University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Impact of inquiry‐based learning professional development on implementation of Common Core State Standards

(USC Thesis Other)

Impact of inquiry‐based learning professional development on implementation of Common Core State Standards

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1
IMPACT OF INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
ON IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS
by
Shannon Avery
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2015
Copyright 2015 Shannon Avery
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
When I was a young child, my parents instilled high expectations, perseverance, and
sacrifice as the backbone for success in life. These values have guided me throughout my
personal and professional life, especially in my journey as a doctoral student. For the past 3
years, as a Trojan, I have made many sacrifices in order to achieve my dream of earning an
Ed.D . Or , a s m y da d li ke s to ca ll me, “ Dr . Kid. ” I wa nt t o a c knowle d ge m y e x tende d fa mi l y a nd
friends for supporting me by understanding that balancing my time personally and professionally
was a crucial strategy in accomplishing my goal. Mike Lemire supported my ongoing date with
my laptop, loving me unconditionally and providing alternative synonyms for those repetitive
academic words as I typed, typed, and typed and he watched sports.
My research was made meaningful because I was fortunate to facilitate my research at
my own school site. I am grateful that the staff of Desert School believes in lifelong learning; as
we made the transition to Common Core State Standards, they understood the value in this work.
Observing inquiry-based learning come to life in classrooms has been powerful for teachers and
21st-century learners. I express my gratitude to T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, better known as (in no
particular order) Tammy M., Jane C., Lynn M., Georgina C., and Becky J., for participating in
this study. I thank Dr. Pam B. for making time to calibrate lesson findings and being my doctoral
mentor, and Kathy B. for providing the nutrients that make professional development come alive
by being the instructional coach and my rock as a 1st-year principal.
Thank you to all! Fight on!
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments 2
List of Tables 4
List of Figures 5
Abstract 7
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 8
Purpose of the Study 10
Research Questions 11
Theoretical Background 12
Chapter Summary 12
Chapter 2: Literature Review 14
Professional Development 14
Instructional Coaching 18
Inquiry-Based Learning 23
Teacher Perceptions 29
Decision Theory 31
Chapter Summary 33
Chapter 3: Methodology 34
Chapter 4: Results 44
Introduction to the Study 44
Problem of the Study 44
Review of Methodology 45
Demographics 45
Pre/Post Comparative Survey Results 46
Results for Research Questions 1 and 3 47
Results for Research Question 2 54
Results for Research Question 4 58
Chapter Summary 72
Chapter 5: Discussion 73
Methodology 74
Findings for Research Question 1 75
Findings for Research Question 2 76
Findings for Research Question 3 78
Findings for Research Question 4 80
Limitations of the Study 82
Recommendations 83
Research Questions 1 and 3 83
Research Question 2 84
Research Question 4 84
References 86
Appendices
Appendix A: Inquiry-Based Learning Evidence Form 104
Appendix B: Common Core Professional Development Survey 105
Appendix C: Post-Observation Interview Questions 107
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Bonstett e r’ s Inquiry-Based Learning Model 26
Table 2: Alignment Between Research Questions and Methodology 39
Table 3: Purposeful Sampling Criteria 40
Table 4: Alignment Between Research Question and Data Collection Instruments 41
Table 5: Relationships Between Research Questions and Data Collection Instruments 42
Table 6: Significance of Differences in Responses to the Pre and Post Administrations
of the Survey 47
Table 7: Survey Responses Regarding Impact of Professional Development and
Instructional Coaching 49
Table 8: Perceptions of Instructional Coach as Indicated by Responses to the
S ur ve y I t e m “Prof e ssi ona l De ve lopm e nt at M y S it e B e n e fits M y
Implementation of C omm on Co re S tate S tanda rd s” 49
Table 9: S ur ve y R e spons e s R e g a r ding Te a c he r’ s P e r c e pti o ns of Their Abilities 50
Table 10: Survey Responses Regarding Instructional Decision Making 51
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Selection procedure for study population 40
Figure 2: Participant demographics 46
Figure 3: Average proficiency on Lessons (L) 1 to 4 by Teachers (T) 1 to 5 52
Figure 4: Coaching collaborations compared to average lesson proficiency 52
Figure 5: Confidence levels in the progression of Lessons 1 through 4 55
Figure 6: Average proficiency in Lessons 1 through 4 56
Figure 7: T1’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “ topi c ” model pha se v e rs us g r a d ual release of
responsibility 60
Figure 8: T1’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “ que sti on” model pha se ve rsus g ra d ual release of
responsibility 60
Figure 9: T1’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “ mate ria ls” mode l ph a se ve rsus g ra du a l re le a se of
responsibility 61
Figure 10: T1’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “ pr oc e du re s/desi g n” mod e l phase ve rsus gr a du al
release of responsibility 61
Figure 11: T1’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “ re sult s/ana l y sis ” model pha se ve rsus gr a du al
release of responsibility 62
Figure 12: T1’ s u se of B onst e tt e r’ s “ c onc lusi on” model pha s e ve rsus g r a du al release
of responsibility 62
Figure 13: T4’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “ topi c ” model pha se v e rs us g r a d ual release of
responsibility 64
Figure 14: T4’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “ que sti on” model pha se ve rsus g radual release
of responsibility 64
Figure 15: T4’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “ mate ria ls” mode l ph a se ve rsus g ra du al release
of responsibility 65
Figure 16: T4’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “ pr oc e du re s/desi g n” mod e l phase ve rsus gr a du a l
release of responsibility 65
Figure 17: T4’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “ re sult s/ana l y sis ” model pha se ve rsus gr a du al
release of responsibility 66
Figure 18: T4’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “ c onc lusi on” model pha s e ve rsus g r a du al release
of responsibility 66
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 6
Figure 19: T5’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “ to pic” model pha se v e rs us g r a d ual release of
responsibility 68
Figure 20: T5’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “ que sti on” model pha se ve rsus g ra du al release
of responsibility 68
Figure 21: T5’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “ mate ria ls” mode l ph a se ve rsus g ra du a l re le a se o f
responsibility 69
Figure 22: T5’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “ pr oc e du re s/desi g n” mod e l phase ve rsus gr a du al
release of responsibility 69
Figure 23: T5’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “ re sult s/ana l y sis ” model pha se ve rsus gr a du al
release of responsibility 70
Figure 24: T5’ s us e of B onst e tt e r’ s “ c onc lusi on” model pha s e ve rsus g r a du al release
of responsibility 70
Figure 25: Use of inquiry-based learning within the gradual release of responsibility 71
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 7
ABSTRACT
This research addresses the transition from 1997 standards-based instruction to Common
Core State Standards instruction. Shifting classroom practices from the traditional teacher-
directed model to a student-directed model requires effective facilitation of inquiry-based
learning (IBL). Effective professional development with the support of an instructional coach on
IBL is the avenue to support 21st-century learning. Using an IBL model that embeds gradual
release of responsibility of the phases of IBL from the teacher to the student will support teachers
in design and delivery of IBL. Supporting teachers with an IBL model provides a scaffold to
change to instructional practices that match intentions of CCSS. Thus, teachers will increase self-
efficacy and have a tool to drive their decision-making skills. Evidence from this research
determined that providing an IBL model through professional development and support of the
inst ruc ti ona l coa c h inc re a se d tea c he rs ’ und e rsta n ding of the shi ft f rom 1997 standa rds to
Common Core State Standards.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 8
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) policy movement was adopted for several
reasons: Students in the United States are unable to compete with global competitors, students of
various subgroups are having a growing achievement gap, students are ill prepared for college
and career, and there is a lack of rigorous, aligned, and coherent national standards
(Behrenbruch, 2012; McDonnel & Weatherford, 2013; Ratzer & Jaeger, 2014). Previous
pr a c ti c e s su c h a s the old c lassro om ada ge of “ t e ll a nd pr a c ti c e ” ult im a tel y developed
environments with little student thinking (Ritchhart, Church, & Morrison, 2011, p. 9). This
indus trial mode l of sc hooli ng lef t hi g he r e duc a ti on que sti oning , “ Ho w pr e p a re d a re the gr a dua t e s
of Ame ric a ’s sc hools f or the c ha ll e n g e s o f c oll e g e ? ” a nd the busine ss wor ld ponder in g , “ How pr e pa r e d a r e g r a dua tes of Ame ric a ’s sc hools f or 2 1st C e ntur y jobs? ( R a tz e r & J a e ge r, 201 4,
p. 118).
CCSS implementation must be the focus of delivery of the standards with deep
understanding, rather than concentrating on each standard in isolation and curriculum coverage
(Blythe, 1998; Conley, 2011; McTighe & Wiggins, 1999). Unfortunately, the 1997 standards
unintentionally trained teachers to address each standard as a task on a check list to gain mastery
for high-stakes accountability tests, rather than acquire skills to make meaning and transfer
(Ritchhart et al., 2011; Wiggins & McTighe, 2011). CCSS embed 21st-century learning skills:
c ritica l t hinki ng , c oll a bo r a ti on, c omm unica ti on, a nd c re a ti vit y ( the 4C’s) . C lassro om
environments must change from teacher as learning leader of students to facilitator of teaching
a nd lea rnin g . Ri tchha rt e t al. ( 2011) de s c ribe d thi s app roa c h a s the “ l e a rn e r a t t he c e nte r of the
e duc a ti ona l ente rpr ise ” ( p. 26) . Educ a tors mus t ha ve the c a p acity to design CCSS lessons that
increase student achievement by providing opportunities for authentic thinking (Perkins, 2008).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 9
C C S S on l y st a tes w ha t st ude nts “should know a nd be a ble to do” a nd doe s not pre sc ribe the
“ how” f o r instruc ti ona l d e sig n a nd d elivery for teachers (Core, 2011, p. 13). If the
implementation of CCSS is to transform education, teachers must participate in relevant,
practical, and research-based professional development designed to prepare students to be
college and career ready.
The transition to CCSS will require educators to add to their instructional repertoire
through use of systematic approaches from professional development. Literature on teacher
change asserts that the shift from an emphasis on teaching to one of learning must be a
fundamental component of professional growth (Hatch, 2005; Intrator, 2006, 2007; McDonald,
1992; Palmer, 1998). In doing so, educators must have the skills, knowledge, and self-efficacy to
determine when to design lessons using inquiry based learning (IBL) to support students in
thinking and active sense making, not solely the traditional overemphasis on short-term content
acquisition for quick recall (Behrenbruch, 2012; Ritchhart et al., 2011; Wiggins & McTighe,
2011).
Although Westover (2013) confirmed that common instructional language, such as IBL,
is cr it ica l for tea c he rs to im pleme nt C C S S , P a rke r (1984 ) a sse rte d that tea c he rs’ a c quire d
knowledge of high-yield instructional strategies is worthless unless they are capable of making
critical decisions on how to utilize them in application. Elementary classrooms are complicated
and demanding enterprises that are cognitively challenging for educators (Salmon, Rossman,
Ke men y , & W int e r, 200 8) . Thus, tea c h e rs’ d e c isi on -making skills are a critical point of analysis
in t ha t t e a c he rs ’ c o g nit ive de c isi on -making processes influence the instructional strategies that
are utilized during teaching and learning.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 10
Purpose of the Study
This study examined the impact of professional development on the implementation of
CCSS. A critical component of this research was to examine self-efficacy and decision-making
theory of elementary teachers on their readiness to teach CCSS to 21-century learners. The
CCSS initiative will not improve educational outcomes unless teacher capacity is addressed
(Behrenbruch, 2012; Cohen & Moffitt, 2009; Ritchhart et al., 2011; Wiggins & McTighe, 2011).
The 1997 standards came with the advent of state-adopted texts, but the CCSS is a pedagogical
shift whe re “ inst ru c ti on is more im porta nt t ha n the c ur ri c ulum ” ( Ve c e ll io, 2013, p. 224) . CC S S does not come with a scripted program which educators are accustomed to referencing in their
planning from the 1997 standards generation. Cash (2013) asserted that textbooks will not
support teachers in the transition to critical thinking, ingenuity, and invention in the 21st-century
classroom. Learning environments must be a framework to construct knowledge through
meaningful activity and social constructs (Dewey, 1915/2001).
According to Vecellio (2013), pedagogy has transformed from content specific to an
interdisciplinary approach to teaching and learning. Conley (2011) advised that the traditional
“ test- pr e p a pproa c h to i nstruc ti on that f oster s shal low lea rnin g ” must be r e plac e d b y c ult ivatin g critical cognition skills in students (p. 2). Based on this new theory of action, professional
development is an important component in determining the readiness of teachers to implement
various methodologies necessary to develop 21st-century learners. If teachers are to implement a
revised standards-based movement contradictory to previous instructional practices, they must
have the ability and will to do so.
District- and site-led professional development is critical in refining and enhancing
teacher pedagogy that has been in practice for the past 15 years. Twenty-first-century learners
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 11
must build on core content knowledge by creating new connections through the instructional
practice of IBL. Teachers must have the skill set, as well as the management skills, to apply this
constructivist approach to teaching and learning. IBL is to be used sparingly, rather than as a
comprehensive approach (Owens, Hester, & Teale, 2002). Ratzer and Jaeger (2014) asserted that
I B L a nd CC S S , whe n us e d togethe r, ha v e a “ tra ns for mi ng pow e r ” that g uid e s st ude nts fr om rote
learning to acquiring knowledge (p. 181). However, educators must have the decision-making
skills to decipher the appropriate use of this transformative instructional strategy.
Focused professional development without the support of an instructional coach
negatively impacts teacher efficacy (Cantrell & Hughes, 2008). Teachers who participate in
further assistance after professional development show higher gains in student performance,
according to Joyce and Showers (2002). Engaging in collaborative conversations with an onsite
coach, especially when implementing new programs and strategies, increases teacher efficacy
and perceptions of the new innovation, in this case CCSS (Guskey, 2002). A study by Cantrell
and Hughes (2008) found that coaches who supported teachers through demonstration lessons,
allocating resources, observing lessons, providing feedback, and collaborative lesson planning
significantly increased teacher efficacy and implementation of new learning. Unfortunately,
however, peer-reviewed research is sparse with regard to the coaching model and therefore this
study is an attempt to add to coaching research (Casey, 2006; Toll, 2006; West & Staub, 2003).
Research Questions
1. How can professional development and instructional coaching focused on IBL support
implementation of CCSS?
2. How do tea c h e rs’ p e rc e pti ons of the ir a bil it y to im pleme nt C C S S influe nc e instructional delivery of CCSS?
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 12
3. W ha t i s the influe nc e of a n inst ruc ti ona l coa c h on a tea c h e r’ s a bil it y to d e liver an IBL
CCSS lesson?
4. What instructional strategies do teachers use to teach CCSS and why?
Theoretical Background
Bandura (1977) asserted that self-efficacy affects the level of effort and persistence
expended by individuals. An implication of Bandu ra ’s r e se a rc h is t ha t, whe n fa c e d with new learning, people reflect on their self-efficacy. Teachers must be aware of their level of skill and
knowledge, as well as their motivation to grow as a professional (Pajares, 1992). As CCSS is
new learning for all educators, teacher perceptions are a critical component of analysis for site
and district leaders, especially when considering professional development designs.
Teacher belief systems are directly correlated to the instructional decisions made in the
classroom (Calderhead, 1996). Cognitive processes of educators are a critical point of study for
this research. CCSS are uniform expectations intended to prepare students for college and career.
Teachers have the creative ability to determine how the standards will be delivered during
teaching and learning. However, professional development must provide teachers the appropriate
skills, knowledge, and decision-making abilities to implement CCSS. According to Calderhead
(1996), decision making is a critical component of curriculum implementation. For the purpose
of this study, IBL is examined as it relates to decision theory. Teachers must have the ability to
determine when to utilize IBL appropriately when designing CCSS lessons.
Chapter Summary
Effective professional development is the catalyst for effective implementation of any
innovation (Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009). Focusing on
common instructional delivery models such as IBL will provide teachers a structure to
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 13
implement CCSS, which was written to focus on what students should know, not how teachers
should deliver content. Professional development supported by an instructional coach enhances
teacher efficacy and innovation implementation (Henson, 2001).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 14
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Educ a ti ona l re for m pol ic ies se t out to i mprove student a c hiev e ment, but “n o other intervention can make the difference that a knowledgeable, skillful teacher can make in the
lea rnin g proc e ss” ( Da rlin g -Hammond, 1997, p. 8). Hunt (2009) posited that one tenet of
leg isl a ti ve mand a tes r e m a ins t he same , “ W e ne e d to pl a c e a g r e a te r pr iorit y on st re ng th e ning th e c a pa c it y of e duc a tors to deliver hig h e r sta nd a rds f or e ve r y c hil d” ( p. 89) . S hiftin g the f o c us fr om
the new CCSS to teacher professional development grounded in high-yield instructional
strategies will ultimately increase student achievement, not the standards themselves (Darling-
Hammond, 2000; Jenkins & Agamba, 2013). However, Jenkins and Agamba (2013) argued that
the weakest element in the CCSS initiative is professional development to support execution.
Blank, de las Alas, and Smith (2007) posited that professional development focused on student
learning and teacher pedagogy has a positive effect on instructional practices.
Professional Development
For the purpose of this study, a working definition of professional development, derived
by Day (1999), was used:
Professional development consists of all natural learning experiences and those conscious
and planned activities, which are intended to be of direct benefit to the individual, group
or school and which contribute, through these, to the quality of education in the
classroom. It is the process by which, alone and with others, teachers review, renew, and
extend their commitment as change agents to the moral purposes of teaching; and by
which they acquire and develop critically the knowledge, skills, and emotional
intelligence essential to good professional thinking, planning and practice with children,
young people and colleagues through each phase of their teaching lives. (p. 4)
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 15
Responding to educational change with deliberate and meaningful approaches to
professional development will improve teacher capacity, which ultimately will contribute to
improving instructional practices (de Vries, Jansen, & van de Grift, 2013; Jenkins & Agamba,
2013). Jenkins and Agamba (2013) added that professional development at its best is designed to
support teachers, elicit high-yield instructional strategies to improve teaching and learning,
sustain collaborative teams, and facilitate excellent standards-based education for every child.
All in all, professional development is fundamental in amending pedagogy (Desimone, 2009;
Guskey, 2002; Wayne, Yoon, Zhu, Cronen, & Garet, 2008).
Guskey (2002) posited that, for teachers to embrace professional development, educators
must believe that the new learning will increase student achievement through improved teaching
practices. Researchers have argued that some professional development models are rated as
ineffective due to missing core elements of learning models (Desimone, 2009; DuFour, 2004;
Guskey, 2000, 2002). A 3-year longitudinal study on professional development by Desimone,
Porter, Garet, Yoon, and Birman (2002) indicated that most district-facilitated professional
development activities do not include the six high-quality characteristics of professional
development. Desimone (2009) recommended utilizing specific features of professional
development programs, a suggestion that is highlighted in literature on this topic. The six
features that are crucial in the purpose and appraisal of professional development are (a) focus on
content taught and methods used, (b) opportunities for active learning, (c) duration of training,
(d) collective participation, (e) coherence, and (f) alignment (Desimone, 2009; Kennedy, 1998;
National Center for Educational Statistics, 2005; Wilson & Berne, 1999). Moreover, according to
I d a ho’s T otal I nstru c ti ona l Ali g nment ( T I A) , thes e f e a tu re s of e ff e c ti ve pr of e ssi ona l
development support teachers in implementation of CCSS (Jenkins & Agamba, 2013).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 16
Content taught and methods used seek to assist teachers in deconstructing CCSS to
improve instructional delivery and increase student achievement. Active learning in a
professional development setting strategically provides opportunities for collaboration by teams
of teachers of various backgrounds. Duration of training is designed to consider the length of the
professional development, ongoing support succeeding the training, and reflective follow-up
prof e ssi ona l dev e lopm e n t at the onse t of the ne x t school y e a r to e v a luate th e pre vious y e a r’ s
learning. Collective participation is designed to facilitate professional learning communities in
which grade-level teachers have opportunities for peer collaboration on high-yield instructional
strategies. Connecting old and new knowledge for teachers through the element of coherence is
recommended, as well. Along the same lines, alignment among standards, site and district
initiatives, teacher professional goals, and assessments is essential to sustaining effective
professional development (Desimone, 2009; Kennedy, 1998; National Center for Educational
Statistics, 2005; Wilson & Berne, 1999).
Including research-based features in professional development is critical, but Kirkwood
and Christie (2006) maintained that the teacher, as researcher and enquirer, is essential, as well.
S tenhouse ( 1980) a sse rte d that e nquir y is i ntend e d to provoke tea c h e r r e fle c ti on “ in orde r to
stre ng th e n pro f e ssi ona l j udg ment of te a c h e rs” (p. 429). Kirk (2004), noted that, historically,
learning opportunities for educators placed teachers as patrons of research rather than
originators. In other words, professional development on curriculum instruction should be
studied by the teacher rather than presented to the educator. These alternative models of
professional development engage teachers in applying their own research findings in the context
of their classrooms and analyzing the conclusions with partnering practitioners (Humes, 2001;
Kirk, 2004; Kirkwood & Christie, 2006).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 17
Campbell, Freedman, Boulter, and Kirkwood (2003) cautioned that conduct of teacher
research must be as unimpeachable as other research in order to have a bearing on professional
development, as well as on teaching and learning. In doing so, Campbell et al. (2003) conceded,
Teachers need to know about the basics of good research, whether or not they ever
conduct their own research. They need to be able to analyze crucially the research
evidence that they read as part of their professional role, and to judge its findings and
conclusions from a well-informed point of view. (p. 4)
Teacher researchers inquire systematically and intentionally regarding teaching, learning,
and schooling within their own place of work and classroom setting (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
1993). Therefore, teacher inquiry, in this context is designed to cultivate instructional knowledge
at the local and public levels. For example, at the local level, teachers gain insight to inform their
own practice and possibly their professional learning community. Knowledge at the public level
is intended to reach community members outside the realm of the school site (Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 1993; Stenhouse, 1980).
In summary, professional development is essential in building and sustaining teacher
capacity, especially during the transition to CCSS. However, despite decades of research in
recognition of professional development, research continues to validate that inservice training
sessions tend to be inadequate in nature (Borko, 2004). Russo (2004) concurred that traditional
professional development has led to disappointing results in the midst of high-stakes
accountability; therefore, many districts have utilized the instructional coaching model to
improve teaching and learning following professional development.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 18
Instructional Coaching
Historically, school districts have utilized the instructional coaching model in various
forms because coaching provides the most effective avenue for assisting educators to transfer
new learning to their classrooms (Gallo & De Marco, 2008; Gallucci, Van Lare, Yoon, &
Boatright, 2010; Marzano, Simms, Roy, Heflebower, & Warrick, 2013). Some models include
instructional coaches working full-time at a school site or district office, as well as collaborating
at multiple sites throughout a school year (Marzano et al., 2013; Russo, 2004). Regardless of the
location of the coach, the purpose of the coach is to improve student achievement (Joyce &
Showers, 2002). Educational coaching supports professiona l dev e lopm e nt b y “ h e lpi ng t e a c h e rs
tra nsfe r wha t t he y le a rn i n st a ff de ve lopm e nt s e ssi ons i nto cla ssroom pra c ti c e ” ( M a rz a no e t al.,
2013) . Ga w a nde ( 2011 ) suppor ted this a sser ti on by statin g , “ No ma tt e r ho w w e ll tra ined pe opl e are, few can sustain their bes t per for m a nc e on th e ir ow n. Tha t’s wh e re c oa c hing c omes in” (p. 1) .
Therefore, with the onset of CCSS, professional development with the support of an instructional
coach is imperative. Coaching is the catalyst in ensuring that student achievement occurs,
especially with a shift in teaching and learning (Hattie, 2012; Knight, 2007; Marzano et al.,
2013).
According to Knight (2007), in Instructional Coaching: A Partnership Approach to
Improving Instruction, coaching supports teachers in implementing proven practices. Shifting to
CCSS, educators must have the capacity to deliver IBL strategically and effectively. Therefore,
professional partnerships between the teacher and the instructional coach have a positive impact
on the delivery of research-based instructional practices (e.g., IBL) in the classroom, which leads
to supporting the learning style of 21st-century learners (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Knight, 2007;
Marzano et al., 2013). Knight (2007) suggested a theoretical framework for instructional
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 19
coaching articulated through seven principles: equality, choice, voice, dialogue, reflection,
praxis, and reciprocity. The framework derived from his work (in preparation) Partnership
Learning: Scientifically Proven Strategies for Fostering Dialogue During Workshops and
Presentations.
Equality emphasizes the dual partnership between the instructional coach and the teacher
(Knight, 2007). Coaches understand that their role is to be a collaborative partner, rather than an
expert in a field of study. Valuing thoughts and ideas from the teacher reinforces the purpose of
the instructional coach and teacher partnership: to learn from one another. In building a trusting
relationship, especially during the onset of the coaching model, planning conferences must be a
priority, rather than observations and feedback conferences (Saphier & West, 2010). During the
planning session, coaches have the opportunity to dialogue with those who are seeking support
and to gain perspective on teacher needs.
Choice is a foundational strategy in supporting equality in that, in the dual relationship,
the parties make decisions collaboratively (Gallwey, 2001; Knight, 2007).
Personal discretion is in many ways the heart of being a professional. Doctors, lawyers,
or teachers are professionals because we trust them to make the right decisions, to use
their knowledge skillfully and artfully. That is, what makes someone a professional is her
or his ability to choose correctly. When we take away choice, we reduce people to being
less than professionals. (Knight, 2007, p. 42)
The re fo re , the foc us of th e c oa c h is t o pro vide options t o the te a c he r a t t he e duc a tor’ s c a pa c it y leve l, whil e e nsurin g that the c oa c h ’s thinki ng is n ot i mpos e d on the te a c he r. Coa c he s who
practice the principles of choice simultaneously are building a trusting, working relationship
(Gallwey, 2000; Knight, 2007, 2011).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 20
Voice assists the instructional coach in adhering to the principle of providing access to the
teacher to various perspectives, rather than one lens from the coach. Ultimately, the purpose of
this strategy is to offer a process in which teachers become reflective practitioners about content,
utilizing their own voice.
Dialogue provides a platform where decisions can be made mutually in the instructional
coaching partnershi ps. W it hin t his s tra tegy , indi vi dua ls do not “impose, dominate , or c ontrol” the conversation (Knight, 2007, p. 32). As the goal in the instructional coaching model is to build on
teacher capacity, dialogue is the catalyst for exploring high-yield instructional strategies.
Therefore, the role of the coach is to encourage conversation, talk less, listen, and be a lifelong
learner alongside the teacher.
Reflection is a critical component of professional growth because it provides
opportunities for novices to make sense of new learning with their own decision-making skills.
Information developed in collaboration is analyzed by each partner but the decision to implement
or not i s re spec ted b y th e c oa c h b e c a us e the f inal de c isi on is in t he tea c he r’ s con trol. All ow ing
for the loc us of c ontrol t o be in t he r e fl e c ti ve thi nke r’ s han ds supports t he id e a that ins truc ti ona l
c oa c h e s re c o g niz e that lea rne rs must be “ fr e e to c hoose or r e je c t i de a s, or e lse the y sim pl y a r e not t hinker s at a ll ” ( Kni ght, 2007, p. 33).
Praxis elicits practical application of new learning from the partnership relationship.
Using the content gained through the previous strategies, partners can make meaningful
connections of the learning by reconstructing the knowledge and using it in a useful manner
(Knight, 2007). Ideally, the instructional coach focuses on delivery of instructional practices
throughout the coaching process.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 21
Reciprocity focuses on essential learning for all participants in the coaching model.
Throughout the collaboration process, i ndivi dua ls bene fit fr om l e a rnin g f ro m ea c h other ’s
strengths and weaknesses by implementing and experiencing new learning strategies, specifically
through the view of the teachers and students (Knight, 2007).
Research has identified specific aspects of effective coaching that are intended to
“ im pr ove lea rning a nd de ve lopm e nt of a n indi vidual, a proc e ss t ha t i nvolves c ha n g e ” (Brockbank, 2006, p. 9). Coaching goals derived by research, as well: to point teachers toward
best practices, to show teachers what good teaching looks like, to help teachers to maintain their
be st per for m a nc e , to h e lp t e a c he rs to a c hiev e “ flo w,” a nd to help te a c he rs ta ke r isks .
To add clarity in pointing teachers toward best practices, coaches are expected to lead by
upholding high expectations in standards-based research strategies that ultimately have the
highest impact on results. In doing so, the coach increases in ability to influence teachers to
maintain high expectations of themselves (Kee, Anderson, Dearing, Harris, & Shuster, 2010).
Gawande (2011) and Tschannen-Moran and Tschannen-Moran (2010) contended that effective
c oa c h e s mod e l succ e ssfu l t e a c hin g so t ha t t e a c h e r s “kn ow w ha t suc c e ss l o oks l ike a nd to
im a g ine the ir o wn suc c e s sful ha ndli ng of situation s” ( p. 5). I n h e lpi ng te a c hers to maintain their
best performance, Gawande (2011) asserted that this goal is different from the traditional origin
of pedagogy in that ongoing learning, regardless of degrees earned in a field, necessitates support
by a coach to maintain performance stand a rds. T o a c hieve “ flow ,” inst ru c ti ona l coa c h e s mus t
ensure full engagement for growth and change in teachers by providing intrinsically motivating
activities that are deemed to be within the ability of the teacher (Tschannen-Moran &
Tschannen-Moran, 2010). In other words, the task should not be not too easy or too challenging
so t ha t i t provides “ flow . ” Ke e e t al. ( 2010) posi te d that, to help tea c he rs to take r isks , a c o a c h
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 22
inspires risk taking by encouraging stepping away from the norm and cultivating ingenuity.
P oint e dl y stat e d b y Ke e e t al. ( 2010) , “ A c oa c h is a f a c il it a tor of a ne w min dset that is cr it ica ll y ne e de d in s c hools toda y ” ( p. 11) .
Literature on coaching emphasizes that operative coaching is not entirely contingent on
the coach (Marzano et al., 2013). Goldsmith (2000) and others have asserted that the teacher who
is being coached is the key to the success or failure of the coaching partnership. Clients of
coaching must be willing to change their practices, which is the primary contingency of the
success of the coaching relationship (Fillery-Travis & Lane, 2007). Effective philosophies of the
coached teacher should include but not be inclusive of the following: (a) There must be
agreement that alterations in implementation are needed (Reeves, 2007); (b) the client must first
volunteer, be a risk taker, and be open to change (Rogers, 2011); and (c) the client must acquire
motivation to discover, grow, and evolve (Schein, 2006). Once the above requirements are in
place, it is imperative that the coach assess and recognize the ability level of the client and
customize mediation accordingly (Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992).
In summation, research on the impact of instructional practices suggests that teaching is a
complex entity and therefore exceptionally challenging to achieve measures of high performance
without the support of the client-coach relationship (Marzano et al., 2013). Joyce and Showers
(2002) asserted that professional development followed through by a instructional coach has an
effect size of 1.42 on radically increasing teacher training to practice. Therefore, for the purpose
of this study, a focused professional development on IBL with the option of an instructional
coach should increase implementation of CCSS.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 23
Inquiry-Based Learning
I B L is desi g ne d to be l e s s s y stema ti c a nd is pr e su med to e nha nc e a nd tra ns fe r stude nts’
knowledge and skills through a discovery model (Fielding, Kameenui, & Gersten, 1983).
Occasionally, English literature spells inquiry with an E, rather than an I, as found in American
spelling; nevertheless, the spellings are defined the same (Barrow, 2006). Inquiry, or enquiry, is
“ the a c t or a n inst a nc e of se e king for truth, i nf or m a ti on, or knowle d g e ;; i nve sti g a ti on;; re se a rc h;; or
a que sti on or que r y ” ( Me rr iam -Webster, 1986, p. 1167). Dewey (1910), the founding father of
inquiry learning in the science classroom, posited that the traditional K –12 learning model the
recall of facts, rather than teaching for making meaning and transfer. Kirschner, Sweller, and
Cl a rk ( 2006) supporte d De we y ’s ra ti ona le b y sti pulating that inqui r y lea r ning c h a ll e n g e s
students to decipher realistic problems through a rich learning environment with minimal
instructional guidance.
Historically, the classroom learning environment consisted of teacher as presenter of
knowledge and student as recipient of learning (Swan, Pead, Doorman, & Mooldijk, 2013).
Direct instruction, as this model has been named, is a lesson delivery model intended to
gradually release the responsibility to the learner through a rigid, systematic approach to learning
(Aulls, Shore, & Delcourt, 2007; Fisher & Frey, 2008; Hattie, 2012). Critics of this traditional
model have argued that this authoritarian approach focuses on delivering knowledge, rather than
on understa ndin g students’ a c quisi ti on of the le a rn ing e x pe rie nc e ( B r e dde r man, 1983;; De we y ,
1938; McDaniel & Schlager, 1990; Piaget, 1970; Stohr-Hunt, 1996). Therefore, advocates of
IBL contend that the most effective approach in active learning is in social settings where
students have the opportunity to construct content knowledge actively (Bodner, 1986; Bodner,
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 24
Klobuc ha r, & G e e lan, 20 01;; S pe nc e r, 199 9) . Col b ur n (20 00) a sk e d, “ I f inqui r y is s o im porta nt,
then w h y a re n ’t more te a c he rs usin g it in t he ir c la ssrooms ? ” ( p. 42).
According to a study by Welch, Klopfer, Aikenhead, and Robinson (1981), with regard to
IBL, educators struggle with the following: the meaning of inquiry, the type of student who is
best served by IBL, lack of professional development in the area of IBL, lack of classroom
management, and a commitment to rote learning. Researchers have found that practitioners lack
confidence in their delivery of IBL and battle time restraints in lesson design (Schauble, Klopfer,
& Raghavan, 1991; White & Frederiksen, 1998).
In a mixed-methods study of 150 high school teachers, Traugh (1974) found that the
teachers conveyed (a) unwillingness to lose the locus of control in their learning environment,
and (b) unwillingness to lose breadth over depth. In research by Blanchard, Osborne, Wallwork,
and Harris (2013), 545 elementary teachers reported 751 instructional constraints related to IBL.
Of those c onst ra int s, “ti me, r e sourc e s, and la c k o f pr e pa ra ti on” w e re th e top conc e rns (p. 4) .
Teachers who struggle with the inquiry process ultimately cultivate an environment in
which it is difficult for students to engage in the IBL process. If students are to be successful
with IBL, they must be active in their own learning and thinking (Dewey, 1909; Spronken-
Smith, 2007; Swan et al., 2013). Therefore, teachers must overcome potential barriers to inquiry
instruction and become experts in how to nurture the classroom culture to ensure that students
are active learners in the inquiry process, especially with the onset of CCSS implementation.
One of the goals of a culture of IBL in a classroom is for teachers to focus on moving
students from passive to active learning (Lee, 2012; Ratzer & Jaeger, 2014; Swan et al., 2013).
P iag e t (1970 ) a sse rte d that “ e a c h ti me one pr e mat ur e l y t e a c h e s a child something he could have
discovered for himself, that child is kept from inventing it and consequently from understanding
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 25
it c ompl e tel y ” (p. 71 5) . Aulls e t al. ( 2007) c onc u rr e d that e du c a tors mus t pr ovide oppor tuni ti e s
for learners to take respons ibi li t y f or th e “ wh a t” a nd “ how” of th e ir lea rnin g . As students a re allowed to acquire learning autonomously, they are more likely to make meaning and transfer the
knowledge deeper than students who are engaged in the traditional model of direct instruction
(Bredderman, 1983; McDaniel & Schlager, 1990; McTighe, Seif, & Wiggins, 2004; Schauble,
1996; Stohr-Hunt, 1996). Therefore, educators must seek guidance from inquiry experts on a
systematic approach to IBL.
In reviewing models of inquiry, an abundance of examples have been developed
throughout the years by researchers, such as Bell, Smetana, and Binns (2005), Bonstetter (1998),
Colburn (2000), Learning (2004), and Settlage (2007). Models are instructional scaffolds for
educators to increase their understanding of nonvisual observations (Colburn, 2000).
Representations support teachers and students in connecting new learning (Colburn, 2000;
Donha m, 2001). Mode ls pr ovide c omm on lan g ua ge a c ross I B L c a mpus e s to “ incr e a se e ff e c ti ve communication among all inqui re rs in a scho ol “ ( C olburn, 2000, p. 8) . F or the pur pose of thi s
stud y , B onst e tt e r’ s (1998 ) I B L mod e l (Ta ble 1 ) w a s sele c ted a s the f ound a ti on fo r instruc ti ona l
practice and further research (Table 1).
To uti li z e B onst e tt e r’ s (1 998) I B L mod e l ef f e c ti ve l y , teachers must first understand the
lang u a g e used in l e a rnin g horiz ontall y a nd ve rtic a ll y . Hor iz ontall y , B onst e tt e r’ s mod e l se e ks t o
move students from teacher-directed work to student-centered work, which Ratzer and Jaeger
(2014) confirmed to be the purpose of inquiry learning. Vertically, the model guides the
practitioner through the stages of IBL. Scaffolding the gradual release of responsibility (GRR)
shapes the role of student and teacher throughout the learning of content (product) and the how
of learning (process; Aulls, 1998; Brown & Campione, 1998).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 26
Table 1

Bonstetter’ s Inquiry -Based Learning Model

Student Student
Element Traditional Structured Guided directed research

Topic Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher/
Student
Question Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher/ Student
Student
Materials Teacher Teacher Teacher Student Student
Procedures/Design Teacher Teacher Teacher/ Student Student
Student
Results/Analysis Teacher Teacher/ Student Student Student
Student
Conclusions Teacher Student Student Student Student

Horizontally, beginning with Traditional, the teacher directs decision making and models
each phase of the inquiry model from Topic to Conclusions. In the Traditional phase, the use of
metacognition is essential for teachers to develop student understanding of inquiry processes, as
well as content. Metacognition leads learners to become aware of their own thinking methods,
which has an effect size of 0.69 (Colburn, 2004; Hattie, 2012). Schoenfield (1985) affirmed that
metacognition also leads to development of students who are self-guided, lifelong learners, thus
creating autonomous thinkers. Effectively modeling metacognition, especially during the
Traditional phase, supports students in the rest of the IBL model as teachers gradually release the
responsibility of inquiry learning to students.
During the Structured phase, the locus of control is primarily in the hands of the teacher.
Students are provided with the topic, question, materials, and procedures but the teacher guides
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 27
the students through analysis of results and allows student autonomy in developing a conclusion
(Bonstetter, 1998; Colburn, 2000; Miranda & Hermann, 2012). Aulls et al. (2008) and Colburn
(2000) emphasized that, for students to be successful inquiry learners, they must take on more
responsibility in the inquiry continuum. However, teachers should move slowly in the process
a nd tea c h e a c h pha se e x pli c it l y . B onst e tt e r ’s ( 199 8) model gr a dua ll y r e lea s e s the r e sponsi bil it y of inquiry learning from the teacher to the student.
During the Guided phase, students are prepared to take on responsibility of designing the
investigation with the support of the teacher but the students analyze the results and reach
supportable conclusions on their own (Bonstetter, 1998; Colburn, 2000; Miranda & Hermann,
2012). The instructor provides the topic, question, and materials.
Students in the Student Directed phase maintain core responsibility of each phase of IBL,
choosing the topic. In the Student Research phase, students are leaders of their inquiry learning
project. Gaining control of inquiry, students become experts in each phase of IBL and develop
“ se lf-motivation, self-awareness, self-direction, self-assurance, self-assessment, and self-
a c c ountabili t y ” ( W a ll a c e & Husid, 2011, p. 25).
In initially facilitating IBL in a lesson, teachers must balance their attention between
process and product. Process can be defined as the phases of IBL identified vertically in
B onst e tt e r’ s (1998 ) mode l, as w e ll a s ski ll s re late d to collaboration and student motivation.
Product consists of the outcomes generated and observed in the IBL lesson. Productive inquiry
lessons maintain a balance of process and product, which teachers must monitor and recognize
(Gabella, 1995; Hammer, 1997; Polman & Pea, 1997).
Productive inquiry occurs when teachers acquire the skill set to manage and cultivate a
classroom environment that is well organized, collaborative, and free to take risks. Traugh
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 28
(1974) found that teachers perceived that the inquiry approach led to a loss of teacher
management of the classroom and or control. However, research on the roles of the teacher and
student suggests that, for the shift in CCSS to be successful, classroom environments must
become student centered to develop critical thinkers and optimize learning outcomes
(Bredderman, 1983; Bruner, 1961; Ratzer & Jaeger, 2014). In other words, educators must
provide opportunities for students to engage in dialogue freely to construct knowledge and feel
comfortable with the process. Managing a classroom environment where students are changed
from passive to active learners increases retention of knowledge by 85% (Ratzer & Jaeger,
2014).
This i s not to sa y th a t t he tea c he r’ s role is t o be p a ssi ve during the inquir y p roc e ss;; educators must scaffold the process of IBL to ignite active learners through strategically
designed lessons and essential questioning techniques (Artigue & Blomhoej, 2013; McTighe &
Wiggins, 2013). According to McTighe and Wiggins (2013), the effective essential question is
“ ope n-ended, thought provoking, intellectually engaging, provoke higher order thinking, elicits
tra nsfe r o f ide a s, r a ises a ddit ional que sti ons, re quire s jus ti fic a ti on, a nd is re visi ted” ( p. 3). Providing right or wrong feedback is not a practice of an inquiry-oriented teacher (Barell, 2007;
Fielding et al., 1983; McTighe & Wiggins, 2013). Students are allowed to struggle with real-life
problems, even if their answers are wrong. Learning is generated by engaging in the tension that
the learner experiences during inquiry (Fielding et al., 2013). Although questioning techniques
tend to activate student thinking overall, teachers may perceive IBL to be a messy construct that
is difficult to facilitate (Ratzer & Jaeger, 2014).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 29
Teacher Perceptions
Teacher self-efficacy, derived from social cognitive theory, is crucial with a new
initiative like CCSS. Self-efficacy affects the ability to make decisions, assert effort, and
maintain determination (Bandura, 1997; Gecas, 1989; Zimmerman, 2000). Bandura (1986)
hypothesized that self- e ff ica c y pla y s the role of “ t he t y p e s of outc omes pe o ple a nti c ipate de p e nd
lar ge l y on their jud g ment s of how we ll the y will be a ble to pe r for m i n g ive n si tuations ” ( p. 392) .
Therefore, persons with a low sense of efficacy may withdraw from new learning, while those
with a high sense of efficacy will engage in new challenging work without hesitation, especially
when supported by an instructional coach (Cantrell & Hughes, 2008; Schunk, 1989). Educational
reform brings a sense of fear t o te a c h e rs ( R a tz e r & J a e ge r, 201 4 ). B uil din g on te a c he r’ s self -
efficacy is critical in ensuring that people are able to cope during a time of change.
Self-efficacy is gained vicariously by observing peers sustaining success at a task,
verbally through persuasory information, physiological indicators (e.g., heart beat, perspiration),
as well as performance assessments (Schunk, 1989; Zimmerman, 2000). Vicarious experiences
lead a learner to make self-comparisons, which can positively or negatively influence self-
efficacy. Verbal persuasion is based on oral influence by the observer but it has inadequate
impact on self-efficacy because influence is directly related to the credibility of the persuader
(Zimmerman, 2000). If a model is viewed as more competent than the learner, the observer will
perceive his or her performance in the same task as inaccessible.
S im il a rl y , ph y siol o g ica l r e a c ti ons a f fe c t t he jud g m e nt of a lea rne r ’s e f fic a c y be c a use it
can be interpreted as physical incompetence (Zimmerman, 2000). Typically, bodily functions are
reflective of anxiety due to lack of a skill set to complete a task. Emotional discourse relative to
self- e f fic a c y influe nc e s the lea rn e r’ s a bil it y to m a na ge pe r c e ived c ha ll e n g i ng tasks, posi ti ve l y o r
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 30
negatively (Bandura, 1997; Pajares & Kranzler, 1995; Zimmerman, 2000). When efficacy is
high, emotions decrease stress, anxiety, and depression (Bandura, 1997).
It has been recommended that facilitators of knowledge focus on nurturing a positive
sense of self-efficacy rather than solely academic anxiety (Zimmerman, 2000). Research has
determined that enactive experiences have the highest bearing on self-efficacy in that personal
e x pe rie nc e with a posit iv e outcome a f fe c ts t he lea rne r’ s b e li e f s y stem. R e ga rdle ss, over a ll ,
elevated self-efficacy is not equivalent to competent performance when prerequisite skills are
absent (Schunk, 1989).
According to Schunk (1989), self-efficacy should guide new learning, as well as the
outcomes of formerly learned skills. Self-efficacy is appraised, generally, when personal or
professional conditions change, rather than when accomplishing familiar tasks. As learners are
presented new knowledge, assessment of ability occurs: evaluation of prerequisite skills needed
to complete the task, capacity to recall essential skills efficiently from memory, perception of
level of ease when acquiring skills gained in the past, engagement aptitude to instruction, and
attention to self-monitoring (Schunk, 1989). Therefore, as learners are engaged in new
professional learning, many indicators affect their level of self-efficacy to follow through with
the new learning, including persistence.
As new knowledge is presented, learners persist, regardless of their self-efficacy level,
because the presenter keeps the student on task ( S c hunk, 1989) . One ’s p e rc e pti on of self -efficacy
ha s an e f fe c t on p e rsist e n c e in t ha t i t i nf luenc e s on e ’s a c quisi ti on of knowle dg e dir e c tl y a nd
indi re c tl y b y inc re a sing o ne ’s pe rsist e n c e ( S c hunk, 1981) . Elicit ing e f for t i n a task is re lative to
the level of student efficacy; higher self-efficacy typically leads to greater engagement and or
motivation to mental activities (Corno & Mandinach, 1983).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 31
Bandura (1977, 1986), in his research on self-efficacy theory, distinguished efficacy
expectations and outcome expectations. Efficacy expectation leads learners to perceive that they
a re c a pa ble o f a c hieving a g iv e n a c ti on. Outc om e e x pe c tations r e fe r to a n i ndivi dua l’s e sti mate that a specific behavior will gain expected outcomes (Bandura, 1977). In other words, outcome
expectations are conclusions about the probability of outcomes.
Marx (1844/1963) contributed research that is relevant to this study by asserting that
e ff ic a c ious ac ti on is re l a ti ve to “pr a x is” or c ontex t i n wor k. W he n the le a rn e r is posi ti oned in a
work environment perceived as alienating, the sense of self-efficacy is aggravated or hindered
due to a disconnect between action and self. In other words, the learner must have control over
effort and its products to achieve high self-efficacy. However, when the locus of control is
outsi de the le a rne r’ s c a pa c it y , the le a rne r is lef t wi ther a sense o f pow e rle ss ne ss and lose s
efficacy (Pajares, 1992).
In summary, self-efficacy research has clearly identified various variables that affect
tea c he rs’ perceptions of their ability to perform effectively. Self-efficacy has a strong effect on
tea c he rs’ inst ruc ti ona l ab il it y , r e g a rdle ss of know l e dge of c ont e nt gaine d th roug h p rof e ssi ona l
learning (Nespor, 1987). Therefore, implications for high student achievement are indicative of
the te a c h e r’ s pe rc e pti ons of se lf -efficacy (Zimmerman, 2000).
Decision Theory
Self-efficacy and professional development of IBL will not solely impact student
achievement as it relates to CCSS. Knowledge of IBL lesson delivery will only increase student
learning outcomes if teachers have the decision- m a king r e pe rtoire that “ r e s ult s in i ts appr opria te
a ppli c a ti on in t he c lassro om” ( P a rke r, 1984, p. 22 0) . Cl a ssrooms ar e unpr e dicta ble in na ture a nd
it is imperative that educators be able to make crucial decisions regarding instruction, regardless
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 32
of the c irc umst a n c e s. O’ B rie n a nd Nor ton (1991 ) found that tea c h e rs’ und e rsta nding o f
theoretical frameworks, as well as pedagogy, influence decision making. In analyzing teacher
decision making, the third point to consider is the challenging interplay of teaching and learning,
whic h c a n b e c onsi de r e d hig hl y c ompl e x ( C a lder h e a d, 1981;; O’ B rie n & No rton, 1991) .
Mitchell (1980) determined that multiple factors influence what a teacher does in the
classroom, including professional development, philosophies about learning, interpretation of
learner needs and abilities, and the site principal. In other words, both intrinsic and extrinsic
motivators influence teacher decisions (Calderhead, 1981; Eells & S obe r, 1 986;; O’ B ri e n & Norton, 1991). Shavelson (1978) and Borko, Cone, Russo, and Shavelson (1979) viewed teacher
beliefs as integral components of decision-making models, such as the relationship between
educational beliefs and cognitive styles and opinions and mindsets about education. All of these
facets influence teachers' behaviors when they are faced with the challenging cognitive task to
determine which strategy to select from their instructional repertoire (Parker, 1984).
Classrooms are fluid, interactive environments where teachers must determine when to
make a decision that will have an ultimate positive impact on student performance (Eells &
S obe r, 198 6;; O’ B rie n & Nor ton, 1991;; P a rke r, 19 84). H owe v e r, a d e c isi on made in one moment
for one particular student may not benefit another learner in an alternative context (Calderhead,
1981; Elbaz, 1981; Parker, 1984). Brophy (1979) posited that teaching and learning contexts
fluctuate and so should instructional approaches. A challenge in this philosophy, according to
Brophy (1979), is that teachers must comprehend that there is not one featured approach to
teaching and learning. Instructional decisions are based on the ever-changing classroom
environment, student by student and moment by moment (Brophy, 1979; Parker, 1984).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 33
Medley (1981) and Shavelson (1973) argued that teacher content expertise is useless
unless the practitioner is an expert in the critical component of instruction: decision making.
The re is no “ c or r e c t” te a c hing a c t for [ a pa rticula r ] situation. A teacher may possess a full
range of teaching skills, but if he is unable to determine those situations in which a
particular skill or subset of skills is appropriate, the consequences of his blindly carrying
out those skills alone may not be those intended. (Shavelson, 1973, p. 38)
Parker (1984) described interactive decision making and preactive decision making as
effective strategies for teachers to use for and during instruction. Interactive decisions are
decisions made throughout instruction. Cognitive processes are utilized during interactive
decision making by evaluating pros and cons of alternative actions. Thus, selecting and rejecting
choices are considered decisions in practice.
Parker (1984) concluded that teachers who become experts in making on-the-spot
decisions are flexible thinkers and posited that their behavior impacts teaching and learning.
Preactive is the decisions teachers make during lesson planning. Unfortunately, teachers rarely
adjust their lesson planning based on interactive decision making from previous lessons. Lesson
planning typically is adjusted only if the practitioner perceives that the lesson that was designed
during preactive decision making is going awry (Medley, 1981; Parker, 1984; Shavelson, 1973).
Chapter Summary
Reflective practices are essential components of decision theory. Improving instructional
practices requires teachers to be investigators of their own practice as a precursor to lesson
delivery, as well as within the setting of teaching (Aulls et al., 2008; Calderhead, 1989; Dewey,
1933). Ultimately, reflection on professional practice informs decision making and affects
student achievement.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 34
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
L e g isl a tors ’ de c isi on to s hift to C C S S a ba ndons t he tra dit ional na ti onwide pr a c ti c e of
standards-based instruction individualized by each state. CCSS is designed to ensure that all K –
12 students are college and career ready through application of rigorous common standards. The
rationale of the CCSS initiative originated in 2006 from two former governors: James B. Hunt,
Jr., and Bob Wise. Using evidence-based research to shape educational policy change informed
the nation of the urgent need to support the CCSS plan. Earlier standards had failed to ensure that
U.S. students could compete globally, widened the achievement gap for ethnically diverse
children, and ill prepared students for college and careers (Jenkins & Agamba, 2013; McDonnell
& Weatherford, 2013; Ratzer & Jaeger, 2014).
However, the advent of national standards is not the sole solution to ensure that students
have the competence to succeed globally. Providing students avenues to develop critical thinking
skills to access and solve real-world problems in all content areas takes more than revised
standards. Teachers must have the skill set to gradually release responsibility for learning to
engage students in rigorous and complex tasks (Aulls et al., 2008; Ratzer & Jaeger, 2014;
Westover, 2013). The earlier standards developed teachers who relied on scripted text to deliver
content standards and a generation of educators lacking high-yield instructional practices (Ratzer
& Jaeger, 2014).
Providing relevant professional development is a critical component of the CCSS
initiative. Teachers must develop lessons derived from the CCSS without use of adopted
curriculum whereby educators were trained on how to use materials rather than focus on
instructional delivery models. Twenty-first-century learners must acquire higher-order thinking
skills to be successful in college and career; therefore, teachers must have the capacity to educate
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 35
modern learners (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009). Professional development must focus on
teaching and learning rather than on curriculum development (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009;
Vecellio, 2013). Vecellio (20 13) su gg e sted that th e most “ pivot a l educ a ti o na l ente rpr ise is t he wa y we te a c h, how we d e sig n a nd de li ve r instruc t ion” ( p. 224) . Te a c he rs must a lso have the se lf -
efficacy to engage in new teacher learning and determine how to apply those skills effectively in
the c lassro om (O ’Brie n & Nor ton, 1991;; P a rk e r, 1984;; S c hunk, 1989) . The re fo re , thi s st ud y wa s
designed to address the following research questions:
1. How can professional development and instructional coaching focused on IBL support
implementation of CCSS?
2. How do tea c h e rs’ p e rc e pti ons of the ir a bil it y to im pleme nt C C S S influe nc e instructional delivery of CCSS?
3. W ha t i s the influe nc e of a n inst ruc ti ona l coa c h on a tea c h e r’ s a bil it y to d e li ve r a n I B L CCSS lesson?
4. What instructional strategies do teachers use to teach CCSS and why?
A mixed-methods approach was selected to understand the intended research on the
im pa c t of pr of e ssi ona l d e ve lopm e nt and te a c he rs’ pe rc e pti ons of impl e ment a ti on of C C S S . To
gain quantitative data, a 24-question survey developed by the researcher, titled Common Core
State Standards Professional Development Survey, was distributed to all 15 of the K –5 Desert
Elementary School teachers. The Piñon Hills certificated staff consists of two Kindergarten
teachers, three first-grade teachers, two second-grade teachers, one second/third-grade
combination teacher, two third-grade teachers, two fourth-grade teachers, one fourth/fifth-grade
combination teacher, and two fifth-grade teachers. The teachers had an average 14 years of
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 36
classroom experience. Six K –5 teachers were randomly selected from the Desert School staff to
participate in this mixed-methods study.
The names of five K –1 teachers, five second- and third-grade teachers, and five fourth-
and fifth-grade teachers were categorized by grade. Two teachers from each group were
randomly selected to participate in the study. However, all 15 teachers were sent an email link
giving access to the qualitative survey prior to be completed prior to a schoolwide professional
development session on IBL as it relates to CCSS, during the 2013-14 school year, as well as
after the study concluded in fall of the 2014-2015 school year. This longitudinal survey took
approximately 10 minutes to complete. Teachers took the survey during their personal time.
The self-administered questionnaire served as the quantitative approach to this research
study to provide statistical data about the sample (Creswell, 2009). Survey questions consisted of
multiple-choice, 4-point Likert-type scale, and open ended items. Likert-type items were based
on scales from confident to no confidence and from always to never. Questions were developed
to determine teacher demographics; instructional decision making; perceptions of CCSS,
professional development, and instructional coaches; and interpretation of IBL. A pre/post
survey was the preferred type of data collection for this study because the survey was intended to
measure professional growth in the area of IBL through use of an instructional coach. The survey
was developed by the researcher and reviewed at the University of Southern California by
content experts.
Qua li tative da ta w e re c oll e c ted thr ou g h c lass room obse rva ti ons i n the te a c h e r’ s natur a l
setting. IBL designs based on CCSS were the focus of the observations. The Inquiry-Based
Learning Evidence Form (Appendix A) was utilized during classroom observations. For
reliability purposes, an initial classroom observation was held in six classrooms that were
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 37
randomly selected prior to the initial professional development session with a neutral desert
c omm unit y a dmi nist ra tor a nd De se rt School’s pr in c ipal. Af ter th e obse rv a ti on, the dist ric t
administrator and site principal calibrated their findings using this evidence form. Calibration
consisted of collaborative conversations to identify evidence that was or was not observed in
relationship to IBL.
After the initial IBL professional development session, the six randomly selected teachers
were notified, in advance, when the principal and district administrator would observe their
classrooms in time blocks of 2 to 3 consecutive hours. Ensuring that observations are in the
natural classroom setting was the rationale for between-the-bells qualitative data collection. IBL
was the focus of the four scheduled observations during the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school
day. All six teachers notified the investigator of the time frame, lesson design, and the CCSS to
be addressed during the four observations. After each observation, the investigator asked the
teacher a series of questions to determine how the teacher had decided to utilize IBL and the
decision making that was observed during delivery of the lesson. By the end of the 2013-2014
observation cycle, the site principal and district administrator had completed two full
observations using the Inquiry-Based Learning Evidence Form. A total of eight observations
were completed for analysis by October 2014 for each randomly selected teacher, resulting in 48
observational forms.
The Inquiry-Based Learning Evidence Form was used to rank the phases of IBL on a 4-
point Likert-type scale (4 = Distinguished, 3 = Proficient, 2 = Basic, 1 = Unsatisfactory).
Distinguished wa s def ine d a s “a ll outcome s r e fle c t t he int e nde d pur pose of t he tar g e t phas e ,” Proficient wa s def ined a s “ most outcome s re fle c t the intende d pur pose o f the tar g e t phas e ,” Basic wa s def in e d a s “ou tcome s mod e ra tel y r e fle c t t he int e nde d pur pose of the ta r g e t phas e ,”
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 38
and Unsatisfactory wa s d e fine d a s “ outcome s do n ot re fle c t t he int e nd e d pu rpose of the ta r g e t
pha se ” ( Da nielson, 2007) .
De se rt School’s inst ruc ti ona l coa c h c ontribut e d to the qua li tative e videnc e in t his s tud y .
The coach was notified of the identity of the six randomly selected teachers and was asked to
keep a log of interaction with them prior to the initial professional development session and
through the end of the research project. Recorded evidence that was captured included but was
not limited to the following: teacher initiation of instructional support, instructional coach
initiation of support, demonstration lessons related to CCSS as related to direct instruction and
IBL, lesson design support, and peer coaching. The teachers were not informed about the log and
were not aware of that part of the study intended to gauge the impact of an instructional coach on
professional development. Rationale for the confidentiality of this portion of the study was to
ensure that the researcher captured natural interactions with the instructional coach, without
expectations from the site principal.
After collection of all quantitative and qualitative data, the researcher exported the
pre/post questionnaires to the software program SPSS ™. Data were analyzed by the following
categories: demographics, instructional decision making, perceptions of CCSS, professional
development, instructional coaches, and level of understanding of IBL.
Qualitative results using the Inquiry-Based Learning Evidence Form, brief teacher
interview data following all four observations, and the instructional coach log were coded by
chunks of related observational evidence, for example, the number of times the teachers engaged
students in highly structured practice or initiated instructional coach support. Positive and
negative correlations between the quantitative survey data and qualitative observation data were
a na l y z e d to d e ter mi ne th e e ff e c t of p rof e ssi ona l d e ve lopm e nt on t e a c he rs’ pe rc e pti ons of CC S S .
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 39
Table 2 summarizes the alignment between the research questions and the aspects of the
methodology. Table 3 delineates the purposeful sampling criteria. Figure 1 illustrates the
selection procedure for the study population. Table 4 presents the alignment between research
questions and data collection instruments. Table 5 delineates the relationships between research
questions and data collection instruments
Table 2

Alignment Between Research Questions and Methodology

Research question Method targeted Goal

1. How can professional development
and instructional coaching focused on
IBL support implementation of CCSS?
Mixed methods Evidence of growth in lesson
design delivery of inquiry-based
learning
2. How do tea c h e rs’ p e rc e pti ons of the ir
ability to implement CCSS influence
instructional delivery of CCSS?
Mixed methods Evidence in the relationship
be twe e n te a c h e rs’ pe rc e p tions
and instructional delivery
3. What is the influence of an
inst ruc ti ona l coa c h on a tea c h e r’ s abili t y to deliver an IBL CCSS lesson?
Mixed methods Evidence of the working
relationship with a coach and
teacher capacity
4. What instructional strategies do
teachers use to teach CCSS and why?
Mixed methods Evidence of effective use of
inquiry-based learning utilizing
B onst e tt e r’ s mod e l

Note. CCSS = Common Core State Standards.

The qualitative and quantitative data collected from this study intended to determine the
impact of intensive professional development focused on IBL with the support of an instructional
coach. Providing teachers opportunities to practice designing and delivering CCSS lessons using
IBL, while having the opportunity to utilize a coach, is anticipated to increase teacher efficacy,
decision-making skills, and capacity. Thus, positively impacting the implementation of CCSS.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 40
Table 3

Purposeful Sampling Criteria

School Teachers

Piñon Hills Elementary School in the
Snowline Joint Unified School District
17 teachers participated in inquiry-based learning
professional development
Located in a rural desert community Implement four inquiry-based learning lessons in
the classroom
Title 1 status Access to onsite and offsite instructional coach
Pre-K to Grade 5 Teachers in Kindergarten through Grade 5
Program Improvement P rof e ssi ona l deve lopm e n t on B onst e tt e r’ s inqu ir y -
based learning model
Instructional coach

Figure 1. Selection procedure for study population.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 41

Table 4

Alignment Between Research Question and Data Collection Instruments

Research question Instrument Methodology

1. How can professional development
and instructional coaching focused on
IBL support implementation of CCSS?
Teacher Pre/Post Survey; Inquiry-
Based Learning Evidence Form;
C oa c h’ s L o g ;; Tea c he r inte rvie w
Mixed
methods
2. How do tea c h e rs’ p e rc e pti ons of
their ability to implement CCSS
influence instructional delivery of
CCSS?
Teacher Pre/Post Survey; Direct
Instruction; Inquiry-Based Learning
Evidence Form
Mixed
methods
3. What is the influence of an
inst ruc ti ona l coa c h on a tea c h e r’ s
ability to deliver an IBL CCSS lesson?
Teacher Pre/Post Survey; Teacher
interview; Inquiry-Based Learning
Evidence Form
Mixed
methods
4. What instructional strategies do
teachers use to teach CCSS and why?
Teacher Pre/Post Survey; Teacher
interview; Inquiry-Based Learning
Evidence Form
Mixed
methods

Note. CCSS = Common Core State Standards.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 42
Table 5

Relationships Between Research Questions and Data Collection Instruments

Question Survey item Content relevance Research

2, 4

2

2, 4

1, 2, 4

1, 2, 4

1, 2, 4

1, 2, 4

1, 2, 4

1, 2, 4

1, 2, 4

1, 3

I am confident that I understand how
to instruct using the CCSS.

I am confident that I understand the
meaning of 21st-century participatory
learning.

I am confident I know the difference
between 1997 standards and CCSS.

I am confident that my instructional
strategies aid the instruction of the
CCSS.

I am confident that my professional
development experiences have helped
me to effectively teach the CCSS.

I am confident in my ability to design
and appropriately deliver inquiry-
based learning.

I am capable of determining when to
appropriately use inquiry-based
learning in my CCSS-based lesson
designs.

I am capable of facilitating critical
thinking opportunities during inquiry-
based learning.

I am capable of gradually releasing the
learning of curriculum to students.

My instructional decisions are based
on student needs.

I seek out the instructional coach to
support schoolwide professional
development training.

Teacher self-efficacy
Professional development

Teacher self-efficacy

Teacher self-efficacy
Professional development

Teacher self-efficacy
Professional development
Instructional strategies

Teacher self-efficacy
Professional development
Instructional strategies

Teacher self-efficacy
Professional development

Decision theory
Professional development
Instructional strategies

Decision theory

Decision theory
Professional development

Professional development
Decision theory
Instructional strategies

Professional development
Instructional coaching

Bandura, 1977;
Schunk, 1989;
Henson, 2001

Bandura, 1977;
Schunk, 1989;
Henson, 2001

Bandura, 1977;
Schunk, 1989;
Henson, 2001

Bandura, 1977;
Schunk, 1989;
Henson, 2001

Bandura, 1977;
Schunk, 1989;
Henson, 2001

Bandura, 1977;
Schunk, 1989;
Henson, 2001

Parker, 1984;
Calderhead,
1981;; O ’ B r i en
& Norton, 1991

Parker, 1984;
Calderhead,
1981;; O ’ B r i en
& Norton, 1991

Parker, 1984;
Calderhead,
1981;; O ’ B r i en
& Norton, 1991

Parker, 1984;
Calderhead,
1981;; O ’ B r i en
& Norton, 1991

Guskey, 2002;
Cantrell &
Hughes, 2008;
Hattie, 2012

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 43
Table 5 (Continued)

Question Survey item Content relevance Research

1, 3

1, 3

1, 3

1, 4

1

1, 4

1, 3, 4

3

The Instructional Coach is available,
confidential, objective, honest,
professional, and a learner.

I seek out the instructional coach to
provide demonstration lessons to
support schoolwide professional
development training.

What strategies and/or approaches
have you used in your teaching as a
result of working with the instructional
coach?

What barriers or obstacles have
interfered with you working with the
instructional coach?

Define Direct Instruction using 20
words or less.

Define Inquiry-Based Learning using
20 words or less.

Professional development at my site
benefits my implementation of CCSS.

Implementing knowledge learned from
onsite professional development with
the support of the instructional coach
enhances my ability to implement
CCSS.

How many professional development
opportunities have you participated in
the past 2 years?

Instructional coaching

Professional development
Instructional coaching

Professional development
Instructional coaching

Professional development
Instructional coaching

Professional development
Instructional strategies

Professional development
Instructional strategies

Professional development
Instructional strategies

Professional development
Instructional coaching
Instructional strategies

Professional development

Guskey, 2002;
Cantrell &
Hughes, 2008;
Hattie, 2012

Guskey, 2002;
Cantrell &
Hughes, 2008;
Hattie, 2012

Guskey, 2002;
Cantrell &
Hughes, 2008;
Hattie, 2012

Guskey, 2002;
Cantrell &
Hughes, 2008;
Hattie, 2012

Darling-
Hammond, 2000;
Day, 1999;
Guskey, 2000

Darling-
Hammond, 2000;
Day, 1999;
Guskey, 2000

Darling-
Hammond, 2000;
Day, 1999;
Guskey, 2000

Darling-
Hammond, 2000;
Day, 1999;
Guskey, 2000

Darling
Hammond, 2000;
Day, 1999;
Guskey, 2000

Note. CCSS = Common Core State Standards.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 44
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
Introduction to the Study
Shifting from the generation of 1997 standards to CCSS will require educators to modify
their instructional practices from primarily teaching and learning focused on acquiring
knowledge to students making meaning and transferring learning. The 1997 standards developed
lea rne rs w ho be c a me e x pe rts a t rote le a rnin g , whic h lef t l it tl e in st ude nts’ lo ng -term memory
(Ratzer & Jaeger, 2014). Expecting teachers to shift their 1997 instructional practices easily to
CCSS is not realistic, unless targeted professional development, focused on IBL, is delivered,
implemented, and monitored. According to brain research, IBL will transfer learning to long-
term memory because this approach demands attaching learning to prior knowledge (Ratzer &
Jaeger, 2014). Teachers must have the capacity and decision-making skills to determine when
and how to use the phases of IBL when addressing CCSS. IBL has the transforming power to
change learning from superficial learning to deep learning and to assist teachers in acquiring
greater success in moving to CCSS (Ratzer & Jaeger, 2014).
Problem of the Study
According to education analysts, the challenge of CCSS implementation is to prepare
teachers to shift their instructional approaches; the CCSS does not address this issue directly. In a
recent survey about CCSS (Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, 2013), 57% of the
600 respondents reported that teachers would feel better prepared to teach CCSS if they had
“ more infor mation about how the C C S S c ha ng e s i nstruc ti ona l pra c ti c e ” ( p. 20). T o support
educators in the transition to CCSS, the current study was designed to address four research
questions:
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 45
1. How can professional development and instructional coaching focused on IBL support
implementation of CCSS?
2. How do tea c h e rs’ p e rc e pti ons o f their ability to implement CCSS influence
instructional delivery of CCSS?
3. W ha t i s the influe nc e of a n inst ruc ti ona l coa c h on a tea c h e r’ s a bil it y to d e li ve r a n I B L CCSS lesson?
4. What instructional strategies do teachers use to teach CCSS and why?
Review of Methodology
This research study was approached through a mixed-methods design. A 24-question
survey titled Common Core State Standards Professional Development Survey was distributed to
all 15 of the K –5 Desert School teachers to acquire quantitative data. From the 15 teachers, six
were randomly selected but only five of the six agreed to participate.
Demographics
Desert School, part of a unified school district, served as the location for the research
study. Desert School is located in a rural desert community; 430 students attend the K –5 school.
This Title I school is frozen in Year 3 of Program Improvement status due to uncertainty
regarding CCSS accountability measures. Five of the 15 teachers at the school teaching
Kindergarten through Grade 5 were randomly selected to participate in the study in spring 2014.
Participating teachers taught Kindergarten, Grade 1, Grade 2, Grade 3, or Grade 5. However, due
to grade-level changes for the 2014-2015 school year at the conclusion of the study, original
participants stayed the same but their grade levels changed to the following: Grades 1, 2, 3, and
5. Participant ages ranged from 31 to 55 years, with an average 17 years of experience
(Figure 2).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 46

Figure 2. Participant demographics.

All teachers at Desert School, including the five randomly selected participants, engaged
in a schoolwide IBL professional development session in spring 2014 and a follow-up
professional development session in fall 2014. Quantitative data were collected via a pre/post
survey administered before and after the development sessions and analyzed using SPSS ™.
Qualitative data were collected via a confidential log recorded by the instructional coach. For
example, interaction between each teacher and the coach was catalogued to analyze lesson
observation proficiency versus support from the onsite coach. Each participant engaged in four
IBL observations to measure proficiency of CCSS implementation through use of IBL over time.
Following each IBL lesson, interviews were held to measure teacher decision-making skills,
confidence level, and positive and negative aspects of the lesson.
Pre/Post Comparative Survey Results
Responses to six questions in the pre/post survey provided significant data (Table 6).
Themes of the quantitative survey were as follows: teacher demographics, description of
professional development opportunities, confidence level for implementation of CCSS, decision
theory, and relationship with the instructional coach. Results were intended to address one or
more of the four research questions.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 47
Table 6

Significance of Differences in Responses to the Pre
and Post Administrations of the Survey

Survey item Significance (p < .05)

Q71 .021
Q72 .039
Q73 .034
Q74 .038
Q75 .013
Q81 .020

Results for Research Questions 1 and 3
Results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test indicated that six variables were significantly
different (p < .05) from pretest to posttest. No other variables were significant at that level. Using
the Shapiro-Wilke test, the assumption of normal distribution of the data was tested at a .05 level
of significance. Comparative findings from Q71 through Q75 related to teacher confidence. The
data indicated that teacher self-efficacy increased overall from spring 2014 to fall 2014 in the
following areas: use of CCSS, meaning of 21st-century skills, difference between 1997 standards
and CCSS, instructional strategies to support CCSS, professional development influenced
delivery of CCSS, and design and delivery of IBL. Item Q81 related to teacher confidence in
determining when to utilize IBL. Results indicated an increase in confidence level regarding
when to implement IBL.
Although the results of the pre/post survey generally did not show significance
differences, six items indicated growth by teachers in the areas of professional development
effectiveness, teacher self-efficacy, and design and implementation of IBL based on CCSS.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 48
The survey instrument was administered to 15 teachers in the spring and 17 teachers in
the fall to measure the r e l a ti onshi p be twe e n the te a c he rs’ c onfide n c e lev e l, dec isi on -making
skills, engagement with an instructional coach, and impact of professional development on
implementation of CCSS. Tables 7 through 10 report the responses to the survey items and the
descriptive data related to each item by the aggregate of teachers responding to the survey.
A summary of the survey responses relative to Research Questions 1 and 3 is reported in
Tables 7 and 8. Response categories Sometimes and Rarely were aggregated to Sometimes to
simplify reporting. All respondents completed the pretest survey but only 13 of 17 completed the
posttest survey. Results in Table 7 indicate that 61% of the teachers perceived that professional
development at the site level always benefits implementation of CCSS. Four teachers responded
that professional development sometimes increased realization of CCSS (Table 7). An increase
of 16% from the pretest survey to the posttest survey indicated that the teachers considered the
instructional coach to be an added support when transferring new knowledge from professional
development sessions (Table 7). Overall, however, analysis of the data suggests that, on average,
78% of the teachers sometimes sought the coach to support professional development, compared
to 19% who always sought support from the coach (Table 7).
Table 8 indicates that 90% of the teachers agreed the instructional coach was available to
them. Within the average range of 80% from the pre and post administrations of the survey, the
teachers agreed that the coach sustained confidentiality, objectivity, and was a life-long learner
(Table 8). With an increase of 12%, from 88% to 100%, respondents agreed that the coach was
honest and professional (Table 8). Research by Knight (2008) validates these findings by
asserting that instructional coaches must maintain professionalism, be skilled communicators,
and build trusting relationships with teachers.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 49
Table 7

Survey Responses Regarding Impact of Professional Development and Instructional Coaching

Always Sometimes Never
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Survey item f % f % f % f % f % f %

Professional development
at my site benefits my
implementation of CCSS 6 35 8 61 10 59 5 38 0 0 0 0
Implementing knowledge
learned from onsite
professional development
with the support of the
instructional coach enhances
my ability to implement CCSS 9 53 9 69 7 41 4 30 0 0 0 0
I seek out the instructional
coach to support schoolwide
professional development 4 23 2 15 12 70 11 84 0 0 0 0

Note. CCSS = Common Core State Standards.

Table 8

Pe rc e pti ons of I nstr uc ti onal C oac h as Indic ated by Re sponses to t he Surv e y I tem “ Professional

De v e lopm e nt at My Sit e Be ne fi ts My I mpl e me ntat ion of C omm on Co re Stat e Standar ds”

Characteristics of the coach f % f %

Available 16 94 12 92
Confidential 14 82 11 84
Objective 13 76 12 92
Honest 15 88 13 100
Professional 15 88 13 100
A learner 15 88 11 84

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 50
Table 9

Surve y R e sponses Re gar ding T e ac he r’s Pe r c e pti ons of T he ir Abi li t ies

Confident Mostly confident No confidence
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Survey item f % f % f % f % f % f %

I am confident that I
understand how to
instruct using CCSS 0 0 4 30 15 88 9 69 1 < 1 0 0
I am confident I know the
difference between 1997
standards and CCSS 2 11 4 30 14 82 9 69 0 0 0 0
I am confident in my ability
to design and appropriately
deliver IBL 0 0 2 11 13 76 10 76 3 17 0 0
I am confident that my
professional development
experiences have helped me
to effectively teach the CCSS 1 < 1 3 23 14 82 10 76 1 < 1 0 0

Note. CCSS = Common Core State Standards. IBL = inquiry-based learning.

Each participant engaged in four IBL observations, each of which could generate 6
points, for a total possible score of 24 points for each lesson. A 4-point Likert-type scale was
utilized to measure proficiency in each phase of IBL. However, findings are reported here only
on respondents (teachers) T1, T4, and T5 because only their results reflect implications relative
to the four research questions. Comparative data relative to the IBL observations and one item on
the post-observation interview specific to instructional coaching support suggest that targeted
professional development with support by an instructional coach increases CCSS IBL lesson
proficiency. For example, as shown in Figures 3 and 4, T1 did not access the coach for Lesson 1
( L 1 ) a nd e a rn e d a sco re o f 40% , whic h w a s the pa r ti c ipants’ lowe st l e sson prof icie nc y . F or L 2,
T1 sought support from the instructional coach and increased IBL lesson proficiency by 10%.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 51
Table 10

Survey Responses Regarding Instructional Decision Making

Confident Mostly confident No confidence
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Survey item f % f % f % f % f % f %

I am capable of determining
when to appropriately use IBL
in my CCSS-based lesson
designs 0 0 2 15 15 88 10 76 1 < 1 0 0
I am capable of facilitating
critical thinking opportunities
during IBL 1 < 1 4 30 14 82 7 53 1 < 1 1 < 1
I am capable of gradually
releasing the learning of
curriculum to the students
so that they become student-
directed through the use of IBL 1 < 1 1 < 1 15 88 11 84 0 0 0 0

Note. CCSS = Common Core State Standards. IBL = inquiry-based learning.

During L3, T1 increased lesson proficiency from L2 by 15% and utilized the coach. However,
for L4, T1 received 100% lesson proficiency but did not access the coach. Overall, from L1 to
L4, T1 increased performance on CCSS IBL implementation by 60%.
T4 accessed the instructional coach on all four lesson observations. On L1, T4 earned
87% proficiency and increased lesson proficiency by 13% from L1 to L2, which achieved her
highest score of 100%. However, L3 was a challenge for T4, as indicated by a score of 50%. In
this lesson, T4 received 0 out of 4 in the facilitation of questions because they were omitted in
IBL implementation. A 0 was documented in Results/Analysis and Conclusion because that
phase was not observed. Nevertheless, T4 increased by 33% in L4, with a total score of 83%
(Figures 3 and 4).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 52

Figure 3. Average proficiency on Lessons (L) 1 to 4 by Teachers (T) 1 to 5.

Figure 4. Coaching collaborations compared to average lesson proficiency.

T5 uti li z e d the inst ruc ti o na l coa c h for L 1, L 2, a nd L 3. T5’ s hi g h e st prof icie nc y s c or e wa s
on L1, with 91%. On L2 and L3, T5 earned the same score of 83%, but decreased in proficiency
from L1 by 8%. Similar to T4, Results/Analysis and Conclusion earned a score of 0 overall due
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 53
to observer neglect. In L4, T5 decreased in competency by 21%; T5 did not utilize the
instructional coach for L4 (Figures 3 and 4).
Results from the post interview indicated that all participants utilized the instructional
coach, in some capacity, throughout the four-lesson study. On the pre-observation survey, 9 of
the 17 respondents responded that time was a barrier to accessing the coach, compare to 9 of 13
on the post- obser va ti on s ur ve y . Com ments i nc luded “ ti me to mee t and disc uss t he t y pe o f
lessons I w a nt t o tea c h a nd the tim e to m e e t t o re f lec t on how the pr oc e ss i s wor king” a nd “ ti me
to re a ll y ge t i nto depth on lesson planning ” a nd “ t his y e a r our c oa c h is n ot a t our sit e so
ther e for e , not as r e a dil y a va il a ble.” G e ne r a ll y , p a rt icipa nts consider e d the in struc ti ona l coa c h to
be beneficial to their professional development needs, regardless of limited time.
Statements from participants in the post-observation interviews did not directly address
Research Question 1 because the language used did not directly solicit feedback regarding CCSS
IBL professional development. Nonetheless, responden ts’ a bil it y to par ti c ip a te in dialog u e e a sil y a bout questi ons re late d t o I B L , such a s proc e ss ve rsus pr oduc t and pha s e s of B onst e tt e r ’s ( 1998) model, implies that the participants gained knowledge from the IBL professional development.
Conclusions relative to Research Questions 1 and 3 were that onsite professional
development focused on IBL positively influenced implementation of CCSS. Instructional
coaching was beneficial in supporting initial professional development regarding IBL. These
findings substantiate research by Russo (2004) emphasizing that, to reinforce professional
development learning, instructional coaching is a catalyst in sustaining those efforts. However,
available time free from site and personal obligations is crucial in ensuring access to the
instructional coach.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 54
Results for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, How do t e ac he rs’ p e r c e pti ons of their abi li ty t o implem e nt
CCSS influence instructional delivery of CCSS? Table 9 contains a summary of the responses to
survey items relative to Research Question 2. Categories Mostly Confident and Somewhat
Confident were aggregated to Mostly Confident to simplify reporting. All participants
respondents are represented in the pre-observation survey responses, compared to 13 of 17 in the
post-observation survey. Table 9 illustrates that 88% of the participants, following the IBL
professional development sessions in spring 2014, were Mostly Confident in how to approach
CCSS in the classroom. This compares to 69% who were Mostly Confident at the conclusion of
the study (Table 9). Seventy-six percent were Mostly Confident in comprehending the difference
between 1997 standards and CCSS. Responses to the pre-observation showed that none of the
teachers was Confident in designing and delivering CCSS lessons, while 76% were Mostly
Confident. Eleven percent of the participants in the post-observation survey indicated that they
were Confident and 76% were Mostly Confident. Seventeen percent indicated No Confidence in
their ability to design and deliver IBL lessons in the pre-observation survey, but 0% reported No
Confidence in that ability in the post-observation survey. Following the IBL professional
development sessions, 82% of the teachers indicated that they were Mostly Confident that
professional development opportunities effectively prepared them to teach CCSS. At the
conclusion of the study, 76% were Mostly Confident and 23% were Confident that professional
development supported their ability to teach CCSS (Table 9). Overall, quantitative data indicated
that teacher confidence increased from the beginning to the end of the study.
Qualitative data related to lesson proficiency collected in the lesson observations were
compared to self-reported teacher self-efficacy perceptions gathered in the post-observation
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 55
interviews. Data were triangulated to determine whether self-efficacy affected CCSS IBL lesson
pr of icie nc y . F or e x a mpl e , T1’ s con fide n c e lev e l c ha nge d fr om 2.5 t o 4.0, whic h wa s not pa r a ll e l
to T1’s ove ra ll stea d y inc re a se in pro fic ien c y leve l throughout Lessons 1 through 3. On average,
findings for T4 indicated that the teacher had the highest average proficiency across four lessons,
whic h led to a n a v e ra ge pr of icie nc y o f 80% .. N e v e rthe less, T4’ s a ve r a g e c onfide nc e lev e l over four lesson observations equaled 2.1 of a possible score of 4. T5 earned an average proficiency
leve l of 79% f o r le sson d e li ve r y throu g h L e ssons 1 throug h 4. Althou g h, T 5’ s prof icie n c y wa s
the se c ond hi g he st of the five pa rticipa nts, t he te a c he rs’ r e porte d c on fide nc e leve ls averaged 1.3,
with the highest level at an average 3.5 average. These data are illustrated in Figures 5 and 6.

Figure 5. Confidence levels in the progression of Lessons 1 through 4.

Feedback from the post-observation interviews indicated that T1 sustained the highest
confidence level when she provided little support to the students during the IBL lesson.
S tate ments supporti ng thi s cla im include d, “ I didn’ t g ive the m an e x a mpl e of the e nd pr odu c t”
a nd “ The y h a d to s trugg l e with t he pr oc e ss. ” I n L3, T1’ s con fide n c e lev e l wa s 2 out of 4 be c a use
the “ que sti on didn’t m a tc h the pr oduc t” tha t she h a d int e nde d for students. T4 c omm e nted tha t
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 56

Figure 6. Average proficiency in Lessons 1 through 4.

her self-efficacy increased by 0.5 from 1 to L2 based on student learning evidence. T4
c omm e nted, “ I li ke h e a ri ng how stude nts t hink.”
Throughout all observations, the observer noted high energy and self-assurance on the
part of a majority of students during the IBL lessons. However, the confidence level of teachers
to t rust their students’ a bil it y to e n g a g e a c ti ve l y in C C S S I B L wa s ini ti a ll y l ow in the pr o g re ss of
the four-lesson study. Responses that captured teacher the insecurity of releasing the
responsibility of learn ing t o st ude nts i nc luded, “ im pr e ssed w it h the la c k o f que sti ons st ude nts
ha d for me ( t e a c h e r) , ” “ I didn’t know the y we r e r e a d y –I thought it was going to be a train
wr e c k, ” a nd “ I didn’t kn ow the y c ould come up with all t hose stra teg i e s a nd c oll e c t m a ter ial s and
re sourc e s.” A s the stud y pr ogre ssed, the t e a c h e rs’ c onfide nc e leve l i n st ude nts’ a bil it y to en g a ge in I B L incr e a se d, b a se d o n obse rva ti ons a nd tea c h e rs’ r e mar ks such a s, “st ude nts ar e wo rkin g be tt e r in gr oups” a nd “ th e strugg li n g pa rtne rs f ro m l a st w e e k im pr ove d a n d pro duc e d.” As
students were perceived to be successful throughout the IBL lessons, teachers observed
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 57
perseverance in their students and gained in their own self-efficacy. Bandura (1977) supported
this experience, cited that people who perceive that their actions affect intended outcomes will
expend more effort.
Group accountability was initially noted as a challenge as participants struggled to ensure
that a ll students par ti c ipa ted in the le ssons . T4 sha re d that, in L e sson 1, “p a irs c ould w ork better
tog e the r b y ke e pin g a ll pa rties e n g a ge d a nd not l e t ti ng one pa rtne r do a ll the w or k.” B ut as
students developed cooperative learning skills, group accountability became an observed
stre ng th, a c c o rding to t he tea c he rs’ opini ons of the ir I B L lesso ns. Statements to support the
finding of gr a dua l i mpro ve ment in g roup wor k in c luded, “ stru gg li n g pa irs fr om l a st we e k
im pr ove d,” “ I wa s im pr e ssed w it h pa rtne r w o rk;; the y h a ndled pr oblems a mong st ea c h other be tt e r,” a nd “ students ar e wor king b e tt e r in g roup s than the y h a ve b e e n.” S c hunk ( 1989) a sse rte d
that observed success raises self-efficacy, which contributes to the mentality that the once-
challenging task can be easily completed in the future.
Although collaboration was an observed strength, classroom management was a
perceived challenge for participants. Aulls et al. (2008) stated that active engagement in IBL
requires that teachers take risks and have excellent management skills. In this study, noise level
during IBL lessons was a concern for participants. For example, after the fourth lesson, T1
state d, “ sti ll the noise leve l –the y wa nt t o talk ove r e a c h othe r” a s a r e o c c u rr i ng c h a ll e n g e durin g IBL. Although noise was perceived by participants to be a challenge of IBL, noise may also be
an indicator of active engagement. The researcher noted, consistently throughout T1, T4, and
T5’ s lesson obser va ti ons, the te a c h e r s y stema ti c a ll y r e view e d gr oup e x pe c t a ti ons prior to ea c h
lesson. This strategy supports the claim by Aull et al. (2008) that, to secure a social environment
conducive to IBL, the teacher must design a context in which IBL can occur.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 58
Evidence from the qualitative post-observation interview determined that, generally
speaking, the teachers were not confident in their delivery of a CCSS IBL lesson. Low self-
e ff ic a c y w a s evide nt i n r e sponde nts’ se lf -ratings during the qualitative post-observation
interview session. Although participants stated that students were prepared for the IBL lesson
based on previously learned skills, T1, T4, and T5 averaged a 2.4 confidence level over a four-
lesson study. In some lessons, confidence levels increased once the teachers observed that
students were confident with the process and were producing positive outcomes during the
Student Directed and Student Research portions of the lesson. Statements reflected an increase in
self- e f fic a c y a s lessons u nf olded, f or e x a mpl e , “ I wa s a 1 ( c onfide n c e leve l ) g oin g int o the
lesson, but af ter , I ’m a 2. ”
Basically, the quantitative and qualitative data indicated that teacher self-efficacy was
relatively low in relation to overall increased proficiency in implementation of CCSS, including
student e nga g e ment. T e a c he rs’ p e rc e pti ons of CC S S I B L l e sson deliver y a nd st ude nt out c omes,
such as process versus product and evidence of student learning influenced the increases in
teacher confidence levels
Results for Research Question 4
Research question 4 asked, What instructional strategies do teachers use to teach CCSS
and why? Ta ble 10 de pic ts t e a c he rs ’ pe r c e pti ons o f the ir c onfide n c e lev e l in relation to their
ability to determine when to utilize the following: IBL, critical thinking, and gradually releasing
learning opportunities. The response category Somewhat Confident was combined with Mostly
Confident to simplify data results. Although 17 participants were provided the survey, not all
responded, so percentages did not always equal 100%. The data indicated that 88% of the
surveyed teachers expressed that they were Mostly Confident in determining when to utilize IBL
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 59
(Table 10). However, at the conclusion of the study, only 15% stated they were Confident and
the majority (61%) chose Mostly Confident regarding appropriate use of IBL. Also, 82%
affirmed that they were Mostly Confident in facilitating critical thinking opportunities following
professional development sessions. Post-observation survey data indicated that confidence in
critical thinking increased from < 1% to 30% and 88% reported on the pre-observation survey
that they were Mostly Confident in their ability to gradually release IBL to students (Table 10).
Qualitative data collected and featured in the remaining figures in this chapter in the
lesson st ud y obse rv a ti ons foc used on the ph a se s of B onst e tt e r’ s (1998 ) mod e l, i nc ludi ng GRR .
Proficiency scores were documented, vertically and horizontally, within Bonstetter model for
e a c h p a rticipa nt. R e porti ng f indi n g s with in B onst e tt e r’ s mod e l fo c used on the r e lea s e of the phases of IBL to students from the teacher.
Comparing the phases of IBL to GRR, with a possible average score of 4 in each phase,
determined the following for respondent T1 (Figure 7). On average, 3.5 points were earned in the
Topic phase. Also in this phase, T1 maintained the majority of control of topic throughout the
study (Figure 7). Question data determined T1 earned an average of 2.25 proficiency and
sustained locus of control (Figure 8). Throughout the phase of Materials, in three of the four
lessons, students preserved responsibility for the IBL phase (Figure 9). T1 earned an average
proficiency of 3.0 in Materials. In Procedures/Design, in three of four lessons, T1 released
responsibility of control to students through the Student Directed phase with an average
proficiency of 2.75 (Figure 10). Throughout Results/Analysis, two of four lessons, Student
Research was utilized with an effect size of 2.5. However, in Lessons 1 and 2, the researcher did
not observe this phase due to time constraints (Figure 11). In the phase of IBL, the researcher
observed Conclusion only once as a result of lack of researcher time (Figure 12). T1 earned a
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 60

Figure 7 . T1’ s use of B o nstett e r’ s “topic” mod e l phase ve rsus gr a dua l r e le a se of r e sponsi bil it y .

Figure 8 . T1’ s use of B o nstett e r’ s “qu e sti on” mod e l phase ve rsus gr a du a l r e lea se o f
responsibility.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 61

Figure 9 . T1’ s use of B o nstett e r’ s “ma te ria ls” mo de l phase ve rsus gr a du a l re lea s e of
responsibility.

Figure 10 . T1’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “pr o c e dur e s/desig n” mod e l phase v e rs us g r a dua l re lease of
responsibility.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 62

Figure 11 . T1’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “r e sult s/ana l y sis ” model pha se ve rsus g r a dua l r e lea se o f
responsibility.

Figure 12 . T1’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “c on c lusi on” model pha se ve rsus gr adual release of
responsibility.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 63
score of 4 in the final lesson observation during Conclusion, where students worked in the
Student Research phase. Overall, T1 increased average proficiency in the phases of IBL
throughout each lesson, beginning with 1.3 out of 4 and ending with 4 out of 4.
Findings for T4 indicated that the teacher had the highest average proficiency across four
lessons, which led to an average proficiency of 80% (Figure 3). Results of the IBL lesson and
GRR comparison for T4 indicated that in the Topic phase the teacher earned a perfect score of a
4 throughout each lesson observation (Figure 13). In Lessons 1 and 3, the teacher focused on
“ Guide d” inst ruc ti on fo r students and “ Tr a dit ional ” wa s the f o c us of L e sso ns 2 a nd 4.
“ Que sti on” w a s o bserved in Lessons 1, 2, and 4, with a perfect score of 4 in each lesson (Figure
14). I n L e sson 3 t he te a c he r did not provide a “ Q ue sti on” during th e obse r va ti on. “ Guide d” w a s
witnessed in Lessons 2 and 3 but in lesson 4 the teacher maintained all of the control in the
“ Tr a dit ional” pha s e . T4 e a rne d a 4 in e a c h l e sson of Ma ter ials ( F i g ur e 15 ). S tudents m a int a ined
the control of the Materials phase, rather than the teacher, as evidenced by Guided in Lesson 1,
Student Research in Lessons 2 and 3, and Student Directed in Lesson 4. Procedures/Design
re fle c ted T 4’ s pro fic ienc y in L e ssons 1 to 4, wit h students enga g e d in S tudent Dir e c ted for Lessons 1 and 4 and Student Research for Lessons 2 and 3 (Figure 16). Due to researcher time
constraints, Results/Analysis was not observed in Lessons 1 or 2; however, in Lessons 3 and 4,
T4 earned a score of 4 in each lesson (Figure 17). T4 fully released responsibility of
Results/Analysis to students through Student Research in Lesson 2 but in Lesson 4 took the
students a step back in GRR through Student Directed learning. Data collection was least noted
in the phase of Conclusion due to researcher time constraints (Figure 18). Nevertheless,
observation in Lesson 2 indicated 100% proficiency with a focus on Student Directed inquiry. In
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 64

Figure 13. T4’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “topic” mod e l phase ve rsus gr a dua l r e l e a se of re sponsi bil it y .

Figure 14 . T4’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “qu e sti on” mo de l phase ve rsus gr a du a l re lea s e of
responsibility.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 65

Figure 15 . T4’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “ma te ria ls” m ode l phase ve rsus gr a du a l re lea se o f
responsibility.

Figure 16 . T4’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “pr o c e dur e s/desig n” mod e l phase v e rs us g r a dua l re l e a se o f
responsibility.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 66

Figure 17 . T4’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “r e sult s/ana l y sis ” model pha se ve rsus g r a dua l r e lea se o f
responsibility.

Figure 18 . T4’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “c on c lusi on” model pha se ve rsus gr a d ua l re lea s e of
responsibility.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 67
summation, T4 experienced an overall increase in lesson design average proficiency in GRR,
beginning at 2.6 and ending at 3.0.
R e sult s we re a lso r e c or d e d for T5. W it h re g a rd to T5’ s Topic r e sult s, on a v e ra g e , th e teacher maintained a 3.5 average across four lesson observations (Figure 19). Primarily, T5
released the learning to students in Lessons 1 and 4. Lesson 1, Student Research, was observed.
In Lesson 4, the teacher went back a phase in GRR and provided learning in the Student Directed
pha se . L e ssons 2 a nd 4 m a int a ined the “ Guid e d” st a ge of inquir y . T5 ma int a ined pr of icie n c y in
all four lessons in the Question phase of IBL (Figure 20). In Lessons 1 and 2, students were
guided through the Question phase and then released to Student Research in Lessons 3 and 4.
Throughout the Materials phase, students maintained control of the learning, as evidenced by
Lessons 1, 2, and 4 being entirely Student Research (Figure 21). Lesson 3 focused on Student
Directed. On average, T5 averaged 3.75 proficiency in the phase of Materials. In
Procedures/Design the teacher demonstrated 100% proficiency in Lessons 1 through 4, as well as
solely in the area of Student Research (Figure 22). In the phase of Results/Analysis, data
indicated proficiency in Lessons 1 and 4 in the Student Research phase of learning, with no
results indicated for Lessons 2 and 4 (Figure 23). The absence of results reflected researcher time
constraints during observation. Conclusion was observed only in Lesson 1, but the teacher
earned a score of 4 (100% proficiency) in the IBL phase of Student Research (Figure 24).
Overall, T5 had an average 3.0 proficiency rate for GRR lesson delivery throughout four lessons.
Figure 25 highlights the overall findings relative to release of control to students in each
phase of IBL based on all 20 IBL observations. In 9 of 20 opportunities in the Topic phase, the
teacher generally maintained locus of control through Guided. Question was facilitated in 10 of
15 lessons. Question was omitted due to teacher neglect 5 times. The teachers engaged students
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 68

Figure 19 . T5’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “topic” mod e l phase ve rsus gr a dua l r e l e a se of re sponsi bil it y .

Figure 20 . T5’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “qu e sti on” mo de l phase versus gradual release of
responsibility.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 69

Figure 21 . T5’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “ma te ria ls” m ode l phase ve rsus gr a du a l re lea se o f
responsibility.

Figure 22 . T5’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “pr o c e dur e s/desi g n” mod e l phase v e rs us g r a dua l re l e a se o f
responsibility.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 70

Figure 23 . T5’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “r e sult s/ana l y sis ” model pha se ve rsus g r a dua l r e lea se o f
responsibility.

Figure 24 . T5’ s use of B onst e tt e r’ s “c on c lusi on” model pha se ve rsus gr a d ua l re lea s e of
responsibility.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 71

Figure 25. Use of inquiry-based learning within the gradual release of responsibility.
in Materials through Student Research in 7 of 20 observations and Student Directed 5 times in
Materials. In 15 of 17 lessons, students generally were the facilitators of their learning within
Procedures. Two chances to facilitate Procedures were obsolete during the lesson study. Student
Research was primarily utilized for Results in 8 of 15 lessons. Five opportunities to facilitate
Results were missed. Conclusion was observed in only 4 of 20 lessons, with Student Research
utilized in two of four observations. Inclusively, the teachers primarily controlled Topic and
Question phases across the four-lesson study. In Procedures, Results, and Conclusion phases,
control was released to the students.
In reporting information relative to the post-interview survey, several themes emerged
after coding the post-observation interview. Related to Research Question 4, student readiness
was an implication of instructional decision making. For example, T1, T4, and T5 designed
CCSS IBL lessons for observations when they deemed the students prepared based on skills
taught during direct instruction lessons. For example, T5 considered her students to be prepared
for a mathe m a ti c s inqu iry lesson “ b e c a use a ll the skil ls had be e n tau g ht i n mul ti ple w a y s” p rior
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 72
to t he I B L lesson. T4 e nsure d that st ude nts we r e p rof icie nt i n re p e a ted a ddit ion bec a use “ 2 ’s, 3’ s ,
a nd 4’ s we re the skil ls t he y n e e d e d to m a ster the t a sk.”
Student understanding of the process of IBL was crucial, as well. The teachers focused on
evidence of students using multiple strategies that had been taught previously during direct
instruction. Overall, all participating teachers agreed that prior knowledge in CCSS as they were
applied during IBL was imperative prior to gradually releasing students to participate in IBL.
Chapter Summary
Qualitative evidence collected throughout the lesson study indicated that T1, T4, and T5
had increased overall proficiency in IBL delivery, regardless of the entry point of gradual release
within the Bonstetter (1998) model (Figure 25). For example, Topic and Question generally were
delivered to students using Traditional and or Guided support throughout the IBL lesson.
Question was primarily released to students through the Guided phase. Materials to Conclusion
were released to students using Guided, Student Directed, and or Student Research. These
findings support the position that teachers should shift the cognitive load from teacher autonomy
to student independence slowly and strategically, based on learner competence (Duke & Pearson,
2002; Fisher & Frey, 2008; Graves & Fitzgerald, 2003; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 73
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
Shifting from the 1997 standards to CCSS implies that educators must modify their
instructional approaches to meet the needs of 21-century learners. Teaching and learning have
changed from the educator directly facilitating the majority of learning to students being
architects of new learning. IBL is at the fore of this shift in education and professional
development is the catalyst for building teacher capacity in this instructional delivery model
(deVries et al., 2013; Jenkins & Agamba, 2013; Fielding et al., 2013). Decision making is a
critical component in implementation of IBL. Educators must have the ability to determine
appropriate use of IBL because IBL is an ideal instructional approach when students have
previously acquired the skill being explored in the IBL lesson.
In the 20th-century classroom, educators must abandon the model of teaching and
learning in which the teacher talks and students listen (Ratzer & Jaeger, 2014). For CCSS to be
successful, educators must understand the purpose of IBL and how to deliver it. In doing so,
educators will cultivate a learner-centered climate of critical thinking, cooperative learning,
diverse information resources, and assessment to enhance learning (Stripling, 1995).
This study was guided by four research questions:
1. How can professional development and instructional coaching focused on IBL support
implementation of CCSS?
2. How do tea c h e rs’ p e rc e pti ons of the ir a bil it y to im pleme nt C C S S influe nc e instructional delivery of CCSS?
3. W ha t i s the influe nc e of a n inst ruc ti ona l coa c h on a tea c h e r’ s a bil it y to d e li ve r a n I B L CCSS lesson?
4. What instructional strategies do teachers use to teach CCSS and why?
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 74
Methodology
Desert School, with a population of 430 K –fifth-grade students, was the target school for
this mixed-methods study. In spring 2014, Desert School had the following grade-level teachers:
two kindergarten, three for first grade, two for second grade, one for a combination second-
grade/third-grade class, two for third grade, two for fourth grade, one for a combination fourth-
grade/fifth-grade class, and two for fifth grade. Six teachers from Desert School were randomly
selected to participate and five consented: teachers from Kindergarten and Grades 1, 2, 3, and 5.
In fall 2014, based on principal discretion, Desert School population changed to the following
grade-level teachers: two kindergarten classes, three first-grade classes, three second-grade
classes, three third-grade classes, three fourth-grade classes, and two fifth-grade classes. Thus, at
the conclusion of the study, the selected teachers represented the following grade levels: one
each for Grades 1, 2, and 5 and two for Grade 3. At the onset of the study, 15 teachers from
Desert School (a) completed a self-administered pre/post survey titled Common Core State
Standards Professional Development Survey (Appendix B) accessed through Qualtrics and
analyzed using SPSS, (b) participated in an IBL professional development session in spring
2014, and (c) participated in one observation for researcher calibration purposes.
The f ive se le c ted te a c he r s also e nga g e d in fou r I B L obse rva ti ons usi ng B o nstett e r’ s
(1998) model (Table 1) and four post-observation interviews (Appendix C). Participants
determined the time frame for the observations, as well as the CCSS for the focus of their IBL
lessons. Observational data were collected by the researcher and calibrator using the Inquiry-
Based Learning Evidence Form (Appendix A) with a 4-point Likert-type scale (4 =
Distinguished, 3 = Proficient, 2 = Basic, 1 = Unsatisfactory ) c a li br a ted re la ti ve to B onst e tt e r’ s
(1998) model (Table 1). Findings from the observations were documented based on the vertical
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 75
a nd hor iz ontal f e a ture s o f B onst e tt e r ’s mode l. Hor iz ontall y , the mode l m e a sure s g ra du a l re lease
of the responsibility in the phases of IBL, which are noted vertically in the table. Starting from
the left, the focus of the model is on the teacher with progressive transition to the right , which
reflects autonomous student learning (Bonstetter, 1998).
Throughout the study, the instructional coach maintained a confidential log documenting
interactions with all teachers on campus. Data specific to the five participants included teacher
initiation of instructional support, instructional coach initiation of support, demonstration lessons
related to CCSS as related to IBL, lesson design support, and peer coaching. Data from this
confidential log comprised the qualitative portion of the study data, capturing natural interactions
with the instructional coach without mandates from the site principal.
Participants were identified as T1 through T5 for confidential reasons and their lessons
were identified as L1 through L4. Findings for T1, T4, and T5 only were reported, reflecting
only the data that were relevant to the four research questions.
Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, How can professional development and instructional
coaching focused on IBL support implementation of CCSS? Responses to survey items related to
professional development indicated that 61% of the teachers at Desert School always benefitted
from educational opportunities to improve their implementation of CCSS and 69% perceived that
professional development followed by instructional coaching always enhances execution of
CCSS, even though not all participants solicited support from the instructional coach. A review
of the observational data revealed that participants who had engaged with the instructional coach
three or more times to enhance IBL lesson delivery gained lesson proficiency more than
participants who only infrequently sought the instructional coach. Figure 4 illustrates how an
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 76
instructional coach improved or decreased the efficiency of the teachers in teaching and learning.
For example, T4 accessed the instructional coach four of four opportunities and sustained the
highest average proficiency rate (80%). The respondents reported that they perceived the
instructional coach to be available and objective (92%), confidential (84%), a learner (84%), and
honest and professional (100%).
This study confirms findings reported in similar research studies directly related to
professional development and instructional coaching. For example, school systems that are
successful in the transition of teachers to meet expectations of instructional reform do so by
building teacher capacity through effective professional development, as well as instructional
coaching (Mangin & Stoelinga, 2008; Neufeld & Roper, 2003; Taylor, 2008). A study by
Editorial Projects in Education Research Center (2013) showed that high-quality CCSS
professional development was valuable to two thirds of the 402 survey respondents in that study.
Studies on the impact of an instructional coach on student achievement showed that relationships
were essential in sustaining a positive partnership with reciprocating teachers (Gallucci et al.,
2010; Knight, 2007), which concurs with the findings of the current study.
Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, How do t e ac he rs’ p e r c e pti ons of th eir ability to implement
CCSS influence instructional delivery of CCSS? The data indicated that 69% of the teachers were
mostly confident in their understanding of the differences between the 1997 standards and CCSS.
Although the teachers valued the partnership with the instructional coach and experienced
increased proficiency levels in CCSS IBL lesson delivery, they sustained low self-efficacy in
their I B L ski ll se t, as e vid e nc e d b y T4 ’s post -observation self-rating of 2.5. For example, T4 and
T5 maintained the highest average scores on lesson delivery but expressed below-average
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 77
confidence in the post-observation interview session. In comparing lesson proficiency with
teacher confidence level, T4 earned the highest average proficiency score (80) but had the lowest
average self-efficacy (1.3) across the four-lesson study. T4 reported in the post-observation
interview that her confidence level had increased from 1 to 2 as she observed students engaged in
the IBL lesson. It should be noted that the scope of this study did not include informing teachers
of lesson pr of icie n c y lev e ls af ter e a c h l e sson. The re for e , the te a c he rs’ incr e a se d or d e c re a se d
self-efficacy was based on their own interpretation of student frustration level, student
engagement, and student autonomy observed during the CCSS IBL lessons. Self-rating scores,
such a s “1 g oin g int o the lesson, but af ter the le sso n a 2,” “ the y us e d more mate ria ls on their own
than I a nti c ipate d, ” a nd “ im pr e ssed w it h the la c k o f que sti ons st ude nts had a nd a tt e mpt e d pr oject
without be ing upse t” sup porte d their unc e rta int y r e ga rdin g e ff ica c y . Evide nc e f rom thi s st ud y shows that the teachers gained confidence in lesson design while facilitating each lesson in
isolation rather than while engaging in IBL gradually over a four-lesson study, which was the
opposite of researcher expectations.
Studies (Gabella, 1994; Hammer, 1997; Polman & Pea, 1997) have validated the
assumptions made in this study. Teachers must recognize when effective inquiry learning is
occurring during teaching and learning. According to Schunk (1989), teachers evaluate self-
efficacy when they acquire information through their performance accomplishments,
obser va ti ona l ex pe rie nc e s, for ms of influe nc e , or ph y siol o g ica l i ndica tors. S c hunk’ s theor y that
observational experiences trigger self-efficacy outcomes substantiates the findings of the current
study. However, in future research, one might consider sharing proficiency levels with the
participants after each lesson. Reflection on instructional practices, based on data collected
during IBL observations, may increase self-efficacy, which can promote understanding and
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 78
implementation of CCSS IBL lessons (Calderhead, 1989). In other words, if data (negative or
positive) were provided to participants after each lesson, efficacy could raise over time, since
lesson proficiency increased in this study unbeknownst to the participating teachers. Schunk
(1989 ) c onc e de d that “ on e ’s ow n pe rf or man c e s of fe r quite r e li a ble g uides f or a ssessin g self -
e ff ic a c y ” (p. 17 4) . Educ a t ors must know when learning is correct or incorrect in order to learn
from the experience (Hattie, 2009). Post-observation interview evidence indicated that the
participants had learned from the experience based on their personal observations rather than
from the missing opportunity to reflect on lesson proficiency levels.
Findings for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, W hat i s the inf luenc e of an i nstr uc ti onal coac h on a teac he r’s
ability to deliver an IBL CCSS lesson? Participants in this study valued and respected the
teacher-coach partnership. All participating teachers engaged with the instructional coach for
CCSS IBL lesson support to varying degrees. T3 accessed the opportunity for three of four
lessons and T4 engaged for all four lessons. Evaluation of the IBL lessons determined high levels
of CCSS IBL implementation when soliciting feedback from the instructional coach on lesson
design prior to lesson delivery. These findings support research on the benefit of an instructional
coach repor ted b y Ha tt ie (2012 ): “ C oa c hin g is deli be ra te a c ti ons t o he lp t e a c he rs to g e t r e sult s
from students —often by helping teachers interpret evidence about the effect of their actions, and
pr ovidi ng them c hoic e s t o e ff e c ti ve l y g a in t he e ff e c ts” ( pp. 71 -72). Reeves (2009) and Showers
and Joyce (1996) concurred with Hattie and with the results of the current study that active
engagement with an instructional coach improves instructional performance. Participant T3 was
an anomaly as she utilized the instructional coach only once out of four opportunities but earned
a n a ve r a g e p rof icie n c y of 69% a c ross four lessons. F a c tors th a t m a y ha ve c ontribut e d to T3’s
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 79
outlier status include but are not limited to the following: T3 was the most seasoned teacher at
Desert School, IBL is traditionally utilized in her classroom, and she holds multiple coaching-
type roles on campus, for example, Teacher Learning Leader and Gifted and Talented
Coordinator.
Bean, Draper, Hall, Vandermolen, and Zigmond (2010) supported the claims of the cited
researchers but added that targeted coaching on specific subject matter and or approaches
increases performance. As the current study focused specifically on CCSS IBL implementation,
participating teachers engaged with the instructional coach solely on IBL rather than on a range
of instructional practices. T4 and T5 proficiency indicators confirmed that focused conversations
with the instructional coach increased performance outcomes. Researchers have suggested that
personalized professional development that is implemented and supported by onsite coaching has
a higher effect size than off site learning facilitated by an outside expert (Russo, 2004). The
elements of this study alongside evidence found in relevant research confirm that instructional
coaches influence teaching and learning when process is targeted.
Although all participants engaged with the instructional coach throughout this study, a
summary of the survey data indicates that time constraints interfered with effective instructional
coaching collaboration. Survey responses suggest that the teachers valued support from the
instructional coach but, among and after the bell obligations, as referenced in the qualitative
post-observation survey data, such as Student Study Teams, individual education plans, and
personal business interfered with this opportunity. According to Joyce and Showers (2002),
coaching is the avenue to assist teachers in the process of transferring newly acquired knowledge
to their classrooms. Findings from this study suggest that school systems must provide additional
time for coaching by making the coaching relationship a priority through job-embedded time. In
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 80
doing so, coaching will have a positive impact on teacher capacity and efficacy (Cantrell &
Hughes, 2008; Marzano et al., 2013).
Findings for Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked, What instructional strategies do teachers use to teach CCSS
and why? Observational data indicated that the teachers focused on the elements of the phases of
GRR, which was embedded in B onst e tt e r ’s ( 1998) I B L model, to i nstruc t C C S S . Ac ross the f ive
GRR phases and within the six steps of IBL, the participants typically chose to be selective in
whe n to fa c il it a te ph a se s of GRR f or steps in B ons tetter ’s ( 1998) I B L mod e l ra ther than
succinctly throughout the model. In other words, teachers must know how to guide students
through IBL (Kleinberg, 1996; Lampert, 1990; Lehrer, 1993; Maor & Taylor, 1995; Mueller,
1997; Palinscar & Brown, 1989; Weade, 1992).
The participant teachers generally maintained the majority of control by facilitating Topic
and Question through the Traditional and Structured phases. T5 articulated in the post-
obser va ti on int e rvie w tha t she pr e fe rr e d th a t st ra te g y be c a use “ it wa s too e a rl y in t he y e a r f o r
students to figu re out t he Topic a nd Que sti on on th e ir ow n.” T1 p e rc e ived t ha t “a g e a pprop ria ten e ss and stud e nt ski ll set” influe nc e d h e r de c isi on to g uide stude nts i n Topic a nd
Question through the Traditional and Structured phases. Process outweighed the value of Product
for pa rticipa nts i n thi s st ud y withi n the f irst t wo ph a se s of B onst e tt e r’ s (199 8) model. Te a c he rs
are aware that students must have the requisite skills of declarative knowledge and acquisition of
skill prior to gaining full responsibility in phases of inquiry learning (Aulls, 1998; Cardelle-
Elawar & Wetzel, 1995; Frederiksen & White, 1997; Hammer, 1997; Kinzie, Foss, & Powers,
1993; Pirozzo, 1987; Sandoval & Reiser, 1997; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988). Although
these participants perceived that students were not ready to self-regulate Topic and Question,
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 81
overall, the design of Materials, Procedures/Design, Results/Analysis, and Conclusions was
expedited by students with relatively little guidance from the teacher. Students who have the
opportunity to take on more responsibility for inquiry learning become active learners (Aulls et
al., 2008).
B onst e tt e r’ s (1998 ) I B L model is of g r e a t si g nific a nc e to t his s tud y ;; how e v e r, da ta ga ined
from observations and post-observation interviews showed that classroom management was
noteworthy. While classroom management was not a focus of observations, the post-observation
narratives matched what was seen during observations. Participants in the post-observation
interview cited cooperative learning, specifically in the area of noise level and student
frustration, as challenges in classroom management. Most educators may agree with the
summ a r y o f the tea c he rs ’ pe rc e pti ons, but socia l c onst ruc ti vist s ar g ue th a t, for inqui r y lea rnin g to
be successful, students must be engaged in social and cognitive dialogue with peers (Aulls et al.,
2008), which could lead to high noise levels in an IBL lesson, as reported by the teachers.
Nonetheless, the data indicate that participants valued social interaction during inquiry learning,
working to overcome classroom management concerns by developing, implementing, and
reinforcing cooperative learning strategies with learners.
The da ta hi g hli g ht e d that students’ f rustra ti on leve ls i nc re a se d du ring th e ini ti a l
implementation of IBL. Mohamed (2008 ) a nd Ra jan a nd Mar c us (2009) c onc ur re d: “ S tudents
dislike inquiry learning when first exposed to the method because they have to work harder than
the y do wh e n pa ssi ve l y li stening to a le c ture ” ( p. 2 7) . The tea c he rs ’ r e fle c ti ons during the post -
observation interviews confirmed that students who showed signs of frustration typically did so
because they preferred more specific directions from their teacher. Learning (2004) postulated
that students become cognitively overloaded with IBL if they are presented with an inquiry
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 82
problem with little or no background knowledge on the content. However, the participant
teachers in this study noted that students were frustrated with process rather than with product.
They shared that they had concluded that the students were prepared for IBL because required
skills had been attained to achieve the product intended in the process of the IBL lesson.
Limitations of the Study
Several limitations interfered with the quality of this study: outcomes of the pre/post
survey, researcher time constraints, and location of the instructional coach. At the onset of the
study, the survey was intended solely for the five randomly selected teachers. However, upon
reflection, it was decided that the survey should be administered to all teachers who were
engaged in IBL professional development, which was a total of 17 teachers at Desert Elementary
School. No significant differences were found between pre and post survey responses. The five
pa rticipa nts’ r e sponses c ould not be identifie d in the survey data, thereby limiting triangulation
of data. In future studies, survey data should be restricted to identified participants to ensure that
survey responses can be related to the individual participants in the qualitative data collected in
the interviews.
Researcher time constraints affected the four lesson observations because the site
principal was the examiner. Professional obligations, such as site and district meetings and
consecutively scheduled IBL observations interfered throughout the study. For example, more
often than not, the Conclusion phase was not observed. Also, at times, Question and Conclusion
were not observed due to participant neglect. Consequently, future research should ensure ample
time for lesson observations by scheduling 2-hour blocks, rather than 1-hour blocks, for IBL
lessons.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 83
At the onset of the study, the instructional coach was physically located exclusively at the
site of the study and therefore easily accessible to participants through spring 2014.
Unfortunately, the site coach was promoted to the position of district instructional coach in fall
2015. In this new role, the coach was assigned Desert School and three other sites, which
ultimately restricted the opportunity for study participants to access the coach for IBL support.
Previously, participants had engaged with the coach daily through informal conversations during
re c e ss, a s we ll a s b e for e a nd a fte r sc hool i nter a c ti ons. The c oa c h’ s promoti on li mi ted
conversations by requiring scheduled meetings. Also, most of the conversations between coach
and teacher were held via email because the coach was responsible to support more than 100
teachers in the new district model. Researchers who conduct similar studies might consider
ensuring that the instructional coach is located full time at the setting of the research.
Recommendations
Outcomes of this study validated decades of research showing that (a) professional
development is imperative for educators to transcend shifts in education by providing high-yield
instructional strategies, (b) instructional coaches are an asset in building teacher capacity and
self-efficacy, and (c) IBL is critical in implementing CCSS for 21st-century learners.
Recommendations are presented in relation to the research questions.
Research Questions 1 and 3
Professional development on IBL is crucial in implementation of CCSS, as is ongoing
support from instructional coaches following explicit professional development sessions to
ensure high-yield impact on instructional practices. To utilize the instructional coaching role
effectively, the coach should be stationed primarily at the school site for maximum partnership
potential.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 84
Research Question 2
Teacher self- e f fic a c y a f f e c ts t he tea c he r ’s a bil it y t o de ter mi ne whe n a nd ho w to uti li z e IBL to deliver CCSS. Classroom management practices, as well as student collaboration
observations, affect teacher self-efficacy. Therefore, it is recommended that IBL professional
development include sessions about management and student engagement tools. Findings from
T4 and T5 suggest that high performance does not always correlate to high self-efficacy.
Therefore, feedback from the instructional leader with regard to IBL delivery may enhance
teacher self-efficacy within and across IBL lessons. According to Hattie (2009), providing
feedback to a learner has an effect size of 0.73 on intended outcomes.
Research Question 4
The gra du a l re le a se of re sponsi bil it y withi n B onst e tt e r’ s (1998) mod e l supp or ts t e a c he rs
in implementation of IBL CCSS lessons. In promoting B onst e tt e r’ s mod e l, scho ol communi ti e s
may consider ensuring that teachers have the prerequisite knowledge or provide the skills related
to GR R prior to fa c il it a ti ng I B L pro fe ssi ona l dev e lopm e nt. B onst e tt e r’ s mo de l bui lds I B L common language for school communities and provides a framework to implement CCSS shifts.
Future researchers may consider the following questions to study in an effort to add
clarity to the effect of IBL professional development on the impact of CCSS:
1. I s B onst e tt e r ’s ( 1998) model int ended to facilitate IBL succinctly through the phases of
gradual release simultaneously through stages of IBL or, as the current study suggests, gradually
released through the stages of IBL fluidly, without any particular order, based on student
observation in process and product?
2. How can educators assist elementary students to develop the cognitive ability to elicit
Topic and Question in IBL autonomously?
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 85
3. Is it easier to facilitate CCSS IBL lessons in specific content areas?
Researchers may also consider investigation into quantifying proficiency of CCSS
attainment during IBL opportunities. The nature of this study did not include analysis of
performance assessments following IBL lessons, which may to overall success of CCSS IBL
implementation.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 86
REFERENCES
Artigue, M., & Blomhoej, M. (2013). Conceptualising inquiry-based education in mathematics.
ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45, 797-810.
Aulls, M. W. (1998). Contributions of classroom discourse to what content students learn during
curriculum enactment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 56-69.
Aulls, M. W., Shore, B. M., & Delcourt, M. A. (2007). Inquiry in education: The conceptual
foundations for research as a curricular imperative (Vol. 1). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Barell, J. (Ed.). (2007). Why are school buses always yellow? Teaching for inquiry, preK –5.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 17, 265-278.
Bean, R. M., Draper, J. A., Hall, V., Vandermolen, J., & Zigmond, N. (2010). Coaches and
coaching in Reading First schools: A reality check. Elementary School Journal, 111(1),
87-114.
Behrenbruch, M. (2012). Dancing in the light: Essential elements for an inquiry classroom. New
York, NY: Springer.
Bell, R., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher
72(7), 30-34.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 87
Blanchard, M. R., Osborne, J. W., Wallwork, C., & Harris, E. S. (2013). Progress on
implementing inquiry in North Carolina: Nearly 1,000 elementary, middle and high
school science teachers weigh in. Science Educator, 22(1), 37-49.
Blank, R. K., de las Alas, N., & Smith, C. (2007). Analysis of the quality of professional
development programs for mathematics and science teachers: Findings from a crossstate
study. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Blythe, T. (1998). The teaching for understanding guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bodner, G. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63,
873-878.
Bodner, G., Klobuchar, M., & Geelan, D. (2001). The many forms of constructivism. Journal of
Chemical Education, 78, 1107-1134.
Bonstetter, R. J. (1998). Inquiry: Learning from the past with an eye on the future. Electronic
Journal of Science Education, 3(1).
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.
Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
Borko, H., Cone, R., R us so, N. A ., & S ha v e lson, R . J . ( 1979) . Te a c he rs’ d e c isi on making . I n P .
L. Peterson & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching (pp. 136-160). Berkeley, CA:
McCutchan.
Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A
quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53, 499-518.
Brockbank, A. (2006). Facilitating reflective learning through mentoring and coaching.
Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 88
Brophy, J. E. (1979). Teacher behavior and its effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71,
733-750.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1998). Designing a community of young learners: Theoretical
and practical lessons. In N. M. Lambert & B. L. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn:
Reforming schools through learner-centered education (pp. 153-186). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21-32.
Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New
York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Calderhead, J. (1989). Reflective teaching and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 5(1), 43-51.
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.),
Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709-725). New York, NY: Macmillan Library
Reference.
Calderhead, J. (1981). A psychological approach to research on teachers' classroom decision
making. British Educational Research Journal, 7(1), 51-57.
Campbell, A., Freedman, E., Boulter, C., & Kirkwood, M. (2003). Issues and principles in
educational research for teachers [Brochure]. Southwell, UK: British Educational
Research Association).
Cantrell, S. C., & Hughes, H. K. (2008). Teacher efficacy and content literacy implementation:
An exploration of the effects of extended professional development with coaching.
Journal of Literacy Research, 40(1), 95-127.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 89
Cardelle-Elawar, M., & Wetzel, K. (1995). Students and computers as partners in developing
students’ pr oblem -solving skills. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27,
387-401.
Casey, K. (2006). Literacy coaching: The essentials. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cash, J. (2013). Transitioning teaching and learning to embrace Common Core. Leadership,
43(2), 23-32.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (Eds.). (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and
knowledge. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, D. K., & Moffitt, S. L. (2009). The ordeal of equality: Did federal regulation fix the
schools? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42-44.
Colburn, A. (2004). Inquiring scientists want to know. Educational Leadership, 62, 63-67.
Conley, D. T. (2011). Building on the common core. Educational Leadership, 68(6), 16-20.
Core, C. (2011). Common Core curriculum maps in English Language Arts, Grades K –5. New
York, NY: Wiley.
Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning
and motivation. Educational psychologist, 18(2), 88-108.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A Framework for teaching. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching.
Kur tz town, P A: Na ti ona l C omm iss ion on Te a c hing & Ame ric a ’s F uture .
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 90
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education,
51, 166-173.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff
Development Council.
Day, C. (Ed.). (1999). Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning. Florence, KY:
Psychology Press.
De sim one , L . M. (2009) . I mprovin g im pa c t st udies of tea c h e rs’ pro fe ssi ona l de ve lopm e nt: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181-199.
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of
pr of e ssi ona l dev e lopm e n t on t e a c he rs ’ instruc ti on: R e sult s fr om a thr e e -year longitudinal
study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
de Vr ies, S ., J a nsen, E. P. , & va n d e Gr ift, W . J . ( 2013) . P rof il ing tea c he rs’ c onti nuin g
professional development and the relation with their beliefs about learning and teaching.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 33, 78-89.
Dewey, J. (1909). Moral principles in education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject matter and as method. Science, 31, 121-127.
Dewey, J. (1915/2001). School and society and the child and the curriculum. Mineola, NY:
Dover.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educational process. Lexington, MA: Heath.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 91
Donham, J. (2001). The importance of a model. In J. Donham, K. Bishop, C. C. Kuhlthau, & D.
Oberg (Eds.), Inquiry-based learning: Lessons from library power (pp. 13-30).
Worthington, OH: Linworth.
DuF our, R. ( 2004) . W ha t is a “ pr of e ssi on a l l e a rnin g c omm unit y ” ? Educational Leadership,
61(8), 6-11.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension.
What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction, 3, 205-242.
Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. (2013). Findings from a national survey of
teacher perspectives on the Common Core. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/
media/epe_survey_teacher_perspctives_common_core_2 013.pdf
Eells, E., & Sober, E. (1986). Common causes and decision theory. Philosophy of Science, 53,
223-245.
Elbaz , F . ( 1981) . The t e a c he r’ s “ pr a c ti c a l knowle dg e ” : R e port of a c a s e stud y . Curriculum
Inquiry, 11, 43-71.
Fielding, G. D., Kameenui, E., & Gersten, R. M. (1983). A comparison of an inquiry and a direct
instruction approach to teaching legal concepts and applications to secondary school
students. Journal of Educational Research, 76, 287-293.
Fillery-Travis, A., & Lane, D. (2007). Research: Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the
effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context.
International Coaching Psychology Review, 1, 23-35.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the
gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 92
Frederiksen, J. R., & White, B. J. (1997, March). Re fl e c ti v e assessm e nt of students’ re se arch
within an inquiry-based middle school science curriculum. Address presented to the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Gabella, M. S. (1994). Beyond the looking glass: Bringing students into the conversation of
historical inquiry. Theory & Research in Social Education, 22, 340-363.
Gabella, M. S. (1995). Unlearning certainty: Toward a culture of student inquiry. Theory Into
Practice, 34, 236-242.
Gallo, G. J., & De Marco, G. M., Jr. (2008). Self-assessment and modification of a Division I
stre ng th a nd c ondit ioni ng c oa c h’ s ins tru c ti ona l be ha vior. Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 22, 1228-1235.
Gallucci, C., Van Lare, M. D., Yoon, I. H., & Boatright, B. (2010). Instructional coaching:
Building theory about the role and organizational support for professional learning.
American Educational Research Journal, 47, 919-963.
Gallwey, W. T. (2001). The inner game of work: Focus, learning, pleasure, and mobility in the
workplace. New York, NY: Random House.
Gawande, A. (2011, October 3). Personal best: Top athletes and singers have coaches. Should
you? The New Yorker [online]. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/
magazine/2011/10/03/personal-best
Gecas, V. (1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 291-
316.
Goldsmith, M. (2000). Coaching for behavioral change. Retrieved from http://www
.marshallgoldsmithlibrary.com/cim/articles_display.php?aid=112
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 93
Graves, M. F., & Fitzgerald, J. (2003). Scaffolding reading experiences for multilingual
classrooms. In G. G. Garcia (Ed.), English learners: Reaching the highest levels of
English literacy (pp. 96-124). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8,
381-391.
Hammer, D. (1997). Discovery learning and discovery teaching. Cognition and Instruction, 15,
485-529.
Hatch, T. (2005). Into the classroom: Developing the scholarship of teaching and learning.
Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. London, UK: Routledge.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London, UK:
Routledge.
Henson, R. K. (2001). The effects of participation in teacher research on teacher efficacy.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 403-414.
Humes, W. (2001). Conditions for professional development. Scottish Educational Review,
33(1), 6-17.
Hunt, J. B., Jr. (2009). Standards-based reform 2.0 (Forward). In L. Darling-Hammon, R. C.
Wei, A. Andree, N. Richardson, & S. Orphanos (Eds.), Professional learning in the
learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and
abroad (pp. vii-x). Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 94
Intrator, S. M. (2006). Beginning teachers and the emotional drama of the classroom. Journal of
Teacher Education, 57, 232-239.
Intrator, S. M. (2007). St ories of t he c ourage to t e ac h: Honoring t he teac h e r’s he art. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Jenkins, S., & Agamba, J. J. (2013). The missing link in the CCSS initiative: Professional
development for implementation. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 17(2),
69-79.
Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
Kee, K. M., Anderson, K. A., Dearing, V. S., Harris, E., & Shuster, F. (Eds.). (2010). Results
coaching: The new essential for school leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Kennedy, M. (1998). Form and substance in inservice teacher education. Retrieved from
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/nise/Publications/Research_Monographs/vol13.pdf
Kinzie, M. B., Foss, M. J., & Powers, S. M. (1993). Use of dissection-related courseware by low-
ability high school students: A qualitative inquiry. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 41(3), 87-101.
Kirk, G. (2004). The chartered teacher: A challenge to the profession in Scotland. Education in
the North, 11, 10-17.
Kirkwood, M., & Christie, D. (2006). The role of teacher research in continuing professional
development. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54, 429-448.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction
does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 95
Kleinberg, S. (1996). Young children and inquiry. Scottish Educational Review, 28(2), 113-19.
Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Knight, J. (2008). Coaching: Approaches and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Knight, J. (in preparation). Partnership learning: Scientifically proven strategies for fostering
dialogue during workshops and presentations.
Knight, J. (2011). What good coaches do. Educational Leadership, 69(2), 18-22.
Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer:
Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29-
63.
Learning, A. (2004). Foc us on i nquir y : A teac he r’ s gui de to i mple me nti ng inqui ry -based
learning. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED491498
Lee, V. S. (2012). What is inquiry-guided learning? New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
129, 5-14.
Lehrer, R. (1993). Authors of knowledge: Patterns of hypermedia design. In S. Lajoie & S. Derry
(Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 197-227). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mangin, M. M., & Stoelinga, S. R. (Eds.). (2008). Effective teacher leadership: Using research
to inform and reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Maor, D., & Taylor, P. C. (1995). Teacher epistemology and scientific inquiry in computerized
classroom environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 839-854.
Marx, K. (1844/1963). Early writings. T. B. Bottomore, ed. and trans. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 96
Marzano, R. J., Simms, J. A., Roy, T., Heflebower, T., & Warrick, P. B. (2013). Coaching
classroom instruction. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.
McDaniel, M. A., & Schlager, M. S. (1990). Discovery learning and transfer of problem solving
skills. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 129-159.
McDonald, J. P. (1992). Teaching: Making sense of an uncertain craft. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
McDonnell, L. M., & Weatherford, M. S. (2013). Evidence use and the Common Core State
Standards movement: From problem definition to policy adoption. American Journal of
Education, 120(1), 1-25.
McTighe, J., Seif, E., & Wiggins, G. (2004). You can teach for meaning. Educational
Leadership, 62(1), 26-30.
McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (1999). Understanding by design: A framework for effecting
curricular development and assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. P. (2013). Essential questions: Opening doors to student
understanding. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Medley, D. M. (1981, April). Training teachers to be professional decision makers. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los
Angeles.
Merriam-Webster. (1986). W e bster’ s thi rd i nterna ti onal di c ti onary . Springfield, MA: Author.
Miranda, R. J., & Hermann, R. S. (2012). An integrated instructional approach to facilitate
inquiry in the classroom. Science Scope, 35(8), 66-72.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 97
Mitchell, K. A. (1980). Patterns of teacher-student responses to oral reading errors as related to
tea c he rs’ theor e ti c a l fr a m e wor ks. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 243-263.
Mohamed, A. R. (2008). Effects of active learning variants on student performance and learning
perceptions. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2),
11-18.
Mueller, A. (1997). Discourse of scientific inquiry in the elementary classroom. Journal of
Elementary Science Education, 9(1), 15-33.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2005). Issue brief: Characteristics of public
sc hool t e ac he rs’ professi onal dev e lopme nt a c ti v it ies, 1999 -2000. Washington, DC:
Author.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
19, 317-328.
Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity:
Promises and practicalities. Aspen, CO: Aspen Institute.
O’ B rie n, K., & Nor ton, R . ( 1991) . B e li e fs, pr a c ti c e s, and c onst ra in ts: Influences on teacher
decision-making processes. Teacher Education Quarterly, 18(1), 29-38.
Owens, R. F., Hester, J. L., & Teale, W. H. (2002). Where do you want to go today? Inquiry-
based learning and technology integration. The Reading Teacher, 55, 616-625.
P a jar e s, M. F . (1992 ). T e a c he rs ’ be li e fs a nd e duc a ti ona l re se a r c h: C lea nin g up a mess y c onst ruc t.
Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.
Pajares, M. F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in
mathematical problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 426-443.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 98
Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1989). Classroom dialogues to promote self-regulated
comprehension. Advances in Research on Teaching, 1, 35-71.
Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: E x plor ing t he inner landscape o f a t e ac he r’s lif e . San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
P a rke r, W . C. (1984) . De ve lopi ng te a c he rs’ de c isi on making . Journal of Experimental
Education, 52, 220-226.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, G. (1983). The gradual release of responsibility model of
instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 112-123.
Perkins, D. (2008). Smart schools: From training memories to educating minds. New York, NY:
Simon and Schuster.
P iag e t, J . ( 1970) . P iage t’ s theor y . I n P . Muss e n (E d.), C armic hae l’s manua l of c hil d psy c hology
(Vol. 1, pp. 703-772). New York, NY: Wiley.
Pirozzo, R. (1987). Breaking away: A self-directed, independent communication in project
science, Ontario, Canada. Gifted Child Today, 10, 22-24.
Polman, J. L., & Pea, R. D. (1997, March). Transformative communication in project science
learning discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
424 094)
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992). In search of how people change:
Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47, 1102-1114.
Rajan, N., & Marcus, L. (2009). Student attitudes and learning outcomes from process-oriented
guided-inquiry learning (POGIL) strategy in an introductory chemistry course for non-
science majors: An action research study. The Chemical Educator, 14, 85-93.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 99
Ratzer, M. B., & Jaeger, P. (2014). Rx for the Common Core: Toolkit for implementing inquiry
learning. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Reeves, D. B. (2007). Leading to change: Coaching myths and realities. Early Intervention at
Every Age, 65(2), 89-90.
Reeves, D. B. (2009). Level-five networks: Making significant change in complex organizations.
In A. Hargreaves & M. Fullan (Eds.), Change wars (pp. 237-258). Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree Press.
Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote
engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. New York, NY: Wiley.
Rogers, J. (2011). Afterword: Challenges ahead. In L. Wildflower & D. Brennan (Eds.), The
handbook of knowledge-based coaching: From theory to practice (pp. 341-344). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Russo, A. (2004). School-based coaching. Harvard Education Letter, 20(4), 1-4.
Salmon, D., Rossman, A., Kemeny, V., & Winter, J. (2008). Meaning-mechanics tensions in
teacher decisions. Action in Teacher Education, 30(1), 50-63.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (1997, March). Evolving explanations in high school biology.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.
Saphier, J., & West, L. (2010). How coaches can maximize student learning. Phi Delta Kappan,
91(4), 46-50.
Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts.
Developmental Psychology, 32, 102-119.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 100
S c ha uble, L ., Klopf e r, L . E., & R a g ha v a n, K. ( 199 1) . S tudents’ tr a nsit ion fr om an e n g inee rin g model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
28, 859-882.
Schein, E. H. (2006). Coaching and consultation revisited: Are they the same? In M. Goldsmith
(Ed.), C oac hing f or l e ade rshi p: T he prac ti c e of l e ade rshi p c oac hing f rom the worl d’ s
greatest coaches (pp. 17-25). New York, NY: Wiley.
Schoenfield, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
S c hunk, D. H . ( 1981) . M ode li ng a nd a tt ributi ona l ef fe c ts on c hil dr e n’ s a c hi e ve ment: A se lf -
efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(1), 93-105.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychology
Review, 1, 173-208.
Settlage, J. (2007). Moving past a belief in inquiry as a pedagogy: Implications for teacher
knowledge. In E. Abrams, S. Southerland, & P. Silva (Eds.), Inquiry in the science
classroom: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 204-215). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age.
Shavelson, R. J. (1973). The basic teaching skill: Decision making. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED073117 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 073
117)
Shavelson, R. J. (1978, April). A model of teacher decision making. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Canada.
Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational leadership, 53,
12-16.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 101
Spencer, J. N. (1999). New directions in teaching chemistry: A philosophical and pedagogical
basis. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 566-569.
Spronken-Smith, R. (2007). Experiencing the process of knowledge creation: The nature and use
of inquiry-based learning in higher education. Retrieved from https://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/
sites/default/files/u14/IBL%20-%20Report%20-%20Appendix%20A%20-%20Review
.pdf
Stenhouse, L. (1980). Curriculum research and the art of the teacher. Study of Society, 11(1), 14-
15.
Stohr-Hunt, P.M. (1996). An analysis of frequency of hands-on experience and science
achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 101-109.
Stripling, B. (1995). Learning-centered libraries: Implications from research. Retrieved from
http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aaslpubsandjournals/slr/edchoice/
SLMQ_Learning_InfoPower.pdf
Swan, M., Pead, D., Doorman, M., & Mooldijk, A. (2013). Designing and using professional
development resources for inquiry-based learning. ZDM: The International Journal on
Mathematics Education, 45, 945-957.
Taylor, J. E. (2008). Instructional coaching: The state of the art. In M. M. Mangin & S. R.
Stoelinga (Eds.), Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform (pp.
10-35). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Toll, C. (2006). T he li terac y c oa c h’ s desk r e fere n c e . Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers
of English.
Traugh, C. E. (1974). Evaluating inquiry procedures. Social Studies, 65, 201-202.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 102
Tschannen-Moran, B., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2010). Evocative coaching: Transforming
schools one conversation at a time. New York, NY: Wiley.
Vecellio, S. (2013). How shall I teach thee? An uncommon pedagogy for the Common Core
schools. Studies in Education, 10, 222-241.
Wallace, V. L., & Husid, W. N. (2011). Collaborating for inquiry-based learning: School
librarians and teachers partner for student achievement. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Wayne, A. J., Yoon, K. S., Zhu, P., Cronen, S., & Garet, M. S. (2008). Experimenting with
teacher professional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37,
469-479.
Weade, G. (1992). Locating learning in the times and spaces of teaching. In H. H. Marshall
(Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots of educational change (pp. 87-118). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Welch, W. W., Klopfer, L. E., Aikenhead, G. S., & Robinson, J. T. (1981). The role of inquiry in
science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 65(1), 33-50.
West, L., & Staub, F. C. (2003). Content-focused coaching: Transforming mathematics lessons.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Westover, J. (2013). Common Core pathways. Leadership, 43(2), 8-12.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making
science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (Eds.). (2011). The understanding by design guide to creating
high-quality units. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 103
Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional
knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development.
Review of Research in Education, 24, 173-209.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of
student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284-290.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 104
APPENDIX A
Inquiry-Based Learning Evidence Form

Participant: _____________________________ Date: ____________
Time: ___________ CCSS: _______________

Observers Scaffold Tool
Traditional Structured Guided Student Directed Student Research
Topic Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher/
Student
Question Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher/
Student
Student
Materials Teacher Teacher Teacher Student Student
Procedures/Design Teacher Teacher Teacher/
Student
Student Student
Results/Analysis Teacher Teacher/
Student
Student Student Student
Conclusions Teacher Student Student Student Student

Evidence of Inquiry Based Learning within Gradual Release Phases
Phase of I.B.L. Traditional Structured Guided
Student
Directed
Student
Research
Topic
***DEFINE

Question

Materials

Procedures/Design

Results/Analysis

Conclusions

4-Point Likert Scale: 4 – Distinguished, 3 – Proficient, 2 – Basic, 1 – Unsatisfactory.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 105
APPENDIX B
Common Core Professional Development Survey

The purp ose o f this s ur v e y is t o de ter mi ne t e a c h e rs ’ pe rc eptions, capacity, and decision
processes to effectively implement Common Core State Standards.

1. What is your gender?
a. Male
b. Female
2. How many years have you been teaching?
a. 0-3 years
b. 4-5 years
c. 6-10 years
d. 11-15 years
e. 16-20 years
f. 21-25 years
g. 26-30 years
h. Over 30 years
3. What is your age range?
a. 20-29
b. 30-39
c. 40-49
d. 50-59
e. 60-69
4. What grade levels have you taught?
a. K
b. 1
c. 2
d. 3
e. 4
f. 5
g. Middle School
h. High School
5. What is your highest degree earned?
a. Bachelor
b. Masters
c. Specialist
d. Doctorate
6. How many outside professional development opportunities have you participated in the
past 2 years?
a. 0-5
b. 6-10
c. 11-15
d. 16-20
e. 20+
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 106
Questions 7 to 12 use the 4 point Likert Scale (4 – 100% Confident, 3 – Mostly Confident, 2 –
Somewhat Confident, 1 – No Confidence)
7. I am confident that I understand how to instruct the CCSS.
8. I am confident that I understand the meaning of 21
st
Century participatory engaged
learning.
9. I am confident I know the difference between 1997 standards and Common Core State
Standards.
10. I am confident that my instructional strategies aid the instruction of the CCSS.
11. I am confident that my professional development experiences have helped me to
effectively teach the CCSS.
12. I am confident in my ability to design and appropriately deliver Inquiry Based Learning.

Questions 13 to 17 use the 4 point Likert Scale (4 – 100% Confident, 3 – Mostly Confident, 2 –
Somewhat Confident, 1 – No Confidence)
13. I am capable of determining when to appropriately use Inquiry Based Learning in my
Common Core lesson designs.
14. I am capable of designing questioning strategies to facilitate inquiry-learning
opportunities.
15. I know how to gradually release the responsibility of learning of Common Core State
Standards to students.
16. My instructional decisions are based on student needs.
17. I seek out the instructional coach to support school wide professional development
trainings.
18. The Instructional Coach is
a. Available
b. Confidential
c. Objective
d. Honest
e. Professional
f. A Learner

Questions 19 to 21 use the 4 point Likert Scale (4 – Always, 3 – Sometimes, 2 – Rarely, 1 –
Never)
19. I seek out the instructional coach to provide demonstration lessons to support school wide
professional development trainings.
20. What strategies and/or approaches have you used in your teaching as result of working
with the instructional coach?
21. What barriers or obstacles have interfered with you working with the instructional coach?

Questions 22 to 24 use a 4 point Likert Scale (4 – Always, 3 – Sometimes, 2 – Rarely, 1 – Never)
22. Professional Development at my site benefits my implementation of Common Core State
Standards.
23. Implementing knowledge learned from on site professional development with the support
of the instructional coach enhances my ability to implement Common Core State
Standards.
24. Define Inquiry Based Learning using 10 words or less
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 107
APPENDIX C
Post-Observation Interview Questions

Teacher: _________________________ Grade: _________ Observation: 1 2 3 4

1. How did you determine students were ready to utilize the inquiry process for this CCSS?
2. What Gradual Release of Responsibility Phase of the Inquiry Based Learning Model was
your lesson focused and why?
a. Traditional
i. Comments:
b. Structured
i. Comments:
c. Guided
i. Comments:
d. Student Directed
i. Comments:
e. Student Research
i. Comments:
3. How did you determine students were ready for the above level of responsibility, if any?
a. Comments:
4. What questions did you propose to students during the IBL model to solicit student
thinking during the learning process?
a. Comments:
5. What strengths, if any, did you observe during the IBL lesson?
a. Comments:
6. What challenges, if any, did you observe in the area of classroom management during the
IBL process?
a. Comments:
7. In this lesson, what was your focus for assessment process, product, or both, and why?
a. Process
i. Comments:
b. Product
i. Comments:
c. Process and Product
i. Comments:
8. Did you seek out support from colleagues in developing this lesson? If so, was the
collaboration useful?
a. Comments:
9. On a scale of 1-4 (1 = No confidence, 2 = some confidence, 3 = above average
confidence, 4 = very confident), how confident were you in utilizing the IBL process in
this lesson?`

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This research addresses the transition from 1997 standards‐based instruction to Common Core State Standards instruction. Shifting classroom practices from the traditional teacher‐directed model to a student‐directed model requires effective facilitation of inquiry‐based learning (IBL). Effective professional development with the support of an instructional coach on IBL is the avenue to support 21st‐century learning. Using an IBL model that embeds gradual release of responsibility of the phases of IBL from the teacher to the student will support teachers in design and delivery of IBL. Supporting teachers with an IBL model provides a scaffold to change to instructional practices that match intentions of CCSS. Thus, teachers will increase self‐efficacy and have a tool to drive their decision‐making skills. Evidence from this research determined that providing an IBL model through professional development and support of the instructional coach increased teachers’ understanding of the shift from 1997 standards to Common Core State Standards.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Instructional leadership: the practices employed by elementary school principals to lead the Common Core State Standards and 21st century learning skills

PDF

Shifting educator’s paradigm from the practice of implementing standards based learning and assessments to project based learning and assessments for the Common Core State Standards

PDF

Providing parents the necessary resources to comprehend the common core state standards: a guide for schools

PDF

A case study of the instructional leader's role in leading change: preparing for the implementation of Common Core State Standards in elementary schools

PDF

Common Core State Standards: implementation decisions made by middle school English language arts teachers

PDF

Getting to the Core: an examination into the resources, strategies and skills superintendents employed as they implemented the Common Core state standards and the politics in play

PDF

Meaningful access to the Common Core for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities

PDF

Professional development opportunities for non-core teachers

PDF

Multi-site case studies on the collaboration of career technical education teachers and core teachers

PDF

An examination of the impact of professional development on teachers' knowledge and skills in the use of text complexity

PDF

Teacher self-efficacy and instructional coaching in California public K-12 schools: effective instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher...

PDF

Efective leadership practices used by elementary school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Developing mathematical reasoning: a comparative study using student and teacher-centered pedagogies

PDF

Building academic vocabulary for English language learners through professional development: a gap analysis

PDF

Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners

PDF

How professional learning communities use student data to increase achievement

PDF

Multi-site case studies on the collaboration of career technical education teachers and core teachers

PDF

From meaning‐making to expansive learning: how contradictions shape teachers' implementation of technology‐based personalized learning

PDF

An examination of teacher-centered Explicit Direct Instruction and student-centered Cognitively Guided Instruction in the context of Common Core State Standards Mathematics…

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

Asset Metadata

Creator Avery, Shannon (author)

Core Title Impact of inquiry‐based learning professional development on implementation of Common Core State Standards

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/16/2015

Defense Date 02/25/2015

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

Tag Common Core State Standards,decision theory,inquiry based learning,instructional coaching,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,self‐efficacy

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Gallagher, Robert (committee chair), Kaplan, Sandra (committee chair), Mafi, Gabriela (committee chair)

Creator Email shannola@usc.edu,shannon_avery@snowlineschools.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-549442

Unique identifier UC11297855

Identifier etd-AveryShann-3313.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-549442 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AveryShann-3313-0.pdf

Dmrecord 549442

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Avery, Shannon

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