked with each other at Northshore Elementary. This was
the principal’s first principalship assignment, and she was in her third year leading the school.
Prior to this, she was a coach and had been part of the fifth grade-level team eight years prior.
This was the coach’s first year in this role. Prior to being a coach, he taught upper-grades for 12
years, most of which were spent teaching fourth grade at this school. Mr. Eric had taught at this
school for 13 years. He had been the grade-level leader in the past and was now involved with
the teachers’ union. Mr. James had taught for 13 years with eight being at this school. He was
the current grade-level leader. Mrs. Liz was in her second year teaching a combination class at
Northshore Elementary, but had taught multiple grade levels in her eight years of teaching. The
dynamic of the participants’ building a relationship with one another over the years appeared to
contribute to their willingness to put their best effort to improve student learning outcomes.
Instrumentation
Instrumentation for this qualitative study consisted of the researcher, GLM observations,
and principal, coach, and teacher interviews (Creswell, 2007; Patton, 2002). The researcher was
the primary instrument (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2002; Patton, 2002). Protocols were used to
increase the likelihood of collecting and recording rich, descriptive data (Patton, 2002)
(Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2002). Lastly, the connections and distinctions among and between
the data were considered along with interpretations to create meaning of what was heard and
seen.
The GLM observation protocol consisted of three forms. The first indicated the date,
time spent on activity, observation start and end time, location code, and title of the meeting.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 65
Moreover, it listed the title and number of participants, attached documentation, action the
principal and coach took during the meeting, and topics covered (Appendix A). The second
form was a continuation of Appendix A. It consisted of a time stamp and lines to script the field
notes. The third one was designed to map the physical location of the meeting. It served to
sketch the layout of the room and the seating chart. It also included the date, title of event, and
location code (Appendix B). The post-observation interview protocol for the principal, teachers,
and coach (Appendices C, D, and E) indicated the date, location code, total interview time,
interview start and end time, interviewee, and position of interviewee. Each protocol consisted
of an opening, questions, and the closing. The opening established rapport and explained the
purpose of interview, the length of interview, and that the interview was to be recorded. The
interview questions were open-ended to accommodate individual participants’ discourse and
interactions (Patton, 2002). They were intended to provide a more holistic understanding of PL
and leadership practice. To accomplish this, the questions were framed to uncover more about
the role of the principal, the role of the coach, GLM goals, material and documentation teachers
used to inform their practice, and role teacher conversations played during GLM meetings. The
closing served to thank the interviewees and to ask them for an opportunity to follow up should
there be further questions related to the fieldwork. The three instruments used in this qualitative
study served to capture the participants’ conceptualization of PL, the extent to which discourse
was used as a tool for learning, and the extent to which the structures provided proved to create
and foster PL opportunities.
Data Collection
Pseudonyms were used to protect the participants’ identities and the school’s
confidentiality (Creswell, 2007) in the data. This section outlines specific procedures used to
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 66
collect the qualitative data. These included observations, documentation, and interviews. The
grade-level observation protocol was developed for the researcher to capture teacher talk by
scripting it verbatim and when necessary or inevitable paraphrasing it, write reactions, thoughts,
or insights about the observation within a 24 hour time frame, and record details about the
meeting and its physical setting. First, the purpose of GLM observations was to capture the
actual context within which the participants interacted (Patton, 2002). Since the researcher was
an observer with an outsider perspective (Creswell, 2007; Patton, 2002), the focus was on
listening to the teachers’ conversations, seeing their interactions, and taking fewer notes during
the first couple of observations. This approach allowed for a better feel of their natural context
while it also afforded the teachers time to get used to the researcher’s presence during the
meetings. The documentation collected during the meeting observations were agendas, lesson
plans, and student assessment data. These documents were used to triangulate the observation
and interview data when answering the two research questions.
Once the seven GLM observations were completed, one hour, open-ended interviews
were scheduled. Prior to setting up the interviews, the questions were informally piloted through
a telephone interview with a teacher not associated with the study in order to improve the
phrasing and protocol format. Creswell (2007) posits open-ended interviews work well with
participants who are not hesitant to share ideas and not as well with timid and less articulate
interviewees. Therefore, an open-ended interview protocol was designed so participants felt at
ease sharing as much or as little as they felt comfortable sharing. At the same time, interviews
were intended to capture participants’ insights and self-perceptions (Patton, 2002) and to clarify
intentions, ideas, and interactions (Gill & Hoffman, 2009; Miriam, 2002; Patton, 2002) that
transpired during the observation period. Merriam (2002) and Patton (2002) posit that the
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 67
desired information is gathered from all participants when interviews use exact wording and a
specific order of predetermined questions. Patton (2002) also suggests probes be written into the
interview in specific places to reduce the variability of the questions posed and that of the
researcher’s skill. Therefore, the researcher elicited specific examples and sound information
and clarified what was heard and seen during the GLM observations (Appendices C, D and E).
Furthermore, the physical setting of each interview was also a factor; therefore, all
interviews took place in a quiet location, free from distractions, and adequate for audio
recording. The principal and the three teachers participated in face-to-face interviews, and the
coach’s interview was conducted over the telephone because he was not available to meet in
person. All participants were told their interviews were going to be recorded before starting
them. The face-to-face interviewees also received a copy of the interview questions to follow
along. The coach’s telephone interview was conducted with ease, even though he did not have a
copy of the questions in front of him. The researcher used both an audiotape recorder and a
smartphone recorder application during the interview as a precautionary measure. Throughout
the interview, the researcher wrote down key ideas and asked and answered clarifying or probing
questions. As a final step, the audio recorded interviews were outsourced for transcription. In
conclusion, the GLM observation data, the collected documentation, and the interview transcripts
served to triangulate the data.
Data Analysis
The data analysis process yields a rich description of the findings (Merriam, 2002). To
capture this rich description, data analysis used Creswell’s (2007) six-step method. It consists of
data management, reading and marking margin notes, describing, coding, interpreting, and
representing and visualizing data. Data were collected and organized by date. To immerse
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 68
myself in it, I simultaneously read and transcribed the observation data and reread it when
analyzing the quality of teacher conversations during the observations. Then, I read through
each of the interview transcripts. When I read them again, I wrote an interpretation for particular
statements that struck me and recorded thoughts and questions that came to me when reading
these statements. To reflect on the big ideas presented in the data, I developed a “story” (a
detailed description) for each participant. This process helped me make sense of what the data
was telling me‒the whole picture. By doing this, coding naturally started to happen. Themes
that were associated with my conceptual framework emerged. Interpreting and representing the
data was an on-going and interactive process. I started by rereading the observation data prior to
answering the first research question to select examples that typified what occurred during
GLMs. To respond to the second research question, I reread the interview data and triangulated
it with the observation data and collected documentation. As I engaged in these processes, the
story the data told and the lessons that could be learned from the findings became evident.
Discourse Analysis
Although I employed multiple data collection methods to analyze PL opportunities,
central to analysis was the quality of teacher discourse regularly taking place during GLMs.
Myers, Sawyer, Scribner, and Watson (2007) note teacher teams have manifestations of both
active and passive patterns of discourse. Active pattern of discourse consist of the group’s
demonstrating a serious commitment to the pursuit of creative solutions to problems of practice.
The group’s focus is on seeking answers to the “why” question. Passive patterns of discourse
consist of the group passively sharing information and rehashing obstacles to potential courses of
action. The emphasis is on finding answers to the “what” and “how” questions. Although there
are differences in the tendencies that sway a group to take up one pattern over another,
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 69
productive discussions leading to action are facilitated by contextual factors. In addition, the
purpose of GLMs and level of teachers’ autonomy manifested within these meetings largely
shape the patterns of discourse that characterize the interaction of the team members.
Furthermore, Horn and Little (2010) assert that when, teachers engage in conversational
moves conducive for PL, these conversational exchanges will be heard and learning will be
observable during group meetings. Learning conducive exchanges can be seen when teachers
have the skills and knowledge to critically reflect on instructional goals and their views of
teaching and learning. Discourse analysis examines teachers conversations to determine the
extent to which these revolve around instructional dilemmas and student learning. It is the
approach used to explain how certain things came to be said or done and what enabled and or
constrained what was spoken or left out during GLMs.
Analyzing text is also considered discourse analysis, but it is more than studying the
structure (syntax or semantics) of it (Cheek, 2004). Cheek (2004) posits texts are any
representation of an aspect of reality. These include observation field notes, researcher’s journal,
interview transcripts, and documents. Cheek states,
Language cannot be considered to be transparent or value free...The words we ‘naturally’
speak do not have a universal meaning; rather they are assigned particular meanings by
both speakers and listeners according to the situation in which language is being used (p.
1144).
Text are written words that may be interpreted in multiple ways. The meaning assigned to these
play a role in creating and maintaining certain aspects of a person’s reality. When analyzing
text, the researcher notes beyond what the text actually describes to explores the spoken and
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 70
unspoken assumptions situated in a particular context. Ultimately, she contemplates on what it
presumes is understood by the reader.
Horn and Little’s (2010) theoretical framework on conversational routines served to
analyze the quality of teacher discourse recorded during GLM observations. Furthermore, given
that Myers et al. (2007) assert that substantive conversations leading to teachers taking different
instructional actions are facilitated by contextual factors, this study examined the extent to which
GLM factors of principal, time, agenda, and coach influenced the quality of teacher discourse
during GLMs. Lastly, Cheek (2004) states text reveals certain aspects of people’s reality.
Therefore, the researcher looked beyond what the words on the observation and interview data
stated and detailed what the participants’ words implied and suggested.
Validity and Reliability
Gill and Hoffman (2009) argue teacher learning can be difficult to measure accurately.
However, a research design that includes both teacher observations and interviews is especially
useful in gauging the likelihood and degree to which teacher learning occurs. Observations
enhance the validity and reliability of interviews (Gill & Hoffman, 2009; Kennedy, 1984) by
offsetting self-reporting which can happen during interviews, meaning participants’ interview
responses do not necessarily distinguish between what teachers actually learn and their
perception of what they learn (Gill & Hoffman, 2009; Kennedy, 1984). Therefore, observations
provide opportunities to clarify any inconsistencies between what the researcher observed and
heard during the interviews. This qualitative research study (Merriam, 2002) carefully interwove
validity and reliability measures to accurately gauge the likelihood and degree to which PL that
changes practice occurred. Together, these instruments acted as a system of checks and
balances.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 71
Internal Validity
Internal validity is the congruency between the researcher’s findings and reality
(Merriam, 2002). It is considered a strength of qualitative research when researchers agree
reality is always interpreted by the researcher. The researcher’s interpretation of the participants’
understanding of teacher learning is what constitutes reality. As the primary instrument for data
collection and analysis, my interpretation of reality comes from the observations, documentation,
and interviews.
The time invested in the field is an internal validity strategy. Patton (2002) asserts the
time spent doing fieldwork depends on how long it takes the researcher to answer the research
questions. Hatch (2002) urges the researcher to spend enough time with the participants in their
natural setting until the researcher feels confident she is capturing what she claims. Merriam
(2002) argues the time spent collecting data depends on when the researcher reaches a level of
saturation, meaning the researcher no longer sees or hears any new information. To increase the
degree of internal validity, this study was conducted over a four-month period. I observed seven
GLMs during this time. Then, I conducted post-observation interviews with the participating
principal, coach, and GLTs. The time invested in this study was sufficient to reach a level of
saturation and to confidently capture and represent the participants’ point of view when
answering the two research questions.
Merriam (2002) posits triangulation is another internal validity strategy. Triangulation
is the cross referencing of multiple sources and is applied to obtain consistent and dependable
data. In my study, I triangulated observations, interviews, and documentation as a means of
offsetting teachers’ self-reporting. The observations provided the opportunity to witness
consistencies or inconsistencies between the teachers’ actual learning leading to changes in
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 72
practice and the participants’ understanding of PL. Even though, observations also have an
inherent limitation. Discrepancies can result between what the researcher interpreted the
participants’ discourse to mean and what they actually meant (Gill & Hoffman, 2009). Merriam
(2002) suggests a researcher should keep a research journal throughout the study to include
reflective notes. While I did not keep a journal, I did write reflective notes. Reflective notes
refer to my experiences, personal interpretations, hunches, biases or other observer comments.
These acted as an audit trail providing additional insights into what transpired before, during, and
after each observation. They also included questions and ideas that arose during the interviews
and data analysis. The reflective notes revealed inconsistencies between initial interpretations
and those of the participants during the time of the fieldwork. They also served to confirm the
story told by the findings. Subsequently, internal validity considers understanding the
participants’ perspectives, uncovering the complexity of their behavior in context, and presenting
an authentic and genuine rendering of what is happening (Merriam, 2002).
Reliability
Reliability refers to the extent to which research findings can be replicated and “whether
the results are consistent with the data collected?” (Merriam, 2002, p. 27). Reliability relies on
other researchers to confirm the findings make sense given the collected data and that the results
were consistent and dependable. It is closely related to the study’s instrumentation, especially
the researcher. To strengthen the reliability of a study, the researcher becomes more equipped
through training and practice. The more time I spent mulling over the data, the more adept I
became at consistently analyzing it. The more I practiced scripting and facilitating interviews,
the more dependable the findings. Prior to starting the fieldwork and collecting data, I practiced
observing in a setting, scripting what I observed and heard, and facilitated a telephone interview
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 73
using a draft of this study’s interview protocol. During the field work, my scripting and
facilitating skills improved after those initial events.
Generalizability
Generalizability or external validity is “the extent to which the findings of one study can
be applied to other situations” (Merriam, 2002, p. 28). Generalizability in qualitative research
refers to the transferability of skills from one information rich case to another context and the
extent to which the researcher creates an explicit, vivid picture of an exemplary case that can be
generalized as a prototype (Merriam, 2002). Patton (2002) coins the idea of generalizability as
extrapolations‒“modest speculations on the likely applicability of findings to other situations
under similar, but not identical, conditions” (p. 584). Extrapolations can be very useful to
practitioners who want to “transfer” the findings from what they see working in one school
setting to their own setting (Merriam, 2002; Patton, 2002) or who want to make contributions to
other schools (Horn & Little, 2010; Merriam, 2002). Merriam (2002) and Patton (2002) concur
that generalizability in qualitative research is feasible.
An external validity strategy is reader or user generalizability. Merriam (2002) attests
readers determine the degree to which the study’s findings are applicable to their context. The
researcher collects and reports “enough description and information that readers will be able to
determine how closely their situations match, and thus whether findings can be generalized” (p.
29). To increase the likelihood of generalizability, I offered a detailed account of the study’s
context to facilitate the transfer of the findings and provided a rich, thick description of the study.
Limitations
Participation in this qualitative study was voluntary and relied on the willingness and
honesty of the principal, teachers, and coach. Gill and Hoffman (2009) assert the extent to which
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 74
PL is captured is based on the particular conversations happening at the time of the observations.
The interview process itself has inherent limitations. In both observations and interviews, there
may have been a social desirability bias introduced if participants altered their responses and
behaviors to what they perceived to be the researcher’s expressed interest (Kennedy, 1984) or
desired response (Ermeling, 2005). Self-reporting is shaped by participants’ insightfulness,
articulateness, openness (Kennedy, 1984), nervousness, bias or vulnerability (Patton, 2002). In
addition, interviews do not accurately represent the distinction between teachers’ knowledge and
beliefs (Gill & Hoffman, 2009; Kennedy, 1984).
Since the researcher is positioned as an observer with an outsider perspective (Creswell,
2007; Patton, 2002), there are biases that limit the ability to see the situation from the
participants’ perspectives (Merriam, 2002). Initially, the researcher’s paradigm of PL was the
lens used to capture the participants’ interactions. This paradigm was influenced and shaped by
particular bodies of literature that, at times, reflected best case scenarios. It also differed from
the participants’ conceptualization of PL. Therefore, initial expectations and assumptions of
what PL should look like and why this was the case might have influenced the way data were
captured and interpreted.
To offset these limitations and increase the validity and reliability of the findings, I spent
four months collecting data. During this time, the teachers became used to my presence. I
observed seven GLMs and conducted post-observation participant interviews. I listened to the
teachers’ conversations and observed their interactions to get a holistic picture of their natural
context. The observation data, interview data, and collected documentation were triangulated to
increase the likelihood I captured the degree to which teacher learning was occurring.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 75
Delimitations
These findings are delimited by the number of GLMs observed and by studying one
grade-level team at an elementary school. Another delimitation is posited by Gill and Hoffman
(2009). A researcher can give too much or too little credit to the likelihood of practice change.
Since follow-up classroom observations were not conducted as a means to witness the transfer of
PL to classroom practice, an opportunity was missed to further strengthen internal validity.
Furthermore, I designed the observation and interview protocols and conducted the observations
and interviews. My ability to capture the relevant and significant information was constrained
by my novice status and the questions I chose to ask.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 76
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The purpose of the study was to examine the ways an elementary team of GLTs utilized
discourse as a tool for learning, meaning how teacher discourse shaped, sustained or supported
PL and changes in instruction. It further investigated the extent to which the principal influenced
GLM factors of time, content, and the role of the coach to foster opportunities for PL related to
changes in practice. The findings results are representative of the observation and interview
data. Seven GLM observations were conducted along with interviews of the three GLTs, the
coach, and the principal. The data from the observations were triangulated with the participant
interviews. To provide the context for the results, the following section presents a brief
explanation of what the researcher expected to see at the site before the field work. This is
followed by a description of the research site and of the participants. Lastly, this chapter
presents the results supporting each research question.
This study involved a particular grade-level team at Northshore Elementary with the
expectation that teachers’ conversations would generate teacher learning leading to changes in
practice. The principal and coach associated this grade-level team to a professional learning
community (PLC), and the GLTs also viewed themselves as such. The very nature of a PLC “is
marked by conversations that hold practice, pedagogy, and student learning under scrutiny”
(Kruse, Louis, & Bryk, 1995, p. 30 cited in Horn & Little, 2010). Therefore, the researcher
expected the quality, purpose, and pattern of their conversations to foster PL and changes in
instruction and presumed the GLM factors that shaped GLT’s discourse lead to the expansion of
PL. It was also assumed they used student assessment data as well as other kinds of evidence to
assess and increase student learning. The results, however, differ.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 77
Background of Northshore Elementary
Northshore Elementary was a small campus that housed grades kindergarten through
fifth. The administrative office sits at the front of the school building. In it was the reception
desk, principal’s office, nurse’s station, and staff lounge. The person sitting behind the desk
greeted those entering the office. The principal’s office was tucked away in a corner not readily
visible upon entering the office. It was a small room consisting of a desk, a large table, two
chairs, and a window facing the front of the school. The nurse’s station was situated in a small
nook that also housed the two copy machines. It was nestled between the principal’s office and
the staff lounge. The staff lounge had a couple of round tables and chairs, a couch, a refrigerator,
and teachers’ mail boxes. Posted on its walls were staff pictures and math goals. The lounge’s
exit door lead to a very well kept and inviting garden. The library was to the right of it. It
functioned as the students’ library and a multipurpose conference room where teachers met.
Grades kindergarten through fourth were housed in the concrete buildings across the school
campus while fifth grade was situated in the bungalows positioned on the outskirts of the
concrete buildings. Behind the bungalows and running across the campus was a chain linked
fence. It separated the classroom areas and the two playgrounds located at the very back of the
school. In general, the school appeared to be a well-maintained, older building.
This section compares the US Census Bureau (2010) statistics to those of the school’s
student population. Northshore Elementary was located in an older, primarily residential
neighborhood within Los Angeles County. Homes were built in the 1950s. This neighborhood’s
population consisted of approximately 87% Latinos. Out of approximately 500 students enrolled
at the school, 95% were Latinos, 2% were White, and 3% were identified as other (Ed-Data,
2012). In close to 62% of households, the language primarily spoken was Spanish (US Census
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 78
Bureau, 2010). The English learner population accounted for approximately 20%, and 19% of
that population spoke Spanish (Ed-Data, 2012). Roughly 15% of the population over the age of
25 earned a bachelor’s or higher degree (US Census Bureau, 2010). This suggested the income
of parents whose children attended this school qualified their children for free and reduced-price
meals, and approximately 76% of the student population qualified for these meals (Ed-Data,
2012).
The composition of the student population was representative of schools that tend to
underperform on end-of-year student evaluations. However, the principal appeared to be moving
this school forward during her three years leading the school. Its Academic Performance Index
increased over the course of three academic years. It went from 785 in 2010 to 786 in 2011 and
landed at 840 in 2012 (Ed-Data, 2012). Thus, this school met the selection criteria.
Background of Participants
Except for one, all of the participants in this study had worked with each other at
Northshore Elementary. Eight years prior to this study, the principal led the grade-level team
whose current members were respondents herein. She went on to be a coach and was now in her
first principal assignment. She was in her third year leading the school. The coach taught upper
grades at this school for 12 years prior to becoming a coach. This was his first year in this role.
He was assigned to three schools and scheduled to meet with this grade-level team once every
month. Mr. Eric had been teaching at Northshore Elementary nearly 13 years. He had also been
a grade-level leader and was now more involved with the teachers’ union. He and Mr. Jake were
friends prior to working together. Mr. Jake started working at this school after Mr. Eric
recommended him for the position. He had been teaching for 13 years with eight of them at this
school. The four of them had known each other and worked together for approximately a
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 79
decade. Mrs. Liz taught a combination class and was new to the grade-level team and school. It
was her second year at this site, but her eighth year teaching in multiple grades. The interview
data reflected she and the team enjoyed getting to know one another and working together over
the previous two years.
Research Question One: Teacher Discourse and Learning
The first research question asked how the quality of teacher discourse shape, sustain or
support professional learning and changes in practice during grade-level meetings. The aim of
this question was to determine whether GLTs engaged in dialogue that generates PL in GLMs.
The conversation excerpts highlighted in this section typify conversational routines GLTs
engaged in when analyzing student data and lesson planning. The results demonstrated the
quality of discourse fostered by GLTs was not likely generative for PL and changes in practice.
This section discusses the following three themes that emerged from the data pertaining
to the first research question: the quality of discourse was superficial and procedural at best, the
enacted purpose of discourse was to exchange and acquire strategies and resources when
planning a lesson, and there was a pattern of GLTs choosing not to engage in substantive
conversations. Supporting each theme are excerpts representing GLM episodes typifying GLTs
conversations. These excerpts offer insight into the participants’ conversational routines (Horn
& Little, 2010) that led to a limiting of PL. The section concludes with a discussion about how
the results support each theme and suggested the quality of discourse was not likely to generate
PL or stimulate instructional improvement.
Theme 1
The first theme was that the quality of discourse was superficial and procedural at best.
Teachers engage in quality discourse through conversations that foster opportunities to generate
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 80
new insights into teaching dilemmas, support instructional innovation, and focus on student
learning (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Heckman & Montera, 2009; Horn & Little, 2010). The
quality of discourse is significant, as it gauges the extent to which conversations are likely to
lead to improved understanding. Although discourse is a powerful tool in fostering PL, the
grade-level participants’ conversations were restricted to superficial and procedural talk in all
observations. The excerpt below is one example attesting to the quality of discourse. The
participants’ dialogue revolves around offering reassuring comments and quick advice rather
than focusing on deconstructing instructional practice. Excerpt 1 shows a typical conversational
routine during GLMs. Here, the participants examined the second benchmark assessment scores
for English language arts.
Excerpt 1
Principal Your teaching in your classroom reflects scores.
Mr. Eric And yet we are made to feel bad.
Mrs. Liz I know, I look at those scores.
Coach Take some time to make a link between the inquiry you’ve been doing and
inquiry strategies.
Mr. Eric Which strategies would those be?
Coach Virginia passage…the skills [the kids] used there [while reading this
passage], [have them] use [these] on [their] tests.
Principal It doesn’t matter if you cover those standards or not. Kids can focus on
skills. Tell them this.
The principal’s initial comment set the tone of the conversation to be superficial and
procedural at best. She reassured the teachers there was something positive happening between
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 81
their teaching and student performance. Mr. Eric’s response was GLTs are made to feel bad
about student assessment scores. Drawing from other data sources, it is possible to explore the
deeper meaning of this comment to mean that, although the principal said something positive
was happening, he felt that, when the grade-level team examined student data, the emphasis
strayed away from that positive relationship between their instructional practice and the
benchmark scores. When analyzing student data, their attention was on the content areas
students did not fully understand, suggesting an adverse relationship between GLTs’ practice and
student learning. Mrs. Liz’s comment supported the principal’s notion that they are good
teachers by looking at how well the students performed on the benchmark. The use of a
reassuring conversational move by the principal and Mrs. Liz kept the conversation superficial
while constraining GLTs from investigating their practice. The coach also affirmed the
principal’s remark in his statement, “think about the strategies you have been teaching in your
classrooms and have the students apply these when taking their tests.” His statement implied
teachers taught these strategies, taught students to transfer them when taking a test, and did these
two things well. In addition, students had the skills and knowledge to accurately transfer these
strategies to tests. The coach did not investigate which strategies teachers use, the teachers’
proficiency level in teaching these, or the students’ proficiency level in recognizing, applying,
and transferring these to another context. Mr. Eric demonstrated a simple acceptance of the
coach’s response. There were no questions or statements posed about the coach’s comment.
Their conversation continued to reinforce superficial talk. The coach suggested a resource, the
Virginia passage, and wanted students to transfer the strategies they were taught when reading
this passage to tests. His suggestion was procedural and limited the conversation in such a way
that it did not provide GLTs opportunities to think about their practice. The principal supported
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 82
the coach by saying students should focus on transferring the skills they were taught to tests.
The coach and principal’s priority was the transfer of strategies and/or skills and not the extent to
which students were taught and understood the content. Since they were the ones who guided
the conversation, their statements greatly reinforced superficiality and procedural talk. The
principal’s following conversational move was to offer GLTs advice ‒just tell the students to do
it ‒to transfer these strategies or skills to tests. This conversational move reinforced procedural
discourse; there was no inquiry about what GLTs had done up to this point and their students’
response to their teaching. Moreover, the problem was the underlying expectation for student to
“transfer” strategies. The expectation was grounded in two assumptions: teachers were
proficient at teaching these strategies and at teaching students to transfer them, and students
knew how to correctly apply these strategies and transfer these to tests. These type of
conversational moves, reassurance and quick advice, kept the conversation superficial and
procedural at best, which prevented GLTs from deconstructing their practice. It did not unfold in
ways that led GLTs to think about what they did or said when teaching. The principal and coach
did not facilitate the conversation in ways conducive to investigating practice. The participants
had been set up to think of their teaching as good. As a result, it might not have seemed
necessary to deconstruct their practice. The quality of this conversation was problematic in that
it prevented GLTs from engaging in substantive discussions leading to PL.
In Excerpt 2, the conversation continued in the same vein; there was no deconstruction of
practice in relation to students’ learning needs. The coach and GLTs examined the benchmark,
noticed students had difficulty with irregular verbs, and discussed how to help them apply these
correctly. There was no talk about students’ existing understanding before presenting a strategy
that reinforced simple levels of cognition and would not help students with the application of
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 83
irregular verbs. This type of superficial and procedural talk prevented them from deconstructing
their pedagogical practice and changing their instruction to meet students’ learning needs.
Excerpt 2
Coach [He suggest students find 10 errors in text every day to help with their
understanding of irregular verbs.]
Mr. Eric How can we correct it?
Coach How do you deal with this? What do you think C?
Mr. Jake They love correcting me. I usually have them look at each other’s work
because they love correcting each other’s work more than their own.
The conversation was procedural and superficial. The coach’s statement implied students
could pick out the correct irregular verbs or the error in the irregular verb. If students practiced
applying the correct irregular verb to their own writing, then they would be better at identifying
mistakes. In Bloom’s (YEAR) taxonomy, identifying is a simple recognition of words and falls
in the lowest category of thinking skills while applying requires students to recall and
comprehend the content before using it and is at a higher level in the taxonomy. The suggested
strategy reinforced what students could already do‒identify irregular verbs‒and was not likely to
support them in learning to use these appropriately in their writing. The conversation was not
directed at gauging students’ understanding of irregular verbs; it was simply asking students to
quickly recognize irregular verbs and repeatedly practice a low level cognitive skill. Mr. Eric
elicited procedural information from the coach, “how can we correct it?” This dialogue focused
on the strategies they presumed students were able to correctly apply. They did not investigate
the students’ level of understanding or the pedagogical practices supporting the teaching of this
content. The coach looked to Mr. Jake to provide a response to Mr. Eric’s question. This
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 84
conversational move reinforced GLTs using dialogue to give each other quick advice about
instructional strategies proven to work in their classrooms. Mr. Jake offered a procedural
response: the students correct each other’s work. He did not deconstruct practice by providing
insight into what he does or says when teaching irregular verbs and how he assesses students’
understanding. There was no brief explanation of what he said or did to teach students what to
look for when correcting irregular verbs. This conversation strayed away from deconstructing
practice and unpacking their and their students’ understanding of the content.
All GLM participants offered reassuring comments or gave instructional advice.
Conversations did not focus on GLTs investigating students’ understanding, deconstructing their
practice in relation to their students’ understanding, or changing their practice to meet the student
learning needs. Consequently, the quality of discourse was not supportive of PL and changes in
practice during GLMs.
Valli (1997) asserts technical reflection is the most basic level of teacher reflection.
Teachers describe content as teaching strategies. Given that, in Excerpt 1 and 2, teachers
primarily talked about strategies and resources, it made sense that conversations were superficial
and procedural versus substantive and instructional. Theme 2 explores the enacted purpose of
discourse (acquiring strategies and resources) and its implication on PL and instructional
practice.
Theme 2
The enacted purpose of discourse was to exchange and acquire strategies and resources
versus utilizing discourse as a tool to collaboratively construct new understanding about content-
related and pedagogical practices.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 85
Hargreaves and Shirley (2009) found that employing short-term strategies yielded
immediate student achievement primarily in underperforming schools. Similar to their findings,
the GLTs kept their conversations to exchanging and acquiring strategies and resources that were
simple to employ, readily accessible, and required short-term attention. They were locked into a
short-term perspective preventing them from ruminating over their existing practice.
Pervasive in the seven GLM conversations was the sharing and acquiring of strategies
and resources to be deployed. More importantly, these exchanges occurred most frequently and
were most likely to be the purpose of the conversation when teachers planned a lesson. Excerpts
3 and 4 depict the unfolding of a GLT conversation focusing on planning a lesson. While the
intent was to discuss the re-teaching of main idea, the conversation was marked by the sharing
and acquiring of strategies and resources. Thus, the enacted purpose of discourse prevented
teachers from engaging in substantive conversation promoting PL.
The following three examples demonstrate ways in which the teachers’ conversations
served to acquire instructional strategies and resources. Excerpt 3 illustrates the teachers’
searching through the TIME for Kids magazine to select a story to reteach main idea.
Excerpt 3
Mrs. Liz [The] “Cheetah” was nice. [This article has main idea and facts.]
Mr. Eric Title, subtitle, subheading. [The article clearly labels these.]
Mrs. Liz Each heading had one paragraph...What’s this paragraph mostly telling us?
That one I let them do it together. The Mars one they read and wrote...
Mr. Eric This is the nice thing about TIME for kids [magazine]. It has the sections.
[He uses his hand to point to section of the article.]
Mr. Eric So you are taking it paragraph by paragraph.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 86
Mrs. Liz Just highlighting it, no graphic organizer...think out loud.
The conversation was set up to discuss resources and strategies that facilitated re-teaching
main idea versus examining teacher practice and student learning. Mrs. Liz suggested the
“Cheetah” story “was nice.” It was an instructional resource to reteach main idea, and the
implication was students could understand its content. However, there was no explicit talk or
unearthing of assumptions that explained why this story was “nice.” Mr. Eric pointed to its
layout, stating students could readily search for and find the main idea in each section. There
was no inquiry into why and how this story supported student learning. Mrs. Liz proposed
asking students, “what’s this paragraph mostly telling us?” in each of the section. There was no
exploration of what the students might say in response to this question or how it would scaffold
their understanding of main idea. Then, Mrs. Liz suggested a different story, “Mars Rocks.”
There was no talk about how she assessed the complexity of this story’s content. Neither were
her reasons for selecting this story elicited by the other teachers. The students had previously
“read” this story. The implication was they were familiar with it and, therefore, would be able to
comprehend more readily. She wanted students to focus on the process of selecting the main
idea and not the complexity of the content. Mr. Eric’s statement about “the nice thing about
TIME for Kids” magazine suggested “Mars Rocks” had clear sections, which led into what he
said next to Mrs. Liz, “so you are taking it paragraph by paragraph.” This remark clarified Mrs.
Liz chunked the text, paragraph by paragraph, to teach main idea. Each paragraph provided
multiple opportunities to identify the main idea, but it also reinforced a low level thinking skill
(identify). Mrs. Liz went on to list the strategies (highlighting and think out loud) she used to
teach main idea. There was no explanation of how or why these strategies supported student
learning. There was no talk about students passively or actively engaging in formulating the
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 87
main idea when highlighting. There was no discussion about what she said to students when
thinking out loud that improved students’ understanding. The absence of dialogue implied these
strategies were understood to work when scaffolding students’ learning and that the other
teachers were familiar with effectively deploying these in their classrooms. There was a simple
acceptance of the suggested resources and strategies. Subsequently, there was no exploration of
their instructional practice in relationship to students’ understanding of main idea. This closed
off possibilities for teachers to deconstruct their practice and engage in PL.
Excerpt 3 and 4 are parts of the same conversation. Excerpt 4 illustrates another example
of conversational routines that reinforce teachers’ acquiring a different resource and readily
available strategies to reteach students to identify main idea.
Excerpt 4
Mrs. Liz ...Use a graphic organizer. [She explains it is okay to reteach main idea in
her classroom since she will use a graphing organizer this time.]
Mr. Eric Do main idea with supporting details?
Mrs. Liz Maybe both.
Mr. Jake This is good. Should we have them just underline each paragraph? Well,
what...
Mr. Eric Are they being asked to find on the common formative assessment [CFA]
the main idea in each paragraph or entire section? [GLTs design CFAs.]
Mr. Jake Both.
Mrs. Liz Photo copy this [article], number each paragraph, and find main idea.
Mr. Jake [He draws the graphic organizer a flee map.] Give them some details and
some of the main idea for the whole thing.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 88
Mrs. Liz This is a good idea.
Mrs. Liz agreed to use a graphic organizer to reteach main idea since she implemented
other strategies to teach it the first time. Excerpt 3 revealed these strategies were highlighting
and think out loud. There was no discussion to elaborate on the reasons she believed using a
different strategy would help her students deepen their understanding of the content. Mr. Eric’s
question, “do main idea with supporting details?” suggested students would identify the main
idea along with supporting details. Mrs. Liz and Mr. Jake confirmed his suggestion. The
implication was students should practice identifying both and making connections between the
two. Mr. Jake agreed with Mrs. Liz’s highlighting strategy by asking if students should just
underline the main idea in each paragraph. The first step was for students to identify and
underline it and then write it on the graphic organizer. Students were going to practice a low
cognitive task twice: once by finding the main idea and the other by identifying the details. Mr.
Eric’s following question, “are students asked to find the main idea in a paragraph or a passage
on the CFA?” suggested he saw a correlation between the easy to apply strategies the teacher
deployed and improving student performance outcomes. Mr. Jake responded “both.” There was
no discussion about what main idea was, what students should ask themselves when in doubt, or
how they would know to transfer their understanding of main idea and strategies associated to
this to tests. Following was Mrs. Liz conversational move, it was procedural. She stated the
steps she would take next: copy the article for the students, number the paragraphs to identify
them quickly, and have students find the main idea. Mr. Jake drew a flee map, a graphic
organizer that helps visually organize and reinforce the main idea and supporting details. This
instructional tool was a resource to increase students’ comprehension of this concept. It had a
specific place to write the article’s main idea and each paragraph’s main idea and supporting
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 89
details. He stated, “give them [students] some details and some of the main idea for the whole
thing.” He suggested that the teachers model the use of this graphic organizer and their thinking
processes when identifying the main ideas and their supporting details. Modeling allowed to see
this tool applied and to hear what their teacher thought about when finding the main idea and
respective supporting details. Looping back to Excerpt 3, Mr. Jake’s comment further
acknowledged the strategy Mrs. Liz had previously deployed to teach main idea. Lastly, Mrs.
Liz agreed with Mr. Jake’s summary of actions to take by saying, “this is a good idea.” Given
these conversational moves, we see the enacted purpose of discourse was to exchange and
acquire readily available strategies and resources that yielded immediate improvement on student
performance outcomes. These moves were not likely to foster substantive conversations leading
to changes in cognitive patterns.
This conversation was limited to sharing and acquiring strategies and resources to be
deployed. There was no discussion about the degree to which these transformed pedagogical
practice, the extent to which these changed or deepened student learning, or the sustainability of
student learning over time. Underlying their conversation was the implication that the strategies
would deepen students’ understanding of main idea, but the observation data revealed the
strategies reinforced a low level thinking skill. Such dialogue was not likely to create
opportunities for teachers to collaboratively construct new understanding about their practice.
Seeing that, so far, the quality of discourse was superficial and procedural at best and that
its purpose was to acquire strategies and resources to be deployed, it was not likely teachers
would engage in rich conversations about their practice. Wei et al. (2009) found that open and
honest discussions about real issues related to content, instructional choices, and student learning
create opportunities for teachers to engage in PL. Given the pattern of teachers choosing not to
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 90
engage in substantive conversations to investigate their instructional practice, it was not likely
teachers’ conversations would lead to changes in cognitive structures.
Theme 3
There is a pattern of GLTs choosing not to engage in substantive conversations about
teaching and learning versus taking these up to investigate their instructional practice.
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) posit a substantive conversation goes beyond
“describing, discussing, and debating teaching” (p. 294). Teachers engage in an individual and
collective effort to articulate knowledge that is tacit, implicit or taken for granted. Through
discourse, teachers create opportunities to question their instructional practice and challenge
assumptions linked to it. Over time, teachers work together at understanding, articulating, and
altering their teaching practice.
The interview data revealed the principal, the coach, and the three teachers thought of this
grade-level team as part of a school wide PLC. The term PLC projected a set of assumptions
that ran contrary to what was revealed by the data. A PLC “is marked by conversations that hold
practice, pedagogy, and student learning under scrutiny” (Kruse, Louis, and Bryk, 1995, p. 30
cited in Horn & Little, 2010). To engage in such conversations, teachers are provided and
interact with tools such as inquiry focused protocols and someone who is trained to facilitate
discourse using them. This notion of PLC differed from that of the participants. The interview
data demonstrated a PLC was less about engaging in rich discourse that promoted PL and more
about the four PLC questions that guided their work. These asked what students need to know
and be able to do, how teachers will know if each student has learned it, how teachers will
respond when some students do not learn, and how teachers will extend and enrich the learning
for students who are already proficient. The principal clearly confirmed this in her interview
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 91
when she stated, “We are a PLC school so we do focus on the four questions and what we want
students to learn, how do we know they’re learning it, and what do we do when they’re not
learning it.” The statement implied that the very nature of a PLC was to address these core
questions, and teachers’ conversations were to be guided by these. While teachers were to
respond to these questions, there was no evidence indicating the depth and breadth of these
conversations was taken into account. Mr. Jake confirmed that teachers were to reply to these
questions when he stated, “What are the students learning? and are they learning it well? and are
they succeeding with what they’re learning?” He suggested the teachers used GLM time to
discuss the content or standards the students needed to comprehend and be able to apply.
Teachers were to discuss the results of formative and summative assessment and compare their
teaching strategies to the level of student proficiency demonstrated on the assessments. When
necessary, they were to select and implement a different strategy to reteach content. It appeared
these questions fostered procedural processes and not substantive conversations. There was no
evidence indicating teachers had the necessary support to facilitate conversations in which they
scrutinized practice and student learning.
While these PLC core questions were an integral part of GLMs, excerpts 5 through 7
exhibit instances that typify GLTs having opportunities to engage in rich conversations related to
these questions and opting not to take these up. Horn and Little (2010) argue teachers who do
not take up conversations are most likely to not have developed the skills and knowledge
necessary to engage in conversations “centering on dilemmas and problems of practice” (p. 183).
This suggests it was necessary to provide the GLTs with additional tools, like discourse
protocols and a facilitator, to afford them with opportunities to take up critically reflective
conversations.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 92
Excerpt 5 revealed teachers’ conversational moves closed off opportunities for them to
take up a substantive conversation that lead to deconstructing their instructional practice. The
data revealed teachers did not articulate information that was tacit or taken for granted while
examining the English language arts benchmark test scores. The GLTs stopped to address one of
the test questions that focused on commonly misused verbs.
Excerpt 5
GLTs [Teachers examine commonly misused verbs: lie vs lay and ask each other
how they teach students the difference between these.]
Mr. Eric I lay down on my bed.
Mr. Jake It sounds right though.
Mr. Eric Yeah, but it’s not. What do you lay down on your bed?
Mrs. Liz I don’t know….lie and lay. It is hard.
The GLTs brought up an instructional question: how to teach students the difference
between lie and lay. Even though the implication was that teachers inquired about the strategies
or resources they used to teach this content, this type of dialogue was most likely to lead to a
superficial and procedural conversation. This question had the potential to elicit a substantive
discussion about a real instructional issue, but GLTs opted not to explicitly take it up. Mr. Eric
provided the example, “I lay down on my bed,” which was grammatically incorrect. In turn, Mr.
Jake offered a reassuring statement by saying, “it sounds right.” The word “sounds” implied he
was unclear about the use of the verb “lay” in Mr. Eric’s example. Mr. Eric’s response was
“yeah, but it’s not. What do you lay down on your bed?” Here was an opportunity for Mr. Eric
to elaborate on why this example was incorrect, yet there was no explanation or discussion of
this. Mrs. Liz’s statement, “I don’t know...lie and lay. It is hard,” suggested she, too, had a lack
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 93
of deep understanding of the difference between these commonly misused verbs. Similar to Mr.
Jake, she was not able to decipher what Mr. Eric was trying to convey from his example. Thus
far, the teachers’ dialogue was indicative of a real content-related issue. They were not clear
about the definitions of lie and lay, the difference between these, and their usage. However, their
conversational moves did not afford them the opportunity to engage in a critically reflective
discussion. This lack of complete understanding the content affected how they taught it, which
affected the students’ understanding of these commonly misused verbs.
Moreover, the GLTs conversational moves hindered them from openly and honestly
taking up the question of the difference between lie and lay. Even after Mr. Eric stated, “what do
you lay down on your bed?” there was not talk about the connection between this question and
the grammatically incorrect sentence. Although Mr. Eric appeared to have some understanding
of the correct use the verb, his statements did not reveal the kinds of discourse that align with a
conversation about a real instructional matter.
Still, Mr. Eric was not the only GLT in this situation. The other two teachers were in
similar positions. Mr. Jake and Mrs. Liz chose not to ask Mr. Eric clarifying and probing
questions. This conversational move hindered them from making sense of Mr. Eric’s example.
They all had the opportunity to explore and discuss multiple points: what teachers knew about
this content; areas they were still unclear about; the ins and outs of how they taught this content
and why it was taught in that way; and the relationship among their level of understanding, their
choice of instructional strategies, and students’ level of understanding and misconceptions. Yet,
they opted to not articulate that which was implicit and that which they did not yet understand.
The GLTs choice to not take up a substantive conversation prevented them from constructing
new understanding about these verbs.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 94
Excerpts 6 and 4 are two parts of the same conversation; the dialogue in excerpt 6 comes
before the one in excerpt 4. While Excerpt 6 illustrates GLTs attempting to talk about
instruction before teaching the content, this was the only attempt to describe their teaching
during the seven observations. The absence of inquiry in this conversation closed off
possibilities to engage in rich discussions about their content-related practice and students’
existing understanding.
Excerpt 6
Mr. Eric [He reads from Mars Rocks.] What is the main idea? (All GLTs chuckle).
Mrs. Liz [She suggests a main idea. It was not scripted.] I am finding the main idea
is not hard. Details may be hard.
Mr. Eric [He points to the text and reads it.] There are details.
Mr. Jake Moving right along.
Mr. Eric [Chuckles and reads next paragraph.] This one is friendly. [States details
in paragraph.]...10 times, water.
Mr. Jake It was different, special, unique.
Mr. Eric [He reads the next paragraph.] The main idea of this one is [pauses]...there
may have been water after they...since the paragraph is so small there is
only one detail. [He points to the short paragraph.] Mine does not have as
many details.
Mr. Eric Overall main idea guys?
Mr. Jake Mars meteorites...presented new evidence on mars.
After reading “Mars Rocks,” Mr. Eric asked the teachers to identify the main idea in the
first paragraph. Their initial response was to chuckle. Their response implied that the text was
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 95
more challenging than they thought it to be, and the main idea was not as evident as they
thought. Teachers who engage in PL choose to discuss that which is surprising or uncertain.
Yet, there was no talk about what they thought or discovered after reading the initial paragraph.
There was also no mention of the implications of their discovery for their students’ ability to
comprehend this text and find the main idea and supporting details. Mrs. Liz was the first to
verbalize what she taught it was. Even though this statement was not captured in the observation
data, there was no follow up data indicating she articulated how she arrived at the main idea.
Furthermore, the absence of a verbal response from Mr. Jake and Mr. Eric suggested they needed
additional time to think about the text and identify the paragraph’s main idea, and it was the
teachers’ conversational pattern not to elicit additional information. Mrs. Liz then stated, “I am
finding the main idea is not hard. Details may be hard.” She implied that it was not likely
students would be challenged to find the main idea, and the teachers had chosen the appropriate
story. However, students might find it difficult to select the supporting details. There was not
talk about indicators that supported her claims. There was also no evidence the GLTs made an
individual or collective effort to inquire and gain a deeper understanding about what Mrs. Liz
meant or was not saying. What Mr. Eric’s did next was point to the details in that paragraph and
read them aloud. His actions suggested the details in that paragraph were evident. There was no
discussion of his thinking processes: what caused him to believe the students might readily pick
up the details. Mr. Jake’s remark, “moving right along,” suggested spending more time on this
topic did not seem necessary since it was not to likely lead to new instructional insights. Overall,
the implication was GLTs did not have the skills and knowledge needed to openly speak about
content-related weaknesses and assumptions about their students’ understanding.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 96
Mr. Eric responded by chuckling. This response suggested that he agreed with Mr. Jake,
and their conversation was not necessarily proving useful in figuring out how to reteach main
idea and supporting detail. After he finished reading the second paragraph, he remarked, “this
one is friendly.” The implication was students would be more receptive to picking out the
supporting details in this paragraph. What he did next confirmed this implication. He verbalized
the paragraph’s supporting details. Yet, there was no explanation of what “friendly” meant, why
it was “friendly,” or of the associations he saw between his being able to select the supporting
details and the students’ ability to do the same. Then, Mr. Jake continued listing details. This
conversational move suggested he agreed with Mr. Eric’s statement that it was “friendly.” This
absence of inquiry suggested teachers found the process of articulating their thought challenging
and opted not to take up substantive conversations to investigate their practice.
After Mr. Eric read the third paragraph, he posited, “the main idea of this one is [pauses]
have been water after they...since the paragraph is so small there is only one detail. [He points to
the short paragraph.] Mine does not have as many details.” The pause in this statement
suggested Mr. Eric was going to describe the main idea when another thought interjected what he
was about to say. This implied that Mr. Eric either reconsidered what the main idea was or he
realized that differentiating between the main idea and the one supporting detail was not very
clear. Still, there was no talk about what teachers would say or do or provide to teach students to
perceive the difference between these sentences. There was no discussion about the plausible
challenges students would come across when finding the main idea and supporting details.
Wrapping up the dialogue was Mr. Eric’s comment, “overall main idea guys?” He implied that it
was time to transition. The GLTs had invested their time and effort in attempting to talk about
teaching and learning. It was time to conclude this dialogue by identifying the article’s main
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 97
idea. “Mars meteorites...presented new evidence on mars,” responded Mr. Jake. There was no
evidence presented supporting his conclusion of main idea, but only a simple acceptance of Mr.
Jake’s statement suggested by the teachers’ silence.
In spite of the teachers’ effort to foster an instructional conversation, the absence of
articulating knowledge that was tacit and taken for granted and the absence of inquiry suggested,
at this time, teachers were in need of enhanced skills and knowledge necessary to discuss
teaching and learning at deeper levels. It was challenging for them to work together at
articulating and eliciting cognitive processes, and, thus, they were not likely to investigate their
instructional practice. When faced with elements of uncertainty or surprise, teachers chose the
absence of a response or inquiry followed by transitional statements and questions. The
frequency of these conversational moves established a pattern of GLTs choosing not to engage in
substantive conversations about teaching and learning.
Summary of Research Question One
Horn and Little (2010) argue that one of the groups of teachers in their study did not have
the necessary skills and knowledge to take up conversations that went beyond sharing an
experience. This lead to the limiting of their learning and stimulation of instructional
improvement. Similar to Horn and Little’s (2010) findings, the results did not reveal the kinds of
discourse that generate for PL and changes in practice. Teacher discourse was limited to
superficial and procedural conversations at best, exchanging and acquiring strategies and
resources to be deployed, and conversational moves that closed off substantive conversations
about real instructional matters. It was not very likely GLTs were afforded opportunities to
develop the skills and knowledge necessary to grapple with real issues about their content-related
and pedagogical practice, to examine their and others’ assumptions, and to deconstruct existing
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 98
and construct new understanding about their instructional practice. Consequently, the teachers’
quality of discourse was not likely to generate PL and lead to changes in practice.
Research Question Two: The Principal and Teacher Learning
The second question asked about the extent to which the principal influences grade-level
meeting structural factors to foster opportunities for professional learning leading to changes in
practice. The purpose of this question was to ascertain the extent to which the principal’s
leadership created opportunities for teachers to engage in PL during GLMs. The examples in
this section demonstrated the principal’s actions reflected her understanding of PL as a more
traditional conceptualization of professional development. She understood teacher learning as
developing teachers through the transfer of skills and knowledge versus teachers collaboratively
co-constructing knowledge. Provided that her understanding of PL influenced her actions, the
observation and interview data suggested her role was to provide structural support and not
necessarily to build teachers’ instructional skills and knowledge to improve instruction.
This section discusses a theme that emerged from the data pertaining to the second
research question. Supporting the theme are examples typifying the findings across the interview
and observation data. These examples exemplify actions undertaken by the principal to provide
structural support to foster first-order organization change. The structural support provided was
the GLM structures of time, content, and the role of the coach. Concluding this section is a
discussion about the principal’s choices to provide structural support to influence curriculum and
instruction rather than building teachers’ instructional skills and knowledge.
Theme 1
The principal’s actions reflected her understanding of PL as the acquisition of
knowledge. Given this, the structural support she provided reinforced teachers’ acquiring
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 99
strategies to be deployed. The principal did not enable teachers to engage in discourse practices
that would lead to constructing new understanding.
PL is the lived experience of continuing to learn as a professional (Webster-Wright,
2009). Teachers experience it when they collaboratively engage in critical reflection and
structured discourse practices (Putman & Borko, 2000; Webster-Wright, 2009). Over time, a
critically reflective practice transforms cognitive patterns (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999;
Putman & Borko, 2000; Rodgers, 2002; Schön, 1983; Valli, 1997) leading to changes in
instructional practice. Webster-Wright (2009) posits even “effective” professional development
has the potential to foster conditions for changes in practice when teachers engage in a learning
activity and critically reflect on it. In the absence of critically reflective discourse, teachers are
left to traditional forms of PD. Underlying a more traditional conceptualization of PD is the
assumption learning experiences require external direction. Given this, financial resources are
invested in structural support to “develop” teachers (Webster-Wright, 2009). Teachers are set up
as consumers of knowledge; they are exposed to and acquire strategies to be deployed. This is
contradictory to what the research literature posits enables teachers to become self-directed
learners who seek to gain clarity and unearth assumptions about particular classroom dilemmas
to improve their content-related and pedagogical practice. Supporting this theme is a discussion
of the ways in which the principal’s actions reflected her understanding of PL and how she
carried out her leadership role by providing structural support that fostered first-order
organizational change.
First-order organizational change aims at influencing the conditions directly affecting the
quality of curriculum and instruction. A principal coordinates the curriculum and supervises the
teachers’ instruction to achieve this (Hallinger, 2003). The principal at Northshore Elementary
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 100
invited teachers to revisit their instructional choices by directly affecting curriculum selection
and design to increase student achievement. She first “educated [the] staff” by providing
teachers with research articles and books on “what good teaching looked like.” Afterwards, she
introduced teachers to a pedagogical tool, a lesson plan template, to organize the content taught.
As the teachers started developing lesson plans using this template, they integrated the
curriculum they were already using. As indicated in her interview, the principal believed this
tool lead teachers in “discovering that they had to go outside” the scripted textbook and look for
additional instructional resources. She maintained visibility by observing teachers, giving them
written feedback, and advising them on and reinforcing strategies to use. Her actions pointed to
the ways in which she took control of curriculum and instruction. What she did influenced the
teachers’ decisions to acquire instructional strategies and look for “outside” resources.
The following statement confirmed the principal saw her actions directly affecting
teachers’ instructional practice.
I gave them the tools to let them see that we had to make this [instructional] move...We
have fully implemented the teaching points and the lesson design template and our results
have represented the shift because we made a 54 point gain on our [Academic
Performance Index] API last year.
The principal implied her decision to introduce this template influenced the way instruction was
delivered. The template organized the content and strategies. According to the coach’s
interview, the teaching point, which was part of the lesson template, highlighted the standard
taught in student-friendly language. The teachers displayed it so students knew what they were
learning. The change in delivery method led to an increase in student performance, as seen in
the 54 point gain on the school’s API. This statement suggested she believed there was some
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 101
type of relationship between what she did and the way teachers delivered instruction. There was
also one between this change in delivering instruction and increases in student achievement.
Hallinger (2003) asserts that instructional leaders are most likely to execute actions that
foster first-order organizational change at their schools. This principal undertook actions that
appeared to target first-order change. Through this type of change, she provided structural
support to directly influence the curriculum and instruction. Moreover, the choices she made
seemed to fall in line with an instructional leadership style as discussed during her interview.
I was a classroom teacher here about eight years ago and I went on to be a literacy coach
and then, I came back as a principal...I still feel that I’m more of an instructional leader
than a manager.
Here, the principal described her professional experience. The implication was that her
instructional expertise was anchored in the years she spent teaching students and coaching
teachers. Through these experiences, she knew of and had implemented proven-to-work
strategies to increase student achievement. She grounded her leadership style in her instructional
expertise. Hallinger (2003) also posited a primary focus of instructional leaders is managing the
instructional program. Similarly, the principal supervises and evaluates instruction, coordinates
the curriculum, and monitors student progress. Drago-Severson (2012) concurs with Hallinger
(2003) in that principals at public schools primarily focus on managerial leadership. According
to Drago-Severson (2012), a managerial leadership style primarily targets making funds
available to pay for teachers to meet about instructional matters and providing structural
resources such as allocating time for them to meet. Her statement, “I still feel that I’m more of
an instructional leader than a manager” suggested her primary focus was coordinating and
supervising the way teachers delivered instruction. This was followed by her managing financial
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 102
and structural resources to support teachers in their endeavors to increase student performance
outcomes. Though these aspects were important for teachers to execute their duties, they aimed
at first-order change rather than at influencing teachers to continuously learn and share that
learning with other teachers. Consequently, the results indicated the principal’s instructional and
managerial choices went hand in hand. They affected the conditions to directly coordinate
curriculum, supervise and evaluate instruction, monitor student progress, and protect
instructional time, which fostered first-order change.
Hallinger (2003) argued first-order organizational change does not aim and, therefore, is
not likely to foster second-order organizational change. As a result of a critically reflective
practice, teachers experience cognitive change that is likely to lead to improving their instruction
and student learning. The principal’s actions that fostered first-order organizational change
pointed to a level of understanding that hindered her from providing what was necessary to foster
PL opportunities to engage teachers in rich conversations about instruction. Teachers needed
those opportunities to experience PL and to construct new understanding about their content-
related and pedagogical practice.
From the definition introduced at the beginning of this chapter, the principal’s actions
suggested her understanding of PL differed from the notion presented above. Her actions
pointed to her advocacy of knowledge-for-practice or the acquisition of additional funds of
knowledge and not the co-construction of knowledge (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). An
assumption of this theoretical underpinning is that adopting additional strategies will improve
pedagogical practice. From this perspective, PL that improves instruction focuses on teachers
effectively understanding and accurately and consistently applying proven-to-work instructional
strategies. Learning is understood to reinforce existing cognitive patterns about best
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 103
instructional practices. It is not necessarily intended to influence teachers’ understanding of their
own instructional practice. It appeared the principal’s understanding of PL was one that
reinforced existing cognitive patterns rather than continuously constructing new ones with
others. Her choices indicated a superficial level of understanding which prevented her from
translating what she knew into actions that fully supported PL.
Overall, the principal understood some of the essential elements for PL. These basic
elements were clearly a pre-condition of PL but were first-order elements that would not lead to
creating and supporting a climate where teachers engaged in continuous learning and routinely
shared it with others. For example, she created a structure for GLMs by carving out time for
GLTs to meet. She influenced the meeting time through the content of the meeting or the
agenda. She provided a coach for the teachers and ensured there was usually an agenda in place
to provide structure to the interactions among them. What she did not do was create a structure
within that time that supported higher quality discourse to foster PL. Her choices encouraged the
GLTs to discuss lesson plans and examine student data, but not to engage in deep instructional
conversations. At the same time, teachers also opted to engage in superficial and procedural talk
during GLMs. Furthermore, the principal’s choices suggested a superficial level of
understanding of PL that hindered her from providing what was needed to foster substantive
conversations. Teachers were not given the tools necessary to support high quality discourse. In
this respect, she was responsible for the quality of discourse. She implemented basic elements
for first-order change such as time, an agenda, and the coach, but these structures were not
enough to substantiate PL. Without further conditions to support critically reflective discourse,
structural support will not lead to building teachers’ instructional skills and knowledge. The fact
that she did not support an alternative way of talking suggested she did not understand what was
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 104
necessary to go from traditional teacher talk to rich discourse that creates cognitive change.
Given this, she was neither positioned nor able to set up the coach to facilitate a different type of
conversation requiring GLTs to engage in critically reflective discourse.
GLM Time. As previously mentioned, the principal scheduled GLM times. Over the
course of four months, each GLM was scheduled for an hour and a half. These were scheduled
in the principal’s personal calendar, which she shared with the researcher. The hour and a half
time frame was reflected on the meeting agendas, observation data, and in Mr. Jake’s interview.
This choice clearly established these times were protected, and the teachers were also aware of
those dates, indicating these were set up as a routine. During the course of the nine scheduled
observations, teachers met all but two times. The participating GLTs joined another two grade-
level teams on two occasions to discuss the upcoming English language arts and math California
Standards Tests (CSTs). The second to last scheduled meeting was cancelled, but the principal
still afforded teachers time to independently review the CSTs taken by the students earlier that
day (Mr. Jake, personal communication, May 7, 2013). The last scheduled meeting was
cancelled.
Moreover, the principal, in her interview, explained GLM times were valuable and
protected for the following reasons:
It’s really a time for teachers to feel safe and to feel open about their own
learning...talking about resources of how to deliver those lessons and it’s also reading
articles...identifying the materials that they want to use, and reading professional
literature.
The principal understood the importance of teachers’ feeling safe and open “about their own
learning.” By protecting the time, teachers had set opportunities to share their instructional ideas
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 105
and to listen to each other. These interactions would strengthen their rapport, leading them to
feel safer expressing their instructional ideas and suggestions and testing these suggestions. The
PL literature speaks to teachers’ feeling safe and open when engaging in a critically reflective
practice that fosters teacher learning. Heckman and Montera (2009) argue teachers socially
construct their reality by openly acting, reflecting, and revealing what they really think and
believe about particular classroom experiences. Likewise, Jay and Johnson (2002) posit the
process of reflection requires an open-mindedness to others’ ideas and interpretations. These
scholars advocate for teachers to spend time ruminating over specific classroom experiences,
sharing their understanding about the situation, listening to each other, and constructing new
understanding based on their reflection and others’ input. Comparing the literature to the
principal’s remark, it is evident she understood some pre-conditions for PL. Teachers needed to
feel open and safe when they met to discuss the delivery of instruction. These pre-conditions
were first-order elements, as there were no protocols in place to facilitate critically reflective
discourse to gain clarity, unearth assumptions, and collaboratively construct new understanding
about classroom experiences.
On the other hand, the principal characterized learning as “talking about resources of how
to deliver” instruction or “identifying the materials.” Learning appeared to be understood as the
acquisition of additional funds of knowledge. The findings demonstrated teachers were exposed
to multiple strategies through readings and their colleagues’ instructional suggestions. Their
GLM discussions also revolved around acquiring strategies and materials teachers felt would be
most appropriate to deploy and increase student performance outcomes. The principal’s actions
supported a superficial level of understanding. Her choices embraced knowledge-for-practice
which was contrary to what research on PL and “effective” professional development argues will
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 106
foster teacher learning. Teachers experience PL when they collaboratively and continuously
engage in critically reflective discourse. With time, their discourse practice transforms thinking
patterns and leads to improved instruction. Thus, the principal enacted first-order elements
which were not likely to substantiate second-order change.
Another example of the ways in which her actions revealed she understood some of the
essential conditions for PL is presented below. From a teachers’ perspective, Blasé and Blasé
(2000) proposed instructional leaders should foster PL by enacting two dimensions: promoting
teacher reflection and professional growth. Each dimension is supported by a set of structures
that work together to foster second-order change, meaning the aim is to develop teachers’
instructional skills and knowledge through critical reflection. Pervasive in the interview data, the
principal’s choices reflected the enactment of some aspects of these two dimensions. The
principal and the three GLTs pointed to at least one of these structures in their interviews:
providing time to collaborate, actively advocating the sharing of instructional ideas, listening,
giving teachers a choice, providing professional literature, and offering teachers specific praise.
However, the principal positioned these elements to target first- rather than second-order change.
The focus was on coordinating curriculum and supervising instruction and not necessarily on
providing teachers with opportunities to learn from and about their practice. Her actions were
not indicative of the level of understanding necessary to foster critically reflective conversations.
Therefore, these structures most likely prevented teachers from experiencing PL.
Furthermore the coach, who worked closely with the principal, confirmed her dedication
to scheduling and protecting GLM times and further supported the point that the time was
intended for teachers to focus on acquiring strategies. He stated, “She is doing whatever she can
to give them the meeting time with me...She knows that teachers need time to be able to plan
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 107
those strategies.” The implication from his comment was the principal valued the time the coach
and teachers spent together. In their interviews, both the principal and coach confirmed he met
with teachers to support them in planning lessons or examining data. The observation data also
revealed the coach and GLTs met to plan lessons and examine data. His comment also implied
the principal valued and preserved time for teachers to meet and plan strategies. On the one
hand, the coach confirmed the principal understood the value of this structural emphasis: time.
He supported this claim by stating the principal understood teachers needed time to discuss and
plan strategies and decide which ones to deploy. At the same time, he affirmed the principal
afforded teachers time to plan strategies. For example, teachers spent time making connections
between assessment scores and the strategies they used to teach particular content in a GLM.
This example contrasts teachers using the time to take up substantive conversations about their
practice and student learning. In addition, one of the GLTs communicated another way the
principal demonstrated she valued GLM time. Mr. Eric, in his interview, shared the school
“used a lot” of their funding to pay for substitutes so GLTs could meet. Her actions clearly
aimed at directly influencing instruction by protecting the teachers’ time to plan for strategies to
increase student performance.
Another example confirming the principal’s actions encouraged teachers to use their
meeting time to discuss strategies and to use these as a tool to increase student achievement is
that she attended four out of seven GLMs. At all four meeting, teachers examined data to some
extent and discussed strategies proven to work with students. Two of these meetings were with
the participating GLTs and the other two were with the participating GLTs and two other grade-
level teams. GLTs analyzed the English language arts benchmark scores in one meeting and
math benchmark scores in the other one. When all three grade-level teams came together, they
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 108
reviewed student data, discussed instructional strategies, and established a plan to review the
English and math standards prior to the CSTs. The principal’s presence and role at these
meetings influenced how the teachers utilized the time. Her presence was part of her supervising
the curriculum and instruction. It indicated she valued teachers’ drawing on student assessment
data to add precision to the school’s improvement efforts. The data pointed to gaps in student
learning, the extent to which strategies were effectively deployed, and the content teachers
should teach. Furthermore, the principal stated, during her interview, her primary role was to
listen during GLMs. By listening to the teachers’ conversations, she gauged how they felt about
“the initiative or the topic that they were discussing.” She listened for the ways in which
teachers utilized data to examine both student learning and their teaching. She listened for
strategies used to teach particular content and the ones they agreed to deploy to reteach the
content. She also listened for connections teachers made between the effectiveness of the
strategies and students’ test scores. Her role was to listen and not to provide an infrastructure
that facilitated substantive conversations leading to critical reflection. In this respect, both her
presence and her role as listener clearly encouraged teachers to exchange resources instead of
facilitating rich conversations. The principal’s leadership practice was indicative of her targeting
first-order organizational change.
Corroborating the results indicating the principal and coach understood GLM time was
for teachers to acquire instructional strategies was the three GLTs’ interview data. Mr. Eric
stated the goal of their meetings was student tests scores and exchanging strategies. Teachers
met to plan strategies that would most likely improve student performance. Mr. Jake remarked
they talked about particular standards they needed to teach or continue teaching. They used the
time to find strategies to support teaching or reteaching a certain standard. Mrs. Liz commented
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 109
they mainly talked about curriculum; they discussed strategies and stories they had used or will
use to teach particular content. In conjunction with the GLM observation data, the teachers’
statements confirmed they knew what they spent their time on and that the time was to be spent
in that way.
Equally important is that teachers were left to their own devices to facilitate meetings,
and they chose to engage in superficial and procedural talk versus substantive conversations.
Mr. Eric stated in his interview, “So she’s [the principal] let us have a little bit more freedom
being able to kind of do our own meeting conduction.” In her third year working with this
grade-level team, the principal stopped regularly collecting the team’s agendas. Mr. Eric
explained she felt they carried out the meeting, set [the] agenda, planned lessons, and facilitated
discussions as “she had [somewhat] envisioned.” This statement suggested the way teachers
invested their time aligned with the principal’s directives. It also implied the principal
influenced the focus of teachers’ discussions and, to some extent, its quality. Nonetheless, the
principal gave them “freedom” to conduct their own meeting. Therefore, teachers had the option
to engage in critically reflective conversations and elected to engage in superficial and
procedural talk. This choice appeared to stem from their own accord or the way they had been
socialized into the profession. Mr. Jake’s interview transcript revealed the school had previously
invested resources for teachers to carry out a PLC seven-step model. This model had been in
place for “over nine years” now. However, neither his or the other participants mentioned
discourse protocols. This may suggest teachers had been socialized into facilitating a sequence
of steps and not into critically reflecting on their content and pedagogical practice and student
learning. If this were the case, then two out of the three teachers (Mr. Eric and Mr. Jake), the
coach, and the principal might have internalized the very nature of a PLC to be marked by
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 110
facilitating the meeting and not substantive conversations. Subsequently, teachers’ choice to
engage in “traditional” teacher talk reinforced learning as knowledge-for-practice. This concept
of learning was contrary to what the research says will create cognitive change and transform
teachers’ instructional practice. Still, it was up to the principal to provide teachers discourse
protocols to position them to engage in a different type of talk.
Along the same vein, the principal’s interview highlighted meeting times were intended
for teachers to prepare students to go to the next grade level and to “hit the marks [and] hit the
targets.” Underlying her statement was the implication she provided time for teachers to work
together to discuss effective instructional strategies to raise student achievement. This
implication was contrary to what Hargreaves and Shirley (2009) posit about student learning.
The scholars argue many instructional strategies neither change nor deepen student learning.
Nonetheless, the participants’ chose to discuss strategies to be deployed. The principal said
teachers were “to prepare students to go to the next grade level.” She implied students were
ready for the next grade when they met a proficiency level in English and math. The GLM
observations confirmed she and the three GLTs saw some type of relationship between the
students’ being proficient in these subjects and the strategies used to teach the content. The
coach’s interview further supported this implication:
What are the things that we’re doing...as teachers to make that [student learning] happen
and then if it’s not happening, what are we going to do differently?...Sometimes we need
to be reminded of using a strategy [we used] before and it was working and now we’ve
gone away from it. Examining assessments and assessment data, the evidence of the
teaching, I really should say, [student] learning that’s going on and then how the teaching
is affecting that positively or negatively.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 111
He suggested the teachers’ role was to foster student learning. If learning was not reflected on
student assessment data, then teachers reconsidered the strategies they used. Sometimes, they
recycled strategies that worked in the past. The statement “examining assessments and
assessment data, the evidence of the teaching” appeared to point to some type of association
between student performance outcomes and the quality of instruction. The coach then
expounded on his point, “I really should say, [student] learning that’s going on and then how the
teaching is affecting that positively or negatively.” Clarifying assessment data was the evidence
pointing to the extent to which students were learning. The level of learning was influenced by
instructional strategies. This affirmed he saw some type of relationship between strategies and
students’ proficiency level.
Moreover, Hargreaves and Shirley (2009) argue strategies may not necessarily help
students more closely connect content to their lives or ensure student learning is sustainable over
time. Given this, it is worth reconsidering teachers invest their time differently, since an
emphasis on strategies will not likely foster student learning. Strategies are not likely to help
students forge connections between new and existing knowledge. Neither are these in and of
themselves very likely to teach students how to learn. It is a pedagogical model of organized
activities and curricular resources that scaffolds students’ learning and deepens their
understanding.
The fact was the principal understood time to be a pre-condition of PL, but it was a first-
order element. It would not lead to creating and supporting a climate in which teachers engaged
in continuous learning and routinely shared this learning with others. Time was scheduled and
protected for teachers to discuss instructional strategies, plan lessons, and examine student data.
Her actions reflected less than full knowledge of what was needed to provide teachers with the
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 112
infrastructure to facilitate critical reflection. Her choices clearly targeted what Drago-Severson
(2012) calls a structural resource: the allocation of time for teachers to collaborate. While this
time to collaborate attempted to counter individualism, it also kept teachers locked in short-term
perspectives. Their focus was acquiring knowledge-for-practice as it was simple to employ,
readily accessible, and required short-term attention. The findings revealed GLTs felt the hour
and a half was not enough to discuss the multiple points included in the agenda. Teachers
engaged in “traditional” teacher talk at best. However, the quality of discourse matters in
creating opportunities for second-order change, as it is the tool used to support a critically
reflective practice that transforms teachers’ thinking patterns and instructional practice.
Teachers describe, justify, question, and challenge their instructional decisions. Instructional
choices are dissected in light of personal experiences, others’ input, teacher’s actions in
relationship to students’ academic needs, and the subject matter being taught. Ultimately, this
GLM structure of time was not likely to promote opportunities for teacher learning.
GLM Content. The principal also influenced the way teachers spent their time through
the GLM content. The content was identified in the agenda. The teachers had an agenda in
place and kept to the items as closely as possible, indicating they were intentional about what to
discuss at these meetings. It typically listed multiple discussion points with an emphasis on
language arts. This choice hindered the teachers from spending adequate time thoroughly
discussing any one subject. For example, three of the GLM agendas listed four items language
arts, writing, math and either English language learners or a miscellaneous item. On a couple of
occasions, the teachers scheduled more items on the agenda than they could cover in an hour and
a half. During one observation, the teachers briefly covered the first three out of four items. The
fourth item was moved to the next GLM. During another observation, the GLTs met with the
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 113
coach to examine the benchmark data. They spent approximately 40 minutes sorting data, 25
minutes discussing the English benchmark, and 10 minutes briefly skimming over the math
benchmark. The trend appeared to be the majority of time was focused on discussing language
arts. Teachers went over the 20 minutes allotted to it on the agenda and decreased the time spent
on the other subjects. Mr. Jake supported this notion in his interview by stating language arts
standards tended to be what GLTs primarily talked about. Teachers did not have sufficient time
to discuss all of the items and needed additional time to meet or to meet more frequently. This
was also supported by Mr. Jake’s comment, “We end up meeting more...meeting the extra time
to talk about the other subject area.” This pattern pointed to a need: teachers required focused
time to engage in substantive conversations about language arts and additional time to focus on
other subjects. The way the agenda was set up and enacted constrained the time teachers had to
discuss any one subject, reinforcing “traditional” teacher talk.
Supporting the point that the agenda was set up for teachers to facilitate the meeting was
the principal’s interview statement that teachers use the agenda as a tool and follow the meeting
protocol, “but really I think that the tools they use to influence their practice are the materials
that they gather.” The four norms printed on all agendas were to respect all ideas, share updates
and new ideas in our classrooms with other team members, keep to the schedule by staying on
task, and follow through on what the group decides. The principal implied the protocol was the
tool that guided teachers in using their time to superficially and procedurally cover multiple
discussion points. It guided teachers’ topics of conversation and interactions during meetings.
What she did not fully understand was that the current agenda setup hindered teachers from
taking up substantive conversations in any of the subjects. Without engaging in critical
reflection, teachers would not forge new instructional understanding that led to improving
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 114
instruction. The literature suggests teachers need focused time to critically reflect on one topic.
To achieve this, the agenda should target one subject. Teacher discussions are guided by
discourse protocols that help move them from basic technical reflection to critically reflective
conversations. The setup and enactment of this agenda was inconsistent with what the literature
posits stimulates second-order change. Teachers sharing updates or new ideas about what they
taught in language arts, writing, and math was not likely to foster PL. What was likely was that
this structure contributed to teachers looking to curriculum as a tool to influence their practice.
Furthermore, the principal’s actions reinforced the way the teachers set up and enacted
the agenda. The teachers’ choice to schedule four items limited them to briefly discussing each
one. Each item was allocated approximately 20 to 25 minutes. The principal’s following
statement spoke to this point:
I do ask for the agendas on a weekly basis and to get an idea of where they [teachers] are
and what they need...[to] support them...very often, they attach [common formative
assessments] CFAs to it to let me know their scores.
The implication was she saw the multiple discussion points when reading the agendas. The
absence of evidence suggested the principal provided teachers constructive feedback about the
layout of the agenda. She reinforced the way teachers set it up and enacted it. She collected the
agendas “to get an idea of where they are.” This statement suggested that the agenda was a
means of monitoring the content teachers delivered to students. The principal also collected
these “to get an idea of...what they need...[to] support them.” She supported teachers by carving
out and protecting time for them to meet. Equally important, she was willing to provide funding
to pay for instructional resources, as she mentioned, “That [funding] is one thing that’s easy for
me to offer...If they [teachers] want to buy resources to support their instruction, that’s also
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 115
offered.” The allocation of resources suggested she prioritized curriculum as a tool to influence
the way teachers delivered instruction. She made a resource available to teachers that would
directly affect curriculum and instruction. The principal’s choice also reinforced teachers’
looking to curriculum as a tool that influenced their practice.
In the latter part of the principal’s interview statement, she said, “they attach [common
formative assessments] CFAs to it to let me know their scores.” CFAs were developed by the
grade-level team and administered to all grade-level students after teachers spent time teaching a
particular content standard. According to the principal, “They’re [teachers] gifted in terms of
creating CFAs and using that as a resource to guide their instruction, to a better instruction, and
to improve instruction.” She suggested that the GLTs were skilled at developing these and using
them as an effective tool to gauge student performance. Based on the CFA scores, teachers
continued using instructional strategies that proved to work, modified these, or tried new ones
suggested by other GLTs, the coach, or the principal. Thus, the CFAs were considered an
indicator of student performance and teachers’ instructional choices. Collecting both the CFAs
and the agenda suggested that the principal gauged the degree to which teachers’ instructional
strategies positively affected student outcomes. In addition, she learned the extent to which the
time spent discussing particular content proved to positively affect student achievement.
Consequently, her actions influenced the way teachers spent their time through the GLM content
and reinforced the way they set up and enacted the agenda.
Revealed in the principal’s interview and observation data, the agenda was a tool to
facilitate the meeting and not necessarily to create opportunities for rich conversations that lead
to new understanding about content-related or pedagogical practice. The agenda was a structural
resource set up and carried out by the GLTs and reinforced by the principal as a first-order
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 116
element that was not likely to develop teachers’ instructional skills and knowledge. The
principal’s role as an instructional leader was to manage structural and financial resources to
influence curriculum, instruction, and student performance outcomes. Therefore, and as
previously mentioned, her actions indicated a superficial level of understanding of PL that
prevented her from taking action that fully supports PL.
GLM Coach. Similar to the other GLM structures, the principal set up the coach’s role
as a structural resource to directly influence curriculum and instruction. His role was to facilitate
meetings, teacher interactions, tasks, and resources, and not necessarily to facilitate critically
reflective conversations leading to PL. His role was in line with the fact that teachers did not
receive tools to support an alternative way of talking during GLMs. The absence of these tools
suggested the principal did not understand what was necessary to go from traditional teacher talk
to substantive discourse that creates cognitive change.
The literature agrees that structures supporting effective PD need to aim at improving
instruction and engaging teachers in discourse that fosters reflective processes. This section
expounds on the second condition as it pertains to this theme. For PL to occur, teachers must
engage in rich conversations to analyze the relationships among observing expert teachers
(Desimone, 2009; Garet et al., 2001), the outcome of new planned and enacted lessons (Garet et
al., 2001), and student work (Desimone, 2009; Garet et al., 2001). If teachers carry out some of
these tasks but do not critically reflect on their outcomes and intersections, their efforts will not
lead to new instructional skills and knowledge. To critically reflect, teachers must grapple with
real issues related to content, instructional choices, and student learning (Wei et al., 2009).
Comparing the principal’s actions to the literature, she positioned the coach as a first-order
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 117
element. This choice implied she was not sufficiently knowledgeable about what it takes to set
up the coach to facilitate critically reflective conversations.
Set up as a first-order element, the coach’s role was likely executed to regularize
teachers’ actions for the duration of the task at hand (Garet et al., 2001). The principal’s
calendar and observation data demonstrated the coach was present at three meetings. He worked
with teachers to examine student assessment data during two of these. As noted in the
observation data, he guided the meeting by moving teachers from one discussion point to
another. He elicited teachers’ feedback on the instructional strategies used to teach particular
content standards. It appeared that he did this to gauge the extent to which these strategies
positively affected student achievement. He executed his role in ways contrary to that of a coach
whose focus is on developing teachers’ instructional practice. A coach positioned to do this
facilitates in-depth discussions (Heckman & Montera, 2009; Putman & Borko, 2000),
encourages teacher reflection (Heckman & Montera, 2009), instructs teachers on how to design
lesson plans (Heckman & Montera, 2009), and models new teaching practices (Heckman &
Montera, 2009; Putman & Borko, 2000). Discourse is the tool used to foster PL, and it is
through structured dialogue and guidance of the coach that teachers take responsibility for their
own learning and are forthcoming about their thinking patterns, assumptions, and actions when
solving problems of practice or creating innovative ideas.
The principal described the coach’s role as facilitator and resource for teachers.
Confirming he was positioned to directly influence curriculum and instruction, she stated, “His
role is more of, again, facilitating, being a resource for teachers...He guides them so that they
stay on task...His role is to support teachers in the classroom with grade-level meetings and
providing access to literature [and] to pedagogy.” The statement implied she positioned his role
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 118
as a structure to facilitate a meeting versus in-depth discussions. He was a “resource for
teachers” in the sense that he shared his instructional knowledge. The coach mentioned he
shared his knowledge about inquiry with teachers to deliver more student-centered instruction.
Both the principal and coach revealed Mr. Eric and Mr. Jake made inquiry-related strategies
suggested by the coach an integral part of their instruction. The coach also supported teachers in
the classroom by providing them access “to literature [and] to pedagogy” during GLMs. In his
interview, he spoke of pairing inquiry with Junior Grade Books and primary sources to deliver
student-centered instruction. Moreover, this part of the principal’s statement confirmed she
prioritized curricular materials, not discourse protocols, as a tool to directly influence instruction.
She gave teachers a coach to facilitate access to these materials to influence their instruction.
Similarly, she provided access to instructional materials through funding, yet her
conceptualization of PL impeded her from setting up his role to be more than a structural support
to enact first-order organizational change.
Along the same vein, she elaborated on what she meant by facilitating a meeting by
stating, “He’s facilitating the process of the lesson study. The behaviors of a group. What’s
okay to say and what’s not okay to say and being respectful and establishing the norms.” This
statement suggested the coach facilitated the process of a lesson study by enacting the
established norms. A lesson study involved the coach and teachers designing a lesson by using
the lesson plan template. As previously discussed, the agenda norms were designed to guide the
groups’ interactions and not to support rich instructional conversations. Leading to the
principal’s next comment, the coach facilitated the group’s behaviors, “what’s okay to say and
what’s not” along with the teachers “being respectful.” He assisted the group in understanding
and using selected protocols that guided the manner in which he and the teachers conducted their
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 119
interactions and communicated their ideas. In this respect, the principal’s choice to position his
role as structural support reinforced the notion her aim was to directly influence curriculum and
instruction rather than to develop teachers’ instructional skills and knowledge.
Thus far, the principal’s actions suggested she understood the coach’s role to sustain first-
order change. He was a facilitator of meetings, teacher interactions, tasks, and resources whose
actions contributed to influencing curriculum and instruction. However, from what the research
on effective professional development argues will foster PL, the way the principal positioned the
coach was lacking in that he also needed to be a facilitator of critically reflective discourse. Still,
she alluded to her having some understanding that the coach’s role could be enacted to serve as
more than a structural support. It had the potential to build teachers’ instructional skills and
knowledge. It also suggested she was aware of some of the essential tasks necessary for the
coach to foster PL. She mentioned, “He’s...facilitating how they [teachers] would design a
lesson and then goes into a classroom and practice that lesson and then comes back and reflects
on the lesson.” This statement most likely stemmed from the coach’s facilitating a set of
activities at the beginning of the academic year. Although these activities took place prior to this
study, the results presented herein can be indicative of how the coach previously facilitated a
lesson design emphasizing student inquiry. The remark, “he’s facilitating how they would
design a lesson,” implied the principal positioned the coach to deploy two tools to facilitate a
student inquiry lesson plan: the agenda norms, which were already in place when she started her
position as principal, and the lesson plan template she introduced. As previously discussed, the
agenda norms guided the manner in which the coach and the teachers conducted interactions and
communicated ideas. The lesson plan template was a pedagogical tool used to directly affect the
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 120
quality of curriculum and instruction. Subsequently, the principal positioned the coach’s role to
enact these tools to foster first-order change.
The discussion focuses on the pedagogical tool the coach and the teachers used to “design
a lesson.” This section discusses this pedagogical tool as a direct teaching model, its purpose,
and its implications for the participant’s role and teacher learning. Although he called it “a
lesson-design template,” it had the components of a direct teaching model. The coach described
it as having “the objective, student friendly teaching points, modeling, guided practice,
independent practice, and assessment.” By design, it had two intended purposes. Instruction
was to be heavily guided by the teacher, and it provided a teaching structure to support students
in acquiring foundational skills in English, writing, and math.
Presented next is an example illustrating the implications of using this direct teaching
model template for the role of the coach and teachers and teacher learning. What was
noteworthy about this meeting was that the participants’ roles were naturally set up and enacted
as intended by the design of this pedagogical tool. Equally important, teachers mirrored the
actions and type of learning modeled by the coach and reinforced by this pedagogical tool. At
one of the GLM observations, the coach and teachers planned a student inquiry lesson using this
template. To start, the coach was positioned as the content expert. He remarked, “I’ve been
using inquiry strategies for a while. I am a mentor with the Library of Congress...using primary
sources.” This suggested he had been effectively using inquiry strategies and, thus, he was
positioned as a mentor capable of guiding others in this process. The coach modeled the concept
of inquiry as a strategy and that inquiry was a tool to facilitate classroom communication.
Inquiry was not an exploratory process that engaged students in self-directed learning. The
coach’s statement “to help them [students] go deeper” implied students engaged in class
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 121
discussions with other students about the text by practicing asking and responding to the
questions modeled by the teachers. Mr. Eric provided his students with sentence frames as a
scaffold to foster student discussions. Through the interview, Mr. Eric explained student
discussions became less about ”finding the right answers” to questions and more about students
engaging in discussions where it was okay to agree and disagree about stories and their
classmate’s thought on these stories. The principal confirmed students were “very thoughtful in
the questions that they’re asking and they’re responding to each other.” Students engaged in
discussions by asking and answering questions, suggesting they were more confident in their
ideas. Still, it appeared the coach modeled “student inquiry” as a strategy to facilitate
discussions. It did not appear that inquiry was used to help students generate and answer higher-
order thinking questions. Consequently, the coach chose to focus on instructional strategies and
not on teachers improving their skills to enable students to learn at deeper levels and offer
teachers insight into their thinking processes.
In addition, it was the coach’s role to guide teachers through the implications and the
scaffolding process behind generating and answering lower versus higher order thinking
questions. From a Bloom’s (2001) taxonomy perspective, questions are generated to target a
desired higher-order cognitive skill. Then, additional lower-order thinking questions are
generated to scaffold students’ thinking process and, thus, thoroughly answer the original
question. There was no evidence to indicate the coach or the teachers focused on scaffolding
cognitive skills. Data revealed the coach introduced the idea of inquiry as a strategy. Teachers
deployed a set of questions to encourage students to share their ideas, and the students acquired
and practiced these to engage with the text and with each other.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 122
Furthermore, his role was to heavily guide the instruction as a content expert. He stated,
“I...help them [teachers] develop a lesson.” The implication was he provided teachers with
instructional suggestions. During the GLM observation, he offered teachers examples of
connections they might use to activate prior knowledge. He suggested teachers chart the
questions students had when reading through each paragraph of the story. The observation data
and the copy of the lesson plan from that meeting revealed the coach provided “follow up
questions to help them [the students] go deeper with their thinking.” He generated the questions
teachers would ask students to engage them in a short discussion. Given this evidence, the
coach’s role was ultimately to be a “resource for teachers.”
This type of instruction reinforced Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1999) conceptualization
of knowledge-for-practice, which positions teachers as novice and passive learners acquiring a
foundational skill. Knowledge-for-practice reinforces cognitive patterns and does not position
teachers to co-construct knowledge by engaging in critically reflective discourse. According to
Mr. Jake, the coach “had been really good about...really talking about what he would do and
what we [teachers] can do in the classroom.” The coach helped when he offered instructional
suggestions. As the expert, he passed on information positioning the GLTs as passive learners.
The evidence pointed to the implications of the direct teaching model template for the coach’s
and teachers’ actions and type of learning. The expert teacher heavily guided instruction while
teachers were consumers of knowledge passively learning. There was a disconnect between the
conditions afforded to students through the design of this tool and modeled actions and what was
necessary for students to co-construct knowledge and gain deeper understanding.
The next part of the principal’s statement, the coach “goes into a classroom and practices
the lesson,” implied he played some role in facilitating the process of modeling the lesson. The
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 123
coach’s interview revealed Mr. Eric was the one who modeled this lesson, and Mr. Jake’s
interview confirmed “we went and saw one of our peers teach a lesson on shared inquiry.” From
a teaching and learning point, the literature advocates for the coach to model new teaching
practices. He was the expert in developing and teaching inquiry lessons using primary sources.
He confirmed this by stating, “I’ve been practicing [inquiry] with my students for the past few
years.” Also, teaching an inquiry lesson using primary sources was a new instructional practice
for the grade-level team. Modeling a lesson would position him as a facilitator of learning rather
than of tasks and processes. Two out of the three teachers showed a clear interest in learning
from the coach modeling a lesson. Mrs. Liz agreed the coach “is almost like a pro at it [inquiry
and primary source lessons].” She was asking for a more knowledgeable other to assist her in
achieving the next step in her learning. Although Mrs. Liz “had done primary source lessons,” it
was because of his instructional expertise that she “would like to see how he’d lead the lesson
and learn from it.” This implied she wanted to learn by comparing the way the content expert
taught a primary source lesson to the way she taught it. Mr. Jake also attested to the coach’s
expertise saying, the coach was “so good with it [inquiry].” He would like “a little bit
more...help with that [writing in shared inquiry].” These statements suggested Mr. Jake was
willing to learn from the coach. He was aware of an area he needed to learn, and he was asking
for the coach to help him better understand writing in shared inquiry. During a GLM
observation, Mr. Jake asked the coach, “Are you coming to show us how to do it?” The
observation data was not clear on what particular lesson Mr. Jake wanted modeled, but it can be
inferred it was an inquiry lesson. Mr. Jake was asking for the assistance of the content expert to
scaffold his learning.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 124
The last part of the principal’s comment, the coach “comes back and reflects on the
lesson,” suggested he facilitated a substantive conversation after the lesson was modeled by Mr.
Eric. Schön (1983) posits teachers engage in reflection-on-action and reflection-in-action.
Learning is guided by teachers asking questions about real issues related to content, instructional
choices, and student learning after and while teaching the lesson. If teachers analyze these issues
deep enough to foster critical reflection, then the analysis will likely lead to a reflective cycle.
Teachers strategize steps to improve instruction, carry out these steps, and reflect on their actions
again which is likely to lead to new questions and improved understanding. Schön’s (1983)
concept of reflection is absent from this study’s results. Mr. Jake described the moment after
observing Mr. Eric model a lesson as, “we debriefed it and we were able to improve.” The
principal and Mr. Jake used language such as “reflect,” “debrief,” and “improve,” which alluded
to teachers engaging in some type of reflection that had the potential to foster PL. This language
projected a set of assumptions contrary to what the data revealed they were reflecting, debriefing,
and improving. At the same time, the use of this language suggested the coach and teachers
valued planning a lesson together, having it modeled, and being able to talk about the modeled
lesson. However, the way they carried out these activities differed from what the research posits
will foster PL. They saw these activities as opportunities to learn from a knowledge-for-practice
stance which differed from what research argues will foster PL.
To increase the likelihood teachers experience PL, the principal sets up the conditions for
teachers to improve instruction, and engage in discourse practices fostering reflective process.
Teachers who engage in critically reflective discourse transform cognitive patterns (Cochran-
Smith & Lytle, 1999; Putman & Borko, 2000; Rodgers, 2002; Schön, 1983; Valli, 1997) leading
to changes in instructional practice. There was no evidence indicating teachers debriefed by
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 125
engaging in reflective conversations that analyzed the relationships among the new lesson plan,
observing the coach model a lesson, the outcome of the enacted lesson, and student work. Going
through a set of activities was not enough and not very likely to improve teacher practice, as
teachers needed to engage in critical reflection by grappling with real issues related to content,
instructional choices, and student learning (Wei et al., 2009). Critically reflective discourse is
the tool teachers use to construct new understanding and improve instruction.
This was not to say the teachers and the coach did not value these activities. Their
actions demonstrated teachers were well intended, asked for help, and took steps to learn. It was
the assumptions underlying the language used by the participants, their existing understanding of
learning as knowledge-for-practice, and their choice not to engage in critically reflective
discourse that kept them locked in a culture of presentism. Their choices were indicative of
short-term perspectives. They looked to acquire proven-to-work strategies that resulted in
immediately increasing student performance outcomes. These factors prevented them from
experiencing cognitive dissonance leading to cognitive change and changes in practice. Without
the principal fully understanding the critical role discourse plays in PL and the need for proper
tools to facilitate this, it was not likely the role of the coach would foster growth in teachers’
instructional skills and knowledge.
Summary of Research Question Two
The principal’s actions suggested she understood PL as knowledge-for-practice instead of
learning as co-constructing new understanding through critically reflective discourse. This
conceptualization of learning influenced her providing structural support to foster first- versus
second-order organizational change. The GLM structures were set up to coordinate the
curriculum, supervise teacher instruction, and improve student outcomes. Substantive discourse
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 126
was the missing tool and the one necessary to afford teachers with the opportunity to build
instructional skills and knowledge. The principal providing teachers with structural support
suggested she had some understanding of the pre-conditions for PL. Still, her conceptualization
prevented her actions from fully supporting second-order change. Ultimately, GLM structures
were set up as first-order elements that were not likely to create opportunities for PL and changes
in practice.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 127
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH
This study analyzed the role of teacher discourse and structural support provided by the
principal in fostering PL and changes in practice during GLMs. Given that PL is the lived
experience of teachers collaboratively deconstructing their content-related and pedagogical
practice, surfacing and challenging assumptions related to it, and constructing new understanding
about their practice, this study focused on discourse as a tool to foster critically reflective
practice. Critically reflective discourse increases the likelihood of cognitive change leading to
changes in practice. Principals need the leadership skills and knowledge to create and foster
teachers’ PL. This requires providing them structural and financial and other support. Teachers
need tools that facilitate critically reflective discourse leading to PL.
A qualitative case study methodology was employed to answer the research questions on
how the quality of teacher discourse shapes, sustains or supports PL and changes in practice
during GLMs and the extent to which the principal influences GLM structural factors to foster
opportunities for PL that lead to changes in practice. To answer these questions, GLM
observation and interview data was collected at Northshore Elementary. Pseudonyms for the
school, the principal, the coach, and the three GLTs were created to ensure anonymity. All
observation data was scripted and all interview data was transcribed and analyzed using an
inductive approach. This final chapter is a culmination of insights gained as a result of this
study. This chapter is organized as follows: summary of findings for the first research question,
summary of findings for the second research question, implications for practice, and
recommendations for future research.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 128
Summary of Findings for Research Question One
The findings related to the first research question revealed the ways the GLT at
Northshore Elementary engaged in instructional conversations during GLMs. When the findings
were compared to what the research literature posits will likely generate PL, GLM conversations
were not likely to do so. Horn and Little (2010) argue “the generative of group discourse cannot
be attributed to the individual teachers’ personal or professional disposition.” That is, in the case
of this grade-level team, the quality of discourse and the teachers’ not taking up substantive
conversations cannot be presumed to be an outcome of teachers’ not being willing to engage in
such conversations or capable of taking up a different type of talk with the right support. Horn
and Little (2010) state teacher-generated discourse “should be seen as resulting from each
groups’ collective orientation and its contextual resources and constraints,” meaning the way
teachers do or do not take up substantial conversations is influenced by multiple external factors.
These factors were not discussed in this study as these were beyond its scope.
Pervasive across observation and interview data, teachers described content as teaching
strategies (Valli, 1997), and this understanding contributed to the superficial and procedural
conversations. They closed off investigation of their content-related and pedagogical practice.
Conversational moves consisted of the absence of a response, reassuring comment, instructional
advice, and transitional statements and questions. The findings demonstrated teachers’
conversations did not deconstruct their practice or assess students’ understanding before
suggesting and instructional strategy. Their understanding of content as teaching strategies was
one factor that hindered them from engaging in critically reflective discourse that would likely
generate learning.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 129
Furthermore, the teachers’ actions revealed their perception of PL as knowledge-for-
practice. Teachers discussed instructional strategies and resources that were simple to employ,
readily accessible, required short-term attention, and had proven effective, although these would
not deepen students’ understanding of the content (Hargreaves and Shirley, 2009). GLM
conversations reinforced teachers’ existing cognitive patterns rather than positioning them to
construct new understanding. The frequency of particular conversational moves, including lack
of substantive conversations and the lack of appropriate tools to facilitate rich conversations
contributed to reinforcing teachers’ schemata.
One observation revealed the GLTs’ effort to facilitate a more in-debt conversation.
However, there were no conversational moves that encouraged teachers to articulate knowledge
that was tacit and taken for granted. Their conversational moves did not support content,
instructional choices, and student learning. Teachers needed specific tools to help them develop
the necessary skills and knowledge to engage in rich conversations: discourse protocols and
someone who knows how to use them. Without these tools, it was not very likely they would
engage in open and honest conversations about teaching and learning or articulate taken for
granted information. To conclude this section, the quality of discourse, its enacted purpose, and
the existing pattern of conversational moves pervasive during GLMs were not likely to generate
PL and changes in practice.
Summary of Findings for Research Question Two
Second-order organizational change aims at developing teachers’ instructional skills and
knowledge through critical reflection (Hallinger, 2003). As a result of a critically reflective
practice, teachers’ experience cognitive change leading to changes in practice and improving
student learning. In contrast, first-order organizational change aims at influencing the conditions
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 130
directly affecting the quality of curriculum and the delivery of instruction. However, it is not
likely to create and foster PL opportunities. The principal at Northshore Elementary desired to
provide teachers support for improving student learning. She provided professional development
by setting up structural support. The implication of this choice was that she clearly had some
understanding of what it took to create and foster the pre-conditions for teachers to learn.
However, the GLM structures were first-order elements. It also suggested she understood PL as
the acquisition of information and created opportunities for teachers to reinforce a knowledge-for
practice paradigm. The principal’s conceptualization of PL hindered her from translating what
she knew into actions that provided teachers with what was necessary to foster substantive
conversations. Missing from teachers’ conversations was critically reflective discourse. A
structure within the GLM time and tools were needed to support higher quality discourse that
would foster PL. Thus, the principal’s notion of PL prevented her from creating and fostering
conditions that fully supported teachers’ efforts to learn.
Implications and Recommendations
There is much that can be drawn from this study’s findings and used to inform
approaches to practice, policy, and research. This section presents both implications and
recommendations in relation to each area. Each area starts with a discussion, followed by the
implications that can and should inform what we think about PL and leadership practice and
concludes with recommendations that complement or extend this study.
Practice
The findings suggest a number of notions to be explored in the areas of PL and leadership
practice. Discussed in this section are implications for these notions and a number of
recommendations. First, it was evident the principal and teachers took actions and made choices
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 131
consistent with their understanding of what their own learning should look like. They were
located in a traditional knowledge-for-practice paradigm. As a result, the principal, through her
actions, reinforced the teachers’ choice to acquire instructional knowledge in the form of
strategies. Learning as knowledge-for-practice reinforced existing cognitive patterns; it did not
modify schemata or create a new one. Thus, the way teachers thought about teaching and
learning remained constant, and, therefore, their instruction did as well. The implication is that
the way principals and teachers define PL dictates the kind of learning experience teachers will
have when they come together to improve their teaching and/or students’ opportunities to learn.
If learning is understood as the acquisition of information rather than the co-construction of new
ideas, teachers will inadvertently deny themselves PL that can transform content-related and
pedagogical practice. Therefore, I recommend that teachers be afforded opportunities to expand
their conceptualization of PL, to move from knowledge-for-practice to knowledge-of-practice
paradigms as suggested by Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999).
A knowledge-of-practice paradigm positions teachers as active, self-directed learners
invested in taking ownership of their own learning and improving content-related and
pedagogical practice. Within this paradigm, teachers systematically inquire about how their
practice constructs different learning opportunities. They engage in small-scale classroom
studies by positing questions grounded in their particular, day-to-day classroom situations.
Teachers draw on classroom data to ensure all students improve their understanding by thinking,
debating, and writing about complex ideas. Classroom data consists of, but is not limited to,
student work and their responses to and interactions with the learning opportunity,
documentation about teachers’ adaptations during the lesson, and the extent to which students
engaged in higher-order thinking skills. Once teachers think about their own learning in new and
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 132
different ways, it is plausible for them to approach their own learning differently with the aim to
design and deliver instruction in ways that increases student learning. They also need the proper
support to shift from one learning paradigm to another. For example, principals provide teachers
with tools and time to learn how to engage in classroom research and systematic inquiry. These
tools allow teachers to take up critically reflective discourse to deconstruct, investigate, and
ruminate over their teaching practice and students’ understanding. If teachers can shift
paradigms, they will approach learning in a new and different ways that will lead to new thinking
patterns and new instructional choices and actions.
Second, from a leadership perspective, it is clear the principal aptly provided first-order
change elements. These elements are absolutely necessary components of the pre-conditions for
PL. However, it is also essential that principals facilitate the second-order change processes to
change the organization’s normative culture (Slayton & Mathis, 2010). Second-order change is a
long-term process refined over time. As discussed above, the principal did not understand PL in
knowledge-in or -of-practice ways and was unable to create and support opportunities for rich
teacher learning. Consequently, while the principal did want her teachers engaged in
professional development that would lead to improved student learning, she was not able to
translate that desire into actions that fostered PL. She was also not able to accomplish the goal
she set for herself—to improve student learning. The implication that can be drawn from this
case study is that principals are powerful factors in ensuring the proper conditions for teacher
learning. However, in general, principals do not possess the leadership skills and knowledge to
positively influence student learning (Camburn et al., 2003; Cravens et al., 2007). As a result,
their actions directly influence curriculum and instruction to gain immediate increases in student
outcomes. This is in contrast to principals creating and fostering rich opportunities for teachers
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 133
to develop into more powerful practitioners. The recommendation is that principals also need
help and the proper support to create conditions that foster adult learning.
Policy
The findings provide a number of implications for federal policy. The principal’s choices
and actions were indicative of her knowing her job responsibilities included providing teachers
professional development opportunities. Her approach was to provide structural and financial
support for the teachers to discuss instructional matters. While this type of support established
pre-conditions for PL, additional and different types of support need to be in place to help
teachers investigate and deconstruct their practice.
Race to the Top, an educational reform effort, set the expectation that principals must
provide opportunities for teachers to improve their practice. Race to the Top posits that the
following conditions will improve teachers’ instructional skills and knowledge: data-informed
professional development, relevant coaching, and common planning and collaboration time to
improve and differentiate instruction designed to improve student learning outcomes (US
Department of Education, 2009). However, it does not outline support for leader development in
creating and fostering these conditions in ways that change schools’ normative cultures. To
change normative culture, conditions must support rich discourse or inquiry as a tool to change
cognitive patterns and, thus, teacher practice. The lack of definition at the policy level translates
into a lack of quality support at the state and district level. As a consequence, principals do not
have access to the necessary support to develop their leadership skills and knowledge.
The implication is that principals are expected to meet the expectations of their roles
despite not being positioned to create and foster PL opportunities for teachers. Policy attaches
this responsibility to principals’ leadership role, but this task requires them to change their
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 134
organization’s normative culture. Much of what Slayton and Mathis (2010) argue is that
educational leadership programs need to teach more than a conceptual understanding of what and
how factors translate into practice to aspiring leaders. It is necessary to set expectations and
provide opportunities for aspiring principals to engage in their own PL before expecting them to
do the same for their teachers. Moreover, Slayton and Mathis (2010) posit aspiring leaders need
to be present, create positive learning conditions, and teach adults to change their schools’
normative culture. It is only by being present or having an awareness of and the ability to
respond to what is happening that principals are more likely to understand the implications of
learning paradigms such as knowledge-for, -in, and -of practice. Once future leaders think about
adult learning in new and different ways, they will be more likely to design positive learning
conditions. Creating positive learning conditions requires the expectation that adults engage in
critically reflective discourse. Teaching adults starts with learning more about andragogy, a
framework for adult learning, and recognizing that the behaviors principals model are mirrored
by teachers. Although difficult work, allowing aspiring leaders to develop their ability to be
present, create positive learning conditions, and teach adults will ensure principals are better
equipped to meet the expectations associated with their role.
I suggest policy makers rethink the current expectations of principals and the extent to
which principals are capable of enacting second-order change. In addition, policy should detail
appropriate measures for supporting principals in developing their instructional skills and
knowledge. I also recommend educational leadership programs create real-life opportunities for
principals to practice and reflect on presence, building learning conditions, and adult learning.
For example, principals can participate in an internship and a mentoring or induction program
designed to support them in their efforts to develop teachers. While this requires re-
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 135
conceptualizing the role of the public school principal, it is needed to position principals to
change their schools’ normative cultures because doing so requires creating change at the
individual level.
Research
Given the findings revealed in this case study, I present implications for future research
and recommendations for facilitating PL opportunities and leadership practice. This study
provided a snapshot of what PL and leadership practice looked like at an elementary school
whose participants embodied learning as knowledge-for-practice. The elementary team of GLTs
engaged in conversations about instructional strategies and curricular resources. These
discussions were consistent with what teachers own learning should look like. The principal
provided structural support for teachers to engage in instructional conversations to improve
student learning. Providing structural support to foster PL is also consistent with learning
through the acquisition of information. The findings revealed that teachers did not experience
deep levels of learning leading to changes in practice. This is in spite of their best effort to meet
regularly to discuss instructional matters. The implication is that additional types of support are
needed for teachers to develop the skills and knowledge to engage in conversations that generate
PL and changes in practice.
To complement and extend the work of this study, I present several recommendations for
future research to contribute to how public school teachers’ skills and knowledge are developed
to engage in critically reflective discourse. First, researchers should continue exploring the role
teacher education programs play in providing opportunities for critically reflective discourse.
Specifically, research should look into how inquiry and structured discourse are utilized to teach
aspiring teachers to define common terms such as learning, describe how they see themselves as
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 136
teachers; consider assumptions about teaching and learning, and analyze student work and
assessment data. If teachers practice talking about teaching and learning and articulating that
which is implicit or taken for granted, they are more likely to utilize this skill while teaching.
They will become more effective teachers as they investigate their own classroom practice.
Second, researchers should investigate professional opportunities that engage teachers in
deeper learning cycles. Rodgers (2002) proposes a reflective cycle grounded in Dewey’s
concept of reflection as a tool to help teachers learn to be more cognizant of student learning.
The underpinnings of this reflective cycle are in line with Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1999)
conceptualization of knowledge-of-practice where teacher learning is ignited by questions that
arise from their daily classroom experiences. This cycle of reflection allows teachers to
experience deeper levels of learning leading to new understanding and changes in practice.
Hence, there is a need to investigate and expose what transformative learning looks like and what
it takes to foster it at schools. It is important for practitioners to understand and experience
learning through different paradigms. This way, they can prove for themselves that engaging in
deeper levels of learning leads to transforming how they think about teaching and learning and
improving instruction.
Third, it would be interesting to conduct principal observations to better understand why
they conceptualize PL as they do and plausible reasons underlying their choice to target first-
rather than second-order change. Principal observations would also generate deeper insights into
the support they need to create and foster teachers’ PL. In addition, principal meeting
observations would reveal the type of and level of support provided to them by the school
district. This recommendation complements the one proposed in the policy section. It is as
important for principals to acquire the skills to teach adults and to foster conditions where adults
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 137
learn through critical reflection as it is for teachers to develop the skills and knowledge necessary
to engage in substantive discussions.
The final recommendation speaks to corroborating the analysis of this study. Researchers
should extend the work of this study by conducting school-wide observations and lengthening
the duration of the field work to other public elementary schools. School wide-observations
include studying additional contexts where PL opportunities might exist: multiple grade-level
teams, vertical articulation meetings, school leadership meetings, and general school meetings.
A holistic picture of school-wide PL opportunities would reveal the extent to which the culture
of public schools fosters or constraints PL opportunities for both the principal and the teachers.
This study was a start to exploring PL and leadership skills and knowledge. However, there is
still much more work to be done to complement and extend the work completed here.
Conclusion
In conclusion, although the findings suggest the participants put forth a solid effort to
meet their goal of improving student learning, there were pervasive challenges confronting them.
These challenges are not limited to this school, but are embedded in the general culture of public
school teaching. Specifically, presentism, conservatism, and individualism prevent principals
and teachers from improving teaching and learning in new and different ways (Lortie, 1975 as
cited in Hargraves & Shirley, 2009). The combination of any of these characteristics, as these do
not exist in isolation, is one of the most significant impediments to student learning. It prevents
teachers from examining their practice in light of their and others’ point of view and from fully
understanding the implications their instruction has on student learning (Hargraves & Shirley,
2009).
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 138
Lortie presented a fundamental argument that continues to be seen in our public schools
today (as cited in Hargraves & Shirley, 2009). Presentism, conservatism, and individualism are
so pervasive in public schools that these influence the choices educators make, keep them
focused on short-term perspectives, and ultimately prevent them from improving student learning
(Hargraves & Shirley, 2009). Considering this fundamental point helps better explain and to see
a more holistic picture of this study’s findings. The findings suggested the participants were
hard working individuals who made choices they felt necessary to improve student learning. The
principal invested resources to foster first-order elements. The teachers were invested in creating
and keeping to the agenda and utilizing the meeting time to plan or discuss student assessment
scores. It is not easy to establish and foster first-order elements (B. Ermeling, personal
communication, May 7, 2015). It requires the principal and teachers to be intentional and
strategic about their choices and actions. While it is necessary for first-order elements to be in
place, alone, these are not enough for the disruption of established instructional practices
(Hallinger, 2003). Second-order change occurs when teachers develop their instructional skills
and knowledge (Hallinger, 2003) through critically reflective discourse (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
1999; Putman & Borko, 2000; Rodgers, 2002). If knowledge is not co-constructed, new
cognitive patterns are not formed and PL and changes in practice will not occur.
Given Lortie’s argument, I propose our public school system is not set up to fully support
individual principals in improving learning at both the teacher and student level. This is difficult
work as it requires principals to possess the knowledge and skills to go beyond setting up
structural factors to create and support a collaborative normative culture (Slayton & Mathis,
2010). To achieve this goal, Slayton and Mathis (2010) argue educational leadership programs
need to teach more than a conceptual understanding of what and how structural factors translate
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 139
into practice. It is necessary for these programs to engage aspiring leaders in their own PL and
to focus on developing their ability to be present, create positive learning conditions, and teach
adults to change their schools’ normative culture. Changing the normative culture of public
schools is difficult work given the set of pervasive challenges presented by Lortie (1975). Still, I
propose this type of second-order change is a long-term endeavor that is refined with time. It
requires additional and different type of support to help principals investigate and deconstruct
their practice in ways that lead to improved teaching and learning.
Little (2002, 2003) attests there is a collective body of research that posits the conditions
for improving teaching and learning are fortified when teachers collectively engage in
conversations where they question teaching routines, find generative means to acknowledge and
respond to difference and conflict, investigate new conceptualizations of teaching and learning,
and engage actively in supporting one another’s professional growth. However, there is
relatively little research that investigates the specific conversations, interactions, and dynamics
that take place within a PLC focusing on teachers’ daily work. While undertaking such a
detailed approach to research might be considered complex, it would yield a plethora of
information on how teachers describe and represent their day-to-day practice outside the
classroom and how those conversations constitute resources for teacher learning.
Nonetheless, the conversation about what constitutes PL has been ongoing, and we seem
to still be at a standstill when it comes to pinpointing what makes a PLC a resource for teacher
learning. Little (2002) argues PLCs are designed from two stand points: learning from our work
and we are doing well, which is an intervention approach. To determine the difference, we look
at how conversations are taken up or not, the transformation of the conversation over time, and
the contributions of the other participants as the episode unfolds. Adult learning outcomes will
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 140
differ depending on the premise of the PLC model (Little, 2002). We saw that the findings and
evidence in this study did not reveal the kinds of discourse that foster genuine opportunities for
teachers to deconstruct their practice and learn from their teaching. However, the evidence also
suggested that, in that moment, the teachers did not have the skills and knowledge to work in
another way. This study was a snap shot of the group’s collective knowledge and skills for
articulating knowledge that was taken for granted, acknowledging and describing classroom
situations, and responding to differences. The evidence was not necessarily reflective of what
the individual teachers would be able to accomplish given adequate conditions.
Ermeling (2013) argues PLCs play a pivotal role in fostering opportunities for teacher
learning, but only when their structure and content is re-conceptualized to provide teachers with
a roadmap to guide their collaborative work. Along with standards, teachers must be afforded
resources, tools, and time to modify classroom practice. The collaboration time in GLMs should
be guided by trained teacher-facilitators and should include a protocol to help teachers think
through critical questions about teaching and learning. He proposes that most PLC models focus
on some version of four questions: what do students need to know and be able to do? How will
we know when they have learned it? What will we do when they haven’t learned it? What will
we do when they already know it? While these are important aspects of teaching and learning,
there is a question missing between 2 and 3. The critical, instructional question is how to teach
this well so that all students learn. To fully answer this question, the PLC must operate as a
setting where teachers figure things out rather than get things done. This requires that teachers
engage in reflection focused on a basic teaching cycle of planning, teaching, assessing, and
reflecting. Such a cycle allows principals and teachers to make the necessary connections
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 141
between unpacking standards, designing assessments, analyzing student work, and reflecting on
assessment results.
Furthermore, Lortie (2003) argues PLCs that focus on figuring things out reserve meeting
time to identify and examine problems of practice. Teachers openly disclose uncertainties and
invite comments, questions, and feedback, and artifacts of classroom practice are made
accessible and are part of the conversations. In all of these ways, the group displays its
dispositions and habits of engaging in critically reflective discourse. While the principal at
Northshore Elementary saw and talked about her school as a PLC, the findings and evidence did
not reveal opportunities for teachers to develop their instructional knowledge and skills.
Although the teachers met during the scheduled times, kept to their agenda items, exchanged
resources, and had a coach, the PLC model was not consistent with establishing a collaborative
normative culture. The protocols used were not likely to support deep instructional
conversations. This might have been one obstacle that prevented the teachers from investigating
their practice in a different way. They were not likely to do something different than what was
being asked of them to do. Without additional and different types of support, they will
constantly be at odds with and further constrained by the established PLC model and protocols.
Therefore, in spite of teachers’ disposition and willingness to engage in reflection or inquiry
about their day-to-day teaching practice, second-order change conditions are still needed for
them to develop their instructional knowledge and skills in ways that improve students’
understanding. It is only by providing the principal the right tools that s/he will have the
knowledge and skills to afford teachers the right conditions to overcome pervasive challenges.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 142
References
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision. Organizational Dynamics, (18)3, 19-21.
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ perspectives on how
principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational
Administration, 38(2), 130-141.
Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. (2003). The case of elementary schools adopting
comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
25(4), 347-373.
Cheek, J. (2004). At the margins? Discourse analysis and qualitative research. Qualitative Health
Research, 14(8), 1140-1150.
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2005). Promoting a management revolution in public
education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Learning in
communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.
Cravens, X, Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., Murphy, J., & Porter, A. C. (2007). Assessing learning-
centered leadership: Connections to research, professional standards, and current
practices. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, Learning Sciences Institute.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What
teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Education
Series.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 143
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:
Toward better conceptualization and measures. Educational Research, 38(3), 181-199.
Drago-Severson, E. (2012). New opportunities for principal leadership: Shaping school climates
for enhanced teacher development. Teachers College Record, 114(3). Retrieved
February, 17, 2011 from http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 16304.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. Boston: DC Heath and Company.
Ed-Data. (2014). Accountability. Retrieved February 8, 2015, from http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us.
Elmore, R. F. (2000a). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington DC: Albert
Shanker Institute.
Ermeling, B. A. (2005). Transforming professional development for an American high school: A
lesson study inspired, technology powered system for teacher learning. (Doctoral
Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,
http://search.proquest.com/docview/305033054?accountid=14749.
Ermeling (2013). PLCs and the common core: Are we leaving instruction behind? Teachers
College Record, 1-3. ID Number: 17001.
Fullan, M. (1985). Change processes and strategies at the local level. The Elementary School
Journal, 85(3), 390-421.
Gallimore, R., Ermeling, B. A., Saunders, W. M., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). Moving the learning
of teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry
teams. Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 537-553.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 144
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing Cultural Models and Settings to Connect
Minority Achievement and School Improvement Research. Educational Psychologist,
(36)1, 45-56.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Gill, M. G. & Hoffman, B. (2009).Teacher’s discourse and beliefs about learning and instruction.
Teachers College Record, 111(5), 1242-1279.
Goldenberg, C. (2003). Settings for school improvement. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 50(1), 7-16.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second
international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 653–696).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Gronn, P. (2010). Leadership: Its geneology, configuration and trajectory. Journal of
Educational Administration and History, 42(4), 405-435.
Hallinger, P. (2000). A review of two decades of research on the principalship using the
Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, Washington.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and
transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33, 329-351.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional Leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that
refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 1-20.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 145
Hargraves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The persistence of presentism. Teachers College Record,
111(11), 2505–2534.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2010). Collaborative leadership effects on school improvement:
Integrating undirectional-and-reciprocal-effects models. The Elementary School Journal,
11(2), 226-252.
Heckman, P. E., & Montera, V. L. (2009). School reform: The flatworm in a flat world: From
entropy to renewal through indigenous invention. Teachers College Record, 111(5),
1328–1351.
Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for
professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational
Research Journal, 47(1), 181-217.
Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: a typology of reflective practice for
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 73-85.
Kennedy, M. M. (1984). Assessing the validity of qualitative data. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 6(4), 367-377.
Kennedy, M. M. (1999). The role of preservice teacher education. In L. Darling-Hammond and
G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice
(pp. 54-85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey, Bass.
Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., Honig, M. I., Plecki, M. L., & Portin, B. S. (2010). Learning-
focused leadership and leadership support: Meaning and practice in urban systems.
Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 146
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences
teacher learning. University of Minnesota & The University of Toronto.
Leithwood, K. A., & Riehl, C. (2005). What do we already know about educational leadership?
In W. A. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A ‘new’ agenda for research in educational
leadership (pp. 12–27). New York: Teachers College Press.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform:
Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 17(2), 201-227.
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N., & Yashkina, A. (2007).
Distributing leadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the system.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 37–67.
Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: opening up
problems of analysis in records of everyday work, Teaching and Teacher Education, 18,
917-946.
Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice, teaching
and teacher education, Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913-945.
Lortie, D. L. (1986). A case of structural strain? The Phi Delta Kappan, 67(8), 568-575.
Marin, K. S. (n.d.). Successful grade-level meetings: Combining an academic and behavioral
focus (2nd ed.). Kalamazoo, MI: RESA.
Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Morris, M., Chrispeels, J., & Burke, P. (2003). The power of two: linking external with internal
teachers’ professional development. The Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 764-767.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 147
Myers, V. L., Sawyer, R. K., Scribner, J. P., & Watson, S. T. (2007). Teacher teams and
distributed leadership: A study of group discourse and collaboration. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 67-100.
National Research Council (2000). How students learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the
classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Putman, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say
about research on teacher learning? American Educational Research Association, 29(1),
4-15.
Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection.
Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230-253.
Schallert, D. L., & Martin, D. B. (2003). A psychological analysis of what teachers and students
do in the language arts classroom. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Squire, J. Jensen (Eds.),
Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 31-34). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:
Basic Books.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 148
Slayton, J., & Mathis, J. (2010). Building the leaders we need: The role of presence, learning
conditions, and andragogy in developing leaders who can change the face of public pre-K
through 12 education. In A. H. Normore (Ed.), Global Perspectives on Educational
Leadership Reform: The Development and Preparation of Leaders of Learning and
Learners of Leadership, Advances in Educational Administration (Vol. 11), (pp. 23-45).
United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice:
A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34.
Spillane, J. P., & Healey, K. (2010). Conceptualizing school leadership and management from a
distributed perspective: an exploration of some study operations and measures. The
Elementary School Journal, 111(2), 253-281.
United States Census Bureau. (2010). American Fact Finder. Retrieved February 8, 2015, from
http://factfinder.census.gov.
United States Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top program: Executive summary.
Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf.
Valli, L. (1997). Listening to other voices: A description of teacher reflection in the United
States. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 67–88.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739.
Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development
in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 149
Appendix A
Grade-Level Meeting Observation Protocol (Meeting Details)
Date: Minutes Spent on Activity:
Start Time: End Time:
Location Code:
Title of the Event:
Title of Participants # Activities:
Does Third Party...
(check all that apply)
Listen ONLY
Make Announcement
Lecture/Instructs
Demo/Model
Participate in Discussion
Facilitate Discussion
Does Leadership...
(check all that apply)
Listen ONLY
Make Announcements
Lecture/Instructs
Demo/Model
Participate in Discussion
Facilitate Discussion
Topics Covered:
Discourse Anchors:
1. normalizing a problem of practice
linked to other classes; “it happens to all of
us”
reassurance of character of problem; “you’ll
be fine, don’t worry;”
2. further specifying the problem
Group members ask Question(s)
T contributes additional/revised details of
problem
T revises her formulation of problem; “maybe
it was this or maybe it was that”
3. revising the account of the problem
Group asks additional Question(s)
group norms afford space to reconsider source
of problem
linking move; “you are describing my ...”;
builds teacher allegiance
4. generalizing to principles of teaching
link specific accounts of classroom practice to
principles of teaching to interpret students’
responses
to others’ general lessons grounded in
experience
to learning to teach; “what did I not get the
first time”
*linking-a verbal comparison between situations
*generalization-the outcome of activities
distributed across people and discourse
Teachers
Third Party (Coach)
Time Present:
Leadership
(Principal)
Time Present:
Others Present?
(please include
names & titles)
*Materials Attached
Agenda-GLM
Calendar
Minutes
Lesson Plans
Teacher
Reflections
Summative
Assessment
Formative
Assessment
Other
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 150
Grade-Level Meeting Observation Protocol (Notes)
Time Field Notes
Time
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 151
Appendix B
Grade-Level Meeting Observation Protocol (Map)
Date: Title of the Event: Location Code:
Map of Room Layout / Seating Chart
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 152
Appendix C
Principal Post-Observation Interview
Date: Location Code: Total Interview Time:
Interviewee: Interviewee Title: Start:
End:
I’d like to start off by saying it has been a pleasure to be able to spent time at this school for the
past semester. These interview questions are all geared to getting a better understanding of what
you guys are doing and why you are doing it? As you think about your responses, try to be as
concrete as possible to help me to see what you see and how you see it. The interview should
take approximately 60 minutes and will be recorded. Do you have any thoughts before we start?
Leadership.
{I will begin by asking you about the multi-year effort this school has undergone since you came
on board three years ago.}
1. Could you tell me a bit about what this multi-year effort has entailed? LISTEN 4: Evolution-
Its goal and phases over the past three years
• What do you think are the goals of this effort? and How has it changed?
• Where do you see this (multi-year) effort going?
2. How would you characterize your role in this effort? Would you say it has evolved from its
inception to now? Do you see it changing in the future? How so?
{Now, we are going to talk about role of the P in relation to instruction}
3. You have been here 3 years now, could you talk a bit about how you see your role in relation
to the 5th grade team’s teaching practice?... Would you say it has evolved over this period of
time? How so?
LISTEN for: What tools (approaches) does the P use in relation to improving instruction?
4. Practice change often takes a long time, do you have a sense that the 5th grade teacher’s
practice has impacted their students’ learning? Would you be able to give me example?
5. Do you see evidence of student achievement that is reflected in periodic assessments? (ex.
yes, on benchmark/cst)
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 153
Since not every assessments measures the same thing, help me to see what you see...tell
me are you talking about a new or recycled concept and which one
6. I’ve noticed you’ve come in during GLMs, what is your perception of your role during a
meeting? Would you be able to offer an example of a way you participated in a GLM?
Coach.
{Now, we are going to talk a bit about role of the C}
7. Could you tell me a little bit about how you see the coach’s role being part of improving
instruction that’s offered by the teachers?
• Would you be able to offer an example of the way the coach participates in a GLM?
8. What would you like to see from the coach and like for him to do? (ex. inquiry lessons, demo
lesson, modeling)
• What would you like to come out of these interactions [between the teachers and the
coach]?
9. Do you think he is able to provide you with the support your need? (ask about internal/external
barriers)
GLM/PD Factors.
{Now, we are going to talk about a GLM}
10. What would you say is the purpose of a GLM?
Think for a moment about the big picture; the reason why teachers get together each
week. (Look for tasks, compliance)
• Given that this is what you are saying the purpose of a GLM is, what are teachers
trying to accomplish during a GLM? (e.g., work on practice, get work done, think
about ur practice)
11. Who determines GLMs goals, and how are these determined? What would be one example
of that?
12. How do you know if teachers are making progress towards that goal?
• Have they ever met a goal? (which one and) How do know?
Teacher Talk.
{Now, we are going to talk about the role conversations play during a GLM}
13. Are there ways in which specific conversations teachers have had during a meeting
influenced their practice?
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 154
14. Would you be able to give me an example of when the 5th grade teachers were working
together in a GLM and something they talked about caused them to make a change in their
practice?
• What was it about the conversation that cause them to make a change? (looking for
rigor)
15. Have there been instances where a teacher’s understanding of practice influenced another
teacher’s understanding of his/her teaching practice? Would you be able to offer an example?
16. Are there particular materials and documents the teachers used during a GLM that
influenced the way they think about their practice?
{I know for me as a teacher, when I’m struggling with my practice, I think about the challenges I
am facing. I seek out others for their input or resources to help me.}
17. Have the teachers ever brought a problem of teaching to the group?
• What has their experience been with that? (Is this not a place where teachers think it
is expected to happen?)
• Do they do this in other places with the same people?
18. Is there anything I haven’t asked that will contribute to my understanding of the role the
principal, the coach, GLM goals, materials/documents used to inform their practice, or the role
teacher conversations play during GLM?
19. If you were me, what would you be asking or want to know during this interview? (new
content; examples.)
Thank you for taking the time to do this interview. It has been a pleasure getting a better
understanding of your perspective and insight. I should have all the information I need. Would
it be okay to call or email you if I have additional questions?
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 155
Appendix D
Teacher Post-Observation Interview
Date: Location Code: Total Interview Time:
Interviewee: Interviewee Title: Start:
End:
I’d like to start off by saying it has been a pleasure to be able to spent time at this school for the
past semester. These interview questions are all geared to getting a better understanding of what
you guys are doing and why you are doing it? As you think about your responses, try to be as
concrete as possible to help me to see what you see and how you see it. The interview should
take approximately 60 minutes and will be recorded. Do you have any thoughts before we start?
Leadership.
{I will begin by asking you about the multi-year effort this school has undergone since the
principal came on board three years ago.}
1. Could you tell me a bit about what this multi-year effort has entailed? LISTEN 4: Evolution-
Its goal and phases over the past three years
• What do you think are the goals of this effort? and How has it changed?
• Where do you see this (multi-year) effort going?
2. How would you characterize the principal’s role in this effort? Would you say it has evolved
from its inception to now? Do you see it changing in the future? How so?
{Now, we are going to talk about role of the P in relation to instruction}
3. The P has been here 3 years now, could you talk a bit about how you see her role in relation
to the 5th grade team’s teaching practice?... Would you say it has evolved over this period of
time? How so?
LISTEN for: What tools (approaches) does the P use in relation to improving instruction?
4. Practice change often takes a long time, do you have a sense that the 5th grade teacher’s
practice has impacted their students’ learning? Would you be able to give me example?
5. Do you see evidence of student achievement that is reflected in periodic assessments? (ex.
yes, on benchmark/cst)
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 156
Since not every assessments measures the same thing, help me to see what you see...tell
me are you talking about a new or recycled concept and which one
6. I’ve noticed the principal come in during GLMs, what is your perception of her role during a
meeting? Would you be able to offer an example of a way the P participated in a GLM?
Coach.
{Now, we are going to talk a bit about role of the C}
7. Could you tell me a little bit about how you see the coach’s role being part of improving
instruction that’s offered by the teachers?
• Would you be able to offer an example of the way the coach participates in a GLM?
8. What would you like to see from the coach and like for him to do? (ex. inquiry lessons, demo
lesson, modeling)
• What would you like to come out of these interactions [between the teachers and the
coach]?
9. Do you think he is able to provide you with the support your need? (ask about internal/external
barriers)
GLM/PD Factors.
{Now, we are going to talk about a GLM}
10. What would you say is the purpose of a GLM?
Think for a moment about the big picture; the reason why teachers get together each
week. (Look for tasks, compliance)
• Given that this is what you are saying the purpose of a GLM is, what are teachers
trying to accomplish during a GLM? (e.g., work on practice, get work done, think
about ur practice)
11. Who determines GLMs goals, and how are these determined? What would be one example
of that?
12. How do you know if you are making progress towards that goal?
• Have you ever met a goal? (which one and) How do know?
Teacher Talk.
{Now, we are going to talk about the role conversations play during a GLM}
13. Are there ways in which specific conversations you’ve had during a meeting influenced their
practice?
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 157
14. Would you be able to give me an example of when you and your peers were working
together in a GLM and something they talked about caused them to make a change in their
practice?
• What was it about the conversation that cause you to make a change? (looking for
rigor)
15. Have there been instances where your colleagues’ understanding of practice influenced your
understanding of your teaching practice? Would you be able to offer an example?
16. Are there particular materials and documents you’ve used during a GLM that influenced the
way you think about your practice?
{I know for me as a teacher, when I’m struggling with my practice, I think about the challenges I
am facing. I seek out others for their input or resources to help me.}
17. Have you ever brought a problem of teaching to your group?
• What has been your experience been with that? (Is this not a place where teachers
think it is expected to happen?)
• Do you do this in other places with the same people?
18. Is there anything I haven’t asked that will contribute to my understanding of the role the
principal, the coach, GLM goals, materials/documents used to inform your practice, or the role
teacher conversations play during GLM?
19. If you were me, what would you be asking or want to know during this interview? (new
content; examples.
Thank you for taking the time to do this interview. It has been a pleasure getting a better
understanding of your perspective and insight. I should have all the information I need. Would
it be okay to call or email you if I have additional questions?
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 158
Appendix E
Coach Post-Observation Interview
Date: Location Code: Total Interview Time:
Interviewee: Interviewee Title: Start:
End:
I’d like to start off by saying it has been a pleasure to be able to spent time during GLMs when
you were present this past semester. These interview questions are all geared to getting a better
understanding of what you guys are doing and why you are doing it? As you think about your
responses, try to be as concrete as possible to help me to see what you see and how you see it.
The interview should take approximately 60 minutes and will be recorded. Do you have any
thoughts before we start?
Leadership.
{I will begin by asking you about the multi-year effort this school has undergone since the
principal came on board three years ago.}
1. Could you tell me a bit about what this multi-year effort has entailed? LISTEN 4: Evolution-
Its goal and phases over the past three years
• What do you think are the goals of this effort? and How has it changed?
• Where do you see this (multi-year) effort going?
2. How would you characterize the principal’s role in this effort? Would you say it has evolved
from its inception to now? Do you see it changing in the future? How so?
{Now, we are going to talk about role of the P in relation to instruction}
3. The P has been here 3 years now, could you talk a bit about how you see her role in relation
to the 5th grade team’s teaching?... Would you say it has evolved over this period of time? How
so?
LISTEN for: What tools (approaches) does the P use in relation to improving instruction?
4. Practice change often takes a long time, do you have a sense that the 5th grade teacher’s
practice has impacted their students’ learning? Would you be able to give me example?
5. Do you see evidence of student achievement that is reflected in periodic assessments? (ex.
yes, on benchmark/cst)
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 159
Since not every assessments measures the same thing, help me to see what you see...tell
me are you talking about a new or recycled concept and which one
6. I’ve noticed the principal come in during GLMs, what is your perception of her role during a
meeting? Would you be able to offer an example of a way the P participated in a GLM?
Coach.
{Now, we are going to talk a bit about your role-the role of the coach}
7. Could you tell me a little bit about how you see your role being part of improving instruction
that’s offered by the teachers?
• Would you be able to offer an example of the way you participate in a GLM?
8. What would you like to see from your role as the coach and like to do? (ex. inquiry lessons,
demo lesson, modeling )
• What would you like to come out of these interactions [between you and the
teachers]?
9. Do you think you are able to provide the 5th grade teachers with the support they need? (ask
about internal/external barriers)
GLM/PD Factors.
{Now, we are going to talk about a GLM}
10. What would you say is the purpose of a GLM?
Think for a moment about the big picture; the reason why teachers get together each
week. (Look for tasks, compliance)
• Given that this is what you are saying the purpose of a GLM is, what are teachers
trying to accomplish during a GLM? (e.g., work on practice, get work done, think
about ur practice)
11. Who determines GLMs goals, and how are these determined? What would be one example
of that?
12. How do you know if teachers are making progress towards that goal?
• Have they ever met a goal? (which one and) How do know?
Teacher Talk.
{Now, we are going to talk about the role conversations play during a GLM}
13. Are there ways in which specific conversations teachers have had during a meeting
influenced their practice?
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 160
14. Would you be able to give me an example of when the 5th grade teachers were working
together in a GLM and something they talked about caused them to make a change in their
practice?
• What was it about the conversation that cause them to make a change? (looking for
rigor)
15. Have there been instances where a teacher’s understanding of practice influenced another
teacher’s understanding of his/her teaching practice? Would you be able to offer an example?
16. Are there particular materials and documents the teachers used during a GLM that
influenced the way they think about their practice?
{I know for me as a teacher, when I’m struggling with my practice, I think about the challenges I
am facing. I seek out others for their input or resources to help me.}
17. Have the teachers ever brought a problem of teaching to the group?
• What has their experience been with that? (Is this not a place where teachers think it
is expected to happen?)
• Do they do this in other places with the same people?
18. Is there anything I haven’t asked that will contribute to my understanding of the role the
principal, the coach, GLM goals, materials/documents used to inform their practice, or the role
teacher conversations play during GLM?
19. If you were me, what would you be asking or want to know during this interview? (new
content; examples.)
Thank you for taking the time to do this interview. It has been a pleasure getting a better
understanding of your perspective and insight. I should have all the information I need. Would
it be okay to call or email you if I have additional questions?
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 161
Appendix F
Informed Consent Form
The following information is provided to help you decide whether you wish to participate in the
study: Does teacher discourse occurring during grade-level meetings reflect teacher learning
related to improvement in quality of instruction and student achievement? You are free to choose
against participating in this study. You are also free to withdraw from the study at any time,
without influencing your relationship with the researcher, your school or district, and the
University of Southern California.
Purpose. The purpose of the study is to examine the ways an elementary, grade-level team
(GLM) of teachers utilizes discourse (conversations and text) as a tool for learning; that is how
discourse shapes, sustains or supports teacher learning and changes in instruction. I will also
examine the extent to which GLM factors (i.e., goals, indicators, assistance, and leadership)
foster or impede opportunities for teacher learning related to improving instruction and
increasing student achievement. The findings of this study will be available to participating
teachers and administrators for the purposes of sharing perceived best practices and for
improving practice.
Procedures. This study will consist of eight GLM observations, one in-depth post-observation
interview with the participating teachers and principal, and collection and analysis of documents.
Interviews will be audio recorded and then transcribed for analysis. You will be asked to review
the transcript of your interview and clarify any errors or misconceptions. The interview cannot
be conducted during instructional time. I will do everything possible to accommodate a time that
works for you (e.g., after/before school, during lunch, etc.).
Interview questions asked will be in regard to the professional roles of the participant. You will
be asked to describe the grade-level meeting’s purpose, goals, and learning activities as well as
the time allotted for and frequency of meetings. You will be asked to describe what your role
and the role of the principal in relation to teacher learning, improving instruction, and increasing
student learning. Finally, you will be asked to describe the role teacher discourse plays in
professional learning.
Rights. You may decline consent to participate at any time preceding this study’s publication of
findings. Consent can and may be revoked regarding one item, a group of items, or your entire
contribution to the study. For example, if you provide information during an interview that you
later regret disclosing, you may request the information is not disclosed in the study, and this
request will be honored. You are welcome to ask questions before or during the study. You will
have access to your own data. I will provide the school with a copy of my findings and will
share these with you after the study is complete.
Privacy. Your privacy will be protected at all times. A pseudonym will be utilized for the
names of school district, school, principals, and teachers in this study. Audio recordings and
transcripts will be maintained in a password-protected computer file until destroyed. All audio
recordings and transcripts will be maintained for a maximum of one year following the
publication of any and all data collected during this study. Revelations of illegal activity or of
child abuse or neglect cannot be kept confidential.
TEACHER DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE 162
Risks and Benefits. No harm or injury is anticipated to result from any of the data collected in
this study. An expected benefit is illumination ways grade-level meeting factors (i.e., goals,
indicators, provider assistance, and leadership) and professional development factors (i.e., time
and quality instruction) can influence teacher learning relate to changes in practice and increases
in student achievement. This information can improve practice in your classroom or school, or,
in the event of publication, in the schools or classrooms of others. In the event that an
unexpected ethical or other issue arises, advice will be procured from my dissertation chair
without divulging the names of the people, school, or district involved.
This copy is for you record.
Claudia Nguyen, Doctoral Candidate
University of Southern California
cgnguyen@usc.edu or (562) 719-6514
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Improving professional learning for teachers
PDF
Investigating the enactment of professionald development practices in a high performing secondary school setting: a case study examining the purpose, process, and structure of professional development
PDF
The role of leadership in using data to inform instruction: a case study
PDF
Authentic professional learning: a case study
PDF
Role of a principal supervisor in fostering principal development to support instructional improvement and a positive school climate
PDF
Success in the sticky: exploring the professional learning and instructional practices that are sticky for distinguished secondary STEM educators of students historically…
PDF
Uncovering dominant ideology: an action research project aimed to uncover dominant ideology to enact culturally relevant pedagogy in the classroom
PDF
If it takes two to tango then teach both to dance: examining the influence of interpersonal and contextual features on a co-teaching partnership
PDF
Following the leader: leadership and the enculturation of the involuntarily transferred teacher to their new school site
PDF
A multi-case study on teaching practices and how teachers use technology to support scientific inquiry in 1:1 classrooms
PDF
Creating transformational learning opportunities for teachers: how leadership affects adult learning on a school campus
PDF
Assessing the meaning and value of traditional grading systems: teacher practices and perspectives
PDF
The key essentials for learning in the 21st century: programs and practices
PDF
A tale of two principals: the complexity of fostering and achieving organizational improvement
PDF
Anti-racist adaptive leadership: an action research study on supporting principals in predominantly white schools to develop color consciousness and support future anti-racist practices
PDF
First and second grade teachers' knowledge and perceptions about African American language speakers
PDF
Examining the effects of structured dialogue grounded in socioculturalism as a tool to facilitate professional development in secondary science
PDF
Turning toward practice: establishing group reflective practice among upper elementary educators
PDF
Principals' perceptions of their ability, as school leaders, to apply learning from district-provided professional development
PDF
Examining the effects of structured dialogue grounded in socioculturalism as a tool to facilitate professional development in secondary science
Asset Metadata
Creator
Nguyen, Claudia G.
(author)
Core Title
Teacher discourse and practice: the role of discourse in grade-level meetings for teacher learning and changes in practice
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
09/15/2015
Defense Date
05/07/2015
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
contextual factors,discourse,grade-level meetings,leadership practice,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional learning
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Slayton, Julie (
committee chair
), Ermeling, Brad (
committee member
), Stillman, Jamy (
committee member
)
Creator Email
cgnguyen@usc.edu,cgnguyen314@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-181373
Unique identifier
UC11273484
Identifier
etd-NguyenClau-3904.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-181373 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-NguyenClau-3904.pdf
Dmrecord
181373
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Nguyen, Claudia G.
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
Tags
contextual factors
discourse
grade-level meetings
leadership practice
professional learning