University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

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

by
Zara E. Navarro

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

May 2015

Copyright 2015 Zara E. Navarro

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank all those who provided me guidance, encouragement and
intellectual challenge throughout my journey in the Ed. D. program as well as throughout the
dissertation process at the Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California. Thank
you to Dr. Rudy Castruita, my dissertation chair, and my committee members, Dr. Pedro Garcia
and Dr. John Roach. Their knowledge and reassurance served as invaluable assets throughout
this process and I am honored to have been a part of their team. A big thank you goes to Dr.
Castruita for his feedback, his support and for helping me to try and achieve my full potential
both intellectually and emotionally throughout this process. And, thank you to all my professors
at the Rossier School of Education—by sharing your knowledge and expertise, you have helped
me fulfill a lifetime dream and helped me become a better educator and leader.
Thank you to the teachers who participated in this study, allowing me access and insights
into their experiences implementing the Common Core State Standards. I cannot express enough
gratitude to everyone who generously gave time, information and support to this dissertation. I
learned so much about attitudes and qualities of reform advocates in the classroom, and I feel
lucky to know such talented educators.
On a personal note, I want to thank my friends and family who have supported me on this
adventure. Thank you to my wonderful husband, Eddie, and my daughters, Parker and Perris.
Their constant love and their enduring faith that I could accomplish this task has been a guiding
light throughout my journey. I would also like to thank my dear friend, Dr. Myra (Beth)
Thompson. Beth passed away during this process, but I heard her voice on many a late night
encouraging me to write. I promise we will celebrate both of our degrees in a time and place yet
3

to be determined. And to all of my other friends who haven’t seen very much of me, I promise
that will change. I can’t wait to get caught up and yes, Eddie, I promise this is the last degree.
Fight on!

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements

List of Tables

Abstract

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Introduction
Background of the Problem
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Research Questions
Importance of the Study
Limitations
Delimitations
Definition of Terms
Organization of the Study

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Introduction
Conceptual framework of the CCSS
Standard Based and Project Based Learning and Assessments
Standards Based Learning and Assessments
Project Based Learning and Assessments
Potential Organizational Barriers
Professional Development
Gaps in the Literature
Conclusion

Chapter Three: Methodology
Introduction
Restatement of the Problem
Restatement of the Purpose of the Study
Research Design
Sample Population and Criteria
Data Collection Process
Instrumentation
Data Analysis
Ethical Considerations
Conclusion

Chapter Four: Results
Introduction
Purpose of the Study
Response Rate

2

7

8

9
9
11
14
14
16
16
17
18
18
20

22
22
23
27
27
30
36
41
43
43

46
46
46
47
48
50
51
53
56
58
58

60
60
61
61
5

Quantitative Demographic Data
Qualitative Demographic Data
Teachers Exposure to CCSS
Research Question One
Student Achievement Documentation
Teach to the Test
Component Understanding
Focal Point
Research Question Two
Student Achievement Documentation
Provides Students with Opportunities for Analysis
Component Understanding
Incorporation into CCSS Implementation
Research Question Three
Hindrance from Internal and External Barriers
Collaboration Discussion
Research Question Four
Extent of Implementation of CCSS
Tools for implementation
Professional Development
Summary

Chapter Five: Conclusions
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Research Questions
Review of the Literature
Methodology
Findings
Research Question One
Research Question Two
Research Question Three
Research Question Four
Implications
Recommendations for Future Study
Conclusions

References

Appendices
Appendix A: General Recruitment Letter
Appendix B: Survey Instrument
Appendix C: Thank You Letter to Participants
Appendix D: Interview Cover Letter/Email
Appendix E: Interview Protocol
62
67
68
71
72
73
74
75
76
78
80
81
82
83
85
87
88
89
90
90
94

98
98
99
100
101
101
104
105
105
106
107
108
109
111
112

114

129
129
130
134
135
136
6

Appendix F: Thank You Letter to Participants
Appendix G: IRB Training

137
139

7

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Creswell’s Six Step Methodology

Table 2: Quantitative Survey: Participation Rate

Table 3: Quantitative Survey: Degrees Obtained

Table 4: Quantitative Survey: Credentials Obtained

Table 5: Quantitative Survey: Years in Current Position

Table 6: Quantitative Survey: Age Group of Teachers

Table 7: Quantitative Survey: Exposure to CCSS

Table 8: Quantitative Survey: Characteristics of Elementary Educators

Table 9: Quantitative Survey: Levels of Knowledge About Standard Based
Learning and Assessment

Table 10: Quantitative Survey: Levels of Knowledge About Project Based
Learning and Assessments

Table 11: Quantitative Survey: Educators Responses to Organizational Barriers

Table 12: Quantitative Survey: Implementation of CCSS

Table 13: Quantitative Survey: Professional Development Concerns for CCSS

54

62

63

65

66

67

69

70

72

78

85

88

91

8

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to evaluate educator’s knowledge of standard based
learning/assessments (summative tests) versus project based learning/assessments (formative
assessments) and determine gaps in that knowledge for the ensure the successful implementation
of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) at their school sites. This study also identified
perceived organizational barriers that could impede this paradigm shift as well as what would
help educators the criteria of a 21
st
century classroom. The current literature on instructional
change - including the research on CCSS - focuses on the standards but not on the “21
st
Century
Skills” (Wagner, 2008) that the teacher is expected to incorporate in the curricula. These include
the implementation of project based learning and assessments. This study used a mixed-methods
approach in which 40 elementary teachers from an urban, Southern California Unified School
District completed a survey. This was followed by semi-structured interviews with four of the
surveyed 40 elementary teachers. Through the process of triangulation, the study’s findings
indicate that teachers believe that standard based leaning and assessments represent a viable
means to document and analyze student achievement in the course of study. However, project
based learning and assessments based on the CCSS standards must be incorporated in the
learning process. This will require collaboration with the district office to build the internal
capacity of staff, increasing the knowledge and skills of teachers through the creation of CCSS
and leadership teams as well as district and site professional development opportunities.

9

CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Most educators agree that global changes in raising learning standards need to occur
(Black & Wiliam, 1998; Shmidt, 2005). Learning is driven by what teachers and students
accomplish in the classroom and should be interactive (Black & Wiliam, 1998). In order for
learning to be successful, school accountability mechanisms must be in place to increase student
performance by improving the functions of the school organization (O’Day, 2002).
Unfortunately, the methodology most often used to measure the accountability of student
knowledge (i.e. learning standards) is centered around student performance on statewide
assessments that are specifically developed for states or purchased commercially rather than
interactive, formative lessons (O’Day, 2002).
There are many different accountability factors which may affect teachers’ paradigms in
regards to learning and teaching. One factor which may be a potential contributor is known as
bureaucratic accountability. Rules and regulations specify how districts, schools, and teachers
are to behave (Stecher & Kirby, 2004). Additionally, professional accountability may contribute
to this role in educator’s learning culture. Professional accountability is built upon the
assumption that teachers are professionals who possess sufficient expertise to determine the best
ways of meeting the individual needs of their students (Stecher & Kirby, 2004).
Largely due to professional accountability, most educators think that they provide a
crucial role in regards to being responsible for adding value to society, instilling a moral purpose,
helping children learn and watching them become productive citizens (Fullan, 2010; Tamir,
2009). The willingness to accept their own profession accountability in the classroom setting
10

may contribute both to the attainment of learning goals and providing a framework which may
assure sustainability over time (Sketcher & Kirby, 2004). This responsibility has been attempted
through a variety of pedagogical methods. However, as Fullan (2005) notes, implementing
changes is different than having the ability to sustain them over time.
Consequently, sustainability of innovation and school improvement remain pressing
issues in educational reform (Coburn, 2003; Datnow, 2005). One of the most notable failures in
obtaining sustainability is the No Child Left Behind Act (No Child Left Behind, 2001). No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) provided for specific performance measures, required each state to
monitor schools’ progress in both reading and math through the administration of annual tests
aligned to individual state standards, and allowed students who were in enrolled in failing
schools the opportunity to transfer. Its purpose was to also increase school accountability via
standardized testing (NCLB, 2001). President Obama, in a September 23, 2011 speech,
acknowledged that these accountability measures, while noble in their intent to raise standards,
were unattainable (Obama, 2009).
The adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) may help to achieve these
attainability measures by implementing “21
st
Century Skills” (Wagner, 2008) through project
based learning and assessments (Common Core State Standard Initiative [CCSSI], 2010b). The
CCSS, which Obama (2009) mentions later in the speech, are the new educational standards by
which states will guide local educational agencies, schools, and teachers in developing curricula
that will align our students’ learning with skills necessary to compete in the modern, global
economy.
The CCSS emphasize the use of utilize project based learning and assessments in the
classroom. There are three design principles that are crucial to effective project-based pedagogy:
11

(1) the use of an authentic problem with a goal that is meaningful and interesting to students to
contextualize learning, (2) the inclusion of a sequence of learning events that are driven by the
project goals, and (3) the opportunity for students to apply what they learned to the project goal
(Rivet & Krajcik, 2003; Edelson, 2007). Project based curriculum materials should facilitate
these connections because they are based on design approaches constructed to engage learners
and support deeper learning (Edelson, 2007). They include the development of rigorous,
relevant and engaging instructional projects that require the integration and application of
various disciplines, such as mathematics, social science, science, and literature to real world
problems. If implemented correctly, a project based learning curriculum should help to foster
student’s self-esteem and motivation, and help to develop student’s problem solving abilities,
high-order thinking skills, and the appreciation of life-long learning (Boaler, 1999; Thomas,
2000).
Background of the Problem
Fifty years ago, the United States of America was almost unanimously regarded as
having the best schools in the world, producing the most highly educated labor force. Now, the
United States has been exposed as deficient, especially when compared to student academic
achievement of other countries (Schleicher, 2006).
In a report on international scholastic comparisons, Bracy (1996) states that there is little
ambiguity about what the results show:
American students are performing at much lower levels than students in other
industrialized nations; international examinations designed to compare students from all
over the world usually show American students at or near the bottom, and even
12

America’s best ranked high school students, as international comparisons reveal, rank far
behind students in countries challenging us in the multinational marketplace.
The United States is one of the few developed countries that lack implemented national
educational standards. Currently, standards vary widely from state to state. This is due, in part,
to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) initiative which left it to the individual states to determine
what students ought to be learning in reading, math, and science; how they ought to be tested;
and what level of achievement (proof of understanding curriculum) determined proficiency.
Consequently, many states lowered their proficiency levels in recent years to make it easier for
schools to avoid sanctions under NCLB (CCSSI, 2010b).
For American children and youth, student achievement as defined by academic subject-
based exams is largely viewed as inadequate in terms of international assessments such as the
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Program for
International Student Assessment (PISA) (Gonzales, 2007). This type of student achievement is
referred to as standards-based academic subject matter knowledge. Standard based knowledge
and assessment went from being strongly encouraged to federally mandated with the assessment
scores made public due to NCLB (Hursh, 2005). Many districts replaced performance
assessments with textbook publishing company tests as a further way to measure student
progress (Goertz & Duffy, 2003). Under NCLB, the validity and reliability of standardized and
commercially produced assessments outweighed the subjectivity of teacher created tests,
particularly innovative, authentic performance assessments designed to test student application,
analysis, and synthesis of knowledge (Hursh, 2005; Sloane & Kelly, 2003).
The CCSS are designed to help rectify this situation (CCSSI, 2010b). Students need to
acquire knowledge, skills, and perspectives relevant to their success as citizens, life-long
13

learners, and participants in the economy of the 21
st
century. This focus typically includes
complex problem-solving, new forms of literacy, working collaboratively, and new ways of
acquiring and communicating knowledge. These skills have been packaged together and defined
as “21
st
Century Skills” (Wagner, 2008).
Key factors in the adaptation of the new CCSS in California are (1) they are aligned with
college and work expectations, (2) are clear, understandable and consistent, (3) include rigorous
content and application of knowledge through high-order skills, (4) build upon strengths and
lessons of current state standards, (5) are uniform with other top performing countries, so that all
students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society, and (6) are evidence-based
(CCSS, 2010b). In order for students to reach the higher achievement requirements stated
previously, the CCSS will be used to revise curricula and state tests to make learning more
uniformly rigorous across the country (Klieger & Yakobovitch, 2010). This will provide what
educational legislation views as appropriate benchmarks for all students, regardless of where
they live (International Center for Leadership in Education [ICLE], 2010).
A major pedagogical change within the CCSS is the implementation of project based
learning/assessments within the curricula. For over a century, educators such as John Dewey
have espoused the benefits of experimental, student-directed learning opportunities (Buck
Institute for Education [BIE], 2002). Despite the inevitable variations in the implementation of
project based learning/assessments, both practitioners and researchers affirm that project based
learning provides many important benefits for student learning and achievement. In particular,
project based learning facilitates students’ mastery of the curriculum, fosters students’ self-
esteem and motivation, and develops students’ problem-solving abilities, higher order thinking
skills, and appreciation of life-long learning (Boaler, 1999; Thomas, 2000). Unfortunately,
14

despite the numerous benefits of project-based learning, few educational environments have been
focused on such holistic curricular innovations in light of the quantitative federal standards that
have been used with NCLB to evaluate schools (Wagner, 2008). In order to further the
investigation of promising practices such as project based learning, it is imperative to identify
and document those educational environments that continue to innovate in this era of
accountability (Welsh, 2006).
Statement of the Problem
The aim of this study is to evaluate educators’ knowledge of project based learning and
assessments versus standard based learning and assessments for the implementation of the CCSS
in urban, Southern California elementary schools. This analysis will help determine gaps in the
educator’s knowledge base and suggest how these gaps should be addressed in order to help
elementary educators fulfill the teaching requirements and curriculum development for the CCSS
implementation. Presently, research and analysis on elementary school educators’ understanding
of CCSS, information on organizational barriers which might impede the implementation of
CCSS, and ways in which Professional Development should be utilized to help with this
transition process within the classroom is lacking.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is twofold. First, it is necessary to evaluate the understanding
that elementary educators possess between implementing standard based learning/assessments
versus project based learning/assessments. This is necessary in order for administration, teachers
and students to meet the new learning goals established by the CCSS. These standards provide
goals of what students should know, understand and be able to accomplish in order to become
successful in both college and the workplace (Eilers & D’Aminco, 2012). By determining
15

knowledge gaps, professional development or training can occur which will lead to improved
accountability within the organization and the requested paradigm shift towards project based
learning and assessment. This shift may also help teachers feel that they responsible for
improving student achievement by establishing curriculum which reflects the CCSS (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Secondly, in order for learning goals and assessments to be successful, department
faculty may want to be involved in (1) defining learning outcomes for students, (2) developing
tools to access learning, (3) identifying, discussing and rectifying organizational barriers in order
to meet the implementation requirements, and (4) making program changes based on the research
methodology findings (Clark & Estes, 2008; Shulock & Moore, 2002). Elementary school
teachers will need to have information about what is expected of them in order to proceed with
the development of project based learning curriculum which reflects CCSS goals. Furthermore,
elementary school educators should have the knowledge to incorporate these learning activities
into lesson plans and the curriculum and be able to demonstrate what they contribute to the
promotion of student learning (Elmore, 2002). Some of this learning may be established through
the utilization of Professional Development (PD) which does more than just present the facts of
the CCSS. The PD needs to be focused on improving student learning through the incorporation
of the concepts within the CCSS (Elmore, 2002).
Each elementary school educator’s target should incorporate the motivational goal(s)
needed to achieve the curriculum development objective. This directly relates to professional
accountability measurements and the common-good ethic approach to learning and teaching.
People want to believe they are a community of professionals, working diligently and with
integrity to help increase student learning (Clark & Estes, 2008; Goldberg & Morrison, 2003;
16

Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, & Meyer, 1996). Furthermore, educational accountability must be
reciprocal, everyone must “buy in” for this goal to be achieved (Elmore, 2002).
This study focuses on how elementary school educators may need to shift their paradigms
from standard based learning/assessments to project based learning/assessments for the
implementation of the CCSS curricula within the classroom.
Research Questions
The research questions were explored in this study:
(1) What is the extent of elementary school educator’s knowledge of standard based
learning/assessments in developing curriculum?
(2) What is the extent of elementary school educator’s knowledge of project based
learning/assessments in developing curriculum?
(3) What organizational barriers might hinder the implementation of project based
learning and assessments?
(4) What will help elementary school educators achieve a 21
st
century (project based)
classroom for the implementation of the CCSS?
Importance of the Study
The question of what to teach and how to teach it is a deeply philosophical question that
warrants educators, educational leaders and lawmakers to choose what knowledge needs to be
distributed to students so they can be more successful in the future. In the past, curricula were
designed around the concept of what students should know (National Education Association
[NEA], 1993). Today, Magner, Soule and Wesolowski (2011) believe that curricula must be
designed around what students need to know and what might be applicable to help solve
problems in the future. The implementation of project based learning/assessments for the CCSS
17

will play a vital role in this adoption. In order for successful implementation to occur, three
problematic area need to be examined which currently have gaps in the literature. Clark and
Estes (2008) explain that these areas need to be examined and analyzed in order for solutions to
take place. They are (1) the understanding of educators’ knowledge and skills, (2) their
motivation to achieve goals, and (3) the organizational barriers that may deter them from
reaching the curriculum implementation.
For this reason, studies of urban districts successfully implementing project based
learning/assessment curricula for the CCSS and supporting their achievement in nationwide
testing programs should be added to the literature. This Southern California, urban school
district case study could serve as a blueprint for similar school districts, acting as a bridge
between the theoretical and the practical. Superintendents, assistant superintendents, school
board members, and community organizers are the district-level stakeholders can utilize the
conclusions from this study. Individual school instructional leaders could also apply the findings
on a smaller scale.
Limitations
There are about 15,000 school districts in the United States. This case study focuses on
one of those districts. This project produces a limited sample size and presents but a glimpse in
the history of the Southern California, urban school district’s goal to implement project based
learning/assessments for the CCSS. Additionally, there are many differing viewpoints on how to
best implement the standards defined in the CCSSI since there are no formative (project based)
assessments developed to measure student achievement at this time. Therefore, the findings of
this case study can only be generalized to the specific population and subsequent implementation
of project based learning/assessment in that district rather than on a state scale.
18

Delimitations
The data for this study came from participants from elementary schools in an urban
school district in Southern California who willing participated in this research. Although other
districts throughout the United States may face similar challenges in the implementation of
CCSS, there was no attempt in this study to substantiate external validity with regards to the
generalization of responses. A broader spectrum of project based learning/assessment
implementation for the CCSS at the state or national level could be analyzed using the same
methodology for both elementary and secondary school settings.
Definition of Terms
21
st
Century Skills – The skills needed by students in order to compete in a global economy and
go beyond standards-based academic content knowledge (Wagner, 2008).
College and career ready standards- Content standards for kindergarten through 12th grade that
build towards college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this document)
by the time of high school graduation. A state's college and career ready standards must be either
(1) standards that are common to a significant number of states; or (2) standards that are
approved by a state network of institutions of higher education, which must certify that students
who meet the standards will not need remedial course work at the postsecondary level
(Education Northwest, 2013).
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)- A state led effort that establishes a single set of clear
educational standards for kindergarten through 12th grade in English Language Arts and
mathematics that states voluntarily adopt. The standards are designed to ensure that students
graduating from high school are prepared to enter credit bearing entry courses in two or four year
19

college programs or enter the workforce. The standards are clear and concise to ensure that
parents, teachers, and students have a clear understanding of the expectations in reading, writing,
speaking and listening, language and mathematics in schools (CCSSI, 2010b).
Community of Practice (COP) - In a COP, individuals gather (community) to discuss and
explore a shared topic (domain) and produce new knowledge, products or practice) (Wenger,
McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).
Global Achievement Gap – The gap between the educational quality provided by even the best
American schools and what all students will need to know and be able to do today and in the
future (Wagner, 2008).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) – No Child Left Behind is the latest reauthorization of Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and requires states to set goals for all students to be at
least proficient on statewide standardized assessments based on statewide academic content
standards by the 2013-2014 school year (NCLB, 2001).
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) – This is an assessment which is
administered to 15 year-olds in 43 countries and purports to assess critical thinking and problem-
solving skills by seeing how well students can apply knowledge to real world situations
(Gonzales, 2007).
Project based assessments – Includes student’s participation in the design of rubrics, expert
participation in the evaluation process, and frequent assessment through methods such as
exhibitions and portfolios (Thomas, 2000).
Project based learning and teaching- Involves the examination of authentic, simulated problems,
and teaching requires the application of knowledge without unpredictable nature and complexity
20

of open ended projects. Elements include authenticity, academic rigor, applied learning, active
exploration, adult relationships and assessments (Baron et al., 1998).
Standards-based assessments- Dependent on a set of pre-defined statements outlining different
levels or standards of achievement in a program, course or assessment component, and normally
expressed in terms of the stated assessment criteria (Welsh, 2006).
Standards-based academic subject matter – The academic knowledge specifically identified by
each State’s Department of Education that must be taught in specific subjects at specific grade
levels. Every state has different standards-based academic subject matter. Textbook companies
and testing agencies attempt to tailor their programs and products to these standards (Welsh,
2006).
Student based academic learning – Student-centered learning is focused on each student's needs,
abilities, interests, and learning styles, placing the teacher as a facilitator of learning (Welsh,
2006).
Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) – This is administered by the International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) and is a comparative analysis
of educational achievement, curriculum, and instructional delivery in mathematics and science
by testing students in the fourth and eighth grades (Mullis & Martin, 2006).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters, with an overview, context, and purpose
of the study in the first chapter. A review of current literature on NCLB and CCSS, standard
based learning/assessments and project based learning/assessments, and their effects on
educator’s paradigms is included in the second chapter. The methodology for surveying
educators in California in regards to their viewpoints of standard based and project based
21

learning and assessments is outlined in Chapter Three, and the data gathered through this process
is discussed in Chapter Four. The study concludes in Chapter Five with a discussion of findings,
implications, and recommendations regarding how to shift educator’s paradigms from standard
based learning/assessments to project based learning/assessments for the implementation of
CCSS.

22

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
“School is dead,” wrote Reimer, (1971) a prominent educator and school reformist of the
20
th
century. The title of this book was designed to challenge his international readership to
examine their most fundamental assumptions about how education should be provided
(Broadfoot, 2000). No longer should student achievement be measured on student performance
on statewide assessments that are specifically developed for states or purchased commercially
rather than interactive, formative lessons (O’Day, 2002). Students will need to acquire
knowledge, skills, and perspectives relevant to their success as life-long learners, citizens and
participants in the economy of the 21
st
century. Wagner has defined the skills needed to
accomplish this as complex problem solving skills, new forms of literacy, students and teachers
working collaboratively, and implementing new ways of acquiring and communicating
knowledge and they are packaged simply as “21
st
Century Skills” (2008).
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) define the knowledge and skills students
should have within their K-12 educational careers so they will graduate from high school able to
succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing academic college courses and in workforce training
programs. These educational standards aim to ensure that all students, no matter where they live,
are prepared for success in post-secondary education and the workforce. CCSS will help to
ensure that students are receiving a high quality education consistently, from school to school
and state to state. However, these standards do not direct the teachers on how to teach (CCSSI,
2010b). Henceforth, many in education pitch the battle between academic content standards and
“21
st
Century Skills” (Wagner, 2008) as an either/or proposition, when in reality, the most
23

effective instructional programs integrate the two (Dede, 2007). With prior focus on standard
based assessments (summative assessments) due to stipulations of NCLB, student creativity and
interest may have suffered. Teachers had to augment instructional time previously spent on
culturally relevant, extended learning opportunities that promoted student thinking, with testing
strategies sessions (Causey-Bush, 2005).
This chapter begins by laying out a multifaceted framework which guides the exploration
of the literature and its relation to the study. Within that framework, the review will provide an
analysis on the background of the conceptual framework of the CCSS. Then, the literature
review will investigate how educators’ knowledge and pedagogical practices of using standard
based learning and assessments versus project based learning and assessments may help or
hinder the incorporation of “21
st
Century Skills” (Wagner, 2008) in the classroom. A discussion
of potential organizational barriers will follow, along with the task of incorporating professional
development in order to shift educators’ paradigms toward the direction of more closely
reflecting the 21
st
century learning vision of the CCSS.
Conceptual Framework of the CCSS
In order to understand the premise behind the CCSS, one should first understand why
educators value the importance of educational standards. Educational standards help teachers
ensure their students have the skills and knowledge they need to be successful by providing clear
goals for student learning. Educational standards are necessary to ensure that all students, no
matter where they live, are prepared for success in post-secondary education and for the
workforce. Common standards will help ensure that students are receiving a high quality
education consistently, from school to school and state to state. They will also provide a greater
24

opportunity to share experiences and best practices within and across states which may improve
our ability as educators to best serve the needs of students (CCSSI, 2010b).
As stated previously, standards do not tell teachers how to teach, but they do help
teachers understand the knowledge and skills their students should have in order to build best
lessons and environments for their classrooms. Standards also help students and parents by
setting clear and realistic goals for success. They provide an accessible roadmap for teachers,
parents and students to achieve academic success (CCSSI, 2010b).
The idea that project based assessments should be used to evaluate not only individual
students’ progress, but also the quality of instruction and the performance of educators more
generally, is one with longstanding roots. Edward Thorndike, who published pioneering books
on educational measurement in the first decades of the 20
th
century, viewed his work as useful in
part, because it would provide principals and teachers with a tool for improving student learning.
Ralph Tyler, known for innovative work in educational evaluations in the 1940s, posed the idea
that objectives ought to drive curriculum and instruction and new kinds of assessments (beyond
paper and pencil tests) were needed to transform learning and the nature of educational
programs. Other contributions to thinking about evaluation include Benjamin Bloom’s 1956
taxonomy of educational objectives, the development of criterion referenced testing in the 1950s,
master learning in the 1960s and 1970s, minimum competency in the 1970s and 1980s and
performance assessment in the 1990s. All of these educators may have presented relevant ideas,
but the ideas have not had the effects that had been hoped for (Beatty, 2010).
The process of adoption of the CCSS is different because it is state-led. It also has the
support of educators across the country as well as prominent education, business, and state
leaders’ organizations, including the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), the
25

National Governor’s Association (NGA), Achieve, the College Board, the National Association
of State Boards of Education, the Alliance for Excellent Education, the Hunt Institute, the
National Parent Teacher Association, the State Higher Education Executive Officers, the
American Association of School Administrators and the Business Roundtable (CCSSI, 2010b).
This support means that advocates understand the importance of 21
st
century skills and will work
together with states and educators to ensure their application in educational settings (Pearlman,
2013).
The CCSS represent a coherent progression of learning expectations in English Language
Arts and mathematics designed to prepare K-12 students for college and career success. The
standards define the knowledge and skills students should have in their K-12 education,
emphasize learning goals, describe end of year expectations and focus on results, leaving room
for teachers to determine how these learning goals should be achieved (Education Northwest,
2013). The English Language Arts and mathematics standards were the first subjects chosen for
the CCSS because they teach competences upon which students build skill sets in other subject
areas. Literacy, including reading, writing, and speaking and listening standards, although
emphasized in English language arts, will be taught across the curriculum. Furthermore, one of
the criteria by which the standards have been evaluated is whether or not they include rigorous
content and application of knowledge through high order thinking skills (CCSSI, 2010b). This
rigorous criteria can be better understood by reviewing the Hess Matrix. This matrix
incorporates the revised Bloom’s Cognitive Dimensions Matrix and Webb’s Depth of
Knowledge Chart which is used to determine text complexity for the CCSS criteria. The
examples of rigor which these standards indicate are geared towards project based learning and
assessment and are exhibited in this matrix. It depicts what educators in all subject areas should
26

work to incorporate into lesson plans as they reflect the principles for “21
st
Century Skills”
(CCSSI, 2010b; Wagner, 2008). These curricular examples will be applied in all subjects as they
emphasize reading and writing skills for evidence based analysis (Hess, 2009).
Additionally, most of the states that have agreed to adopt these standards have also
committed to work together in one of two consortia to develop a shared assessment system.
These assessments will include required summative assessment (which may be
performance/project based), combined with performance tasks and/or formative assessments
given throughout the year (Education Northwest, 2013). A summative assessment is an
assessment used to document students’ achievement at the end of a unit or course or an
evaluation of the end product. Final exams would be an example of an end product. In order to
demonstrate “21
st
Century Skills” (Wagner, 2008), there should be both multiple choice, context
analysis, and short answer type of test questions (Education Northwest, 2013). Formative
assessments and performance tasks encompass a variety of strategies for revealing students’
understanding, allowing teachers to pinpoint and address any impediments to a student’s
progress. The process is much like a coach setting short exercises to assess a runners stride,
speed, and equipment and then making appropriate adjustments so that the runner can improve.
Teachers use formative data to decide how much and what kind of learning, support, and practice
a student needs to reach the goal. When formative assessment is employed before, during, and
after instruction, both teachers and students have a measurement of progress in learning
(Greenstein, 2010, p. 2).
The implementation of the CCSS is a rare, state- led, student- centered opportunity to
improve outcomes throughout the entire educational pipeline and achieve the ultimate goal of
academic success for all students (Beatty, 2010). These standards are: (1) aligned with college
27

and workforce expectations, (2) are clear, understandable and consistent, (3) include rigorous
content and application of knowledge through high order skills, (4) build upon strengths and
lessons of current state standards, (5) are informed by standards in other top performing
countries, so that all students are prepared to succeed in or global economy and society and (6)
are evidence based (CCSSI, 2010b).
Standard Based and Project Based Learning and Assessments
The CCSS is a nationally adopted set of standards which promote the incorporation of
learning “21
st
Century Skills” (Wagner, 2008) in the classroom. The combination of
incorporating both project based learning and assessments in the classroom is part of this
adoption (CCSSI, 2010b). This may require a paradigm shift for some teachers. The new CCSS
are not a curriculum. They are a clear set of shared goals and expectations of what knowledge
and skills will help students succeed both in higher education and in the workforce (CCSSI,
2010b).
Standards Based Learning and Assessments
The past several decades has seen education emphasize standard based learning and
assessments. Standards based comprehensive school reform was adopted in the United States in
the 1990s. The reform included a number of key elements: state standards- based assessments,
an accountability system linked to school specific progress in improving schools on the state
assessments, and curricular alignment to state assessments (Datnow, 2005). The federal
government emphasized the creation of school and district-based accountability systems which
could be measured by these assessments (Hursh, 2005). This was due in part to response to poor
student achievement both on a national and international scale (Causey-Bush, 2005; Goertz &
Duffy, 2003). The United States has long reacted to inferior student achievement with reactive
28

policies and wide sweeping initiatives. The most current of these initiatives was No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) which was the eight reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) (Kantor & Lowe, 2006). The original ESEA was enacted by President
Lyndon B. Johnson was in response to not only the external incidents of Russian launching the
spacecraft’s Sputnik in 1957 and Vostok 1 in 1961, but also due to the national war on poverty
and the growing civil rights movement which in turn, set up the governments expanded role in
educational policy (Kanter & Lowe, 2006). Goals 2000 tied funding to the implementations of
provisions in the act by mandating that states design a comprehensive improvement plan
whereby statewide testing programs assessed clear academic standards (Kanter & Lowe, 2006).
A sanction for poor performance on the testing against those standards was the emphasis of
NCLB. The implementation of NCLB was the first time that the federal government held
schools accountable for ensuring that all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic subgroups were
improving in relation the academic standards. A school or district that missed the target as a
whole or as an individual subgroup was now labeled a “program improvement” school or district
(Kanter & Lowe, 2006). Furthermore, the formation of standards and statewide testing programs
went from being strongly encouraged to federally mandated with the assessment scores made
public (Hursh, 2005).
The alignment of statewide testing with the established state standards caused districts
and schools to rethink the way courses were structured, students tested, and the way teachers
were trained. Teacher’s professional development was refocused on how to use data from
district provided pacing guides and student assessment data to revamp instruction. Tests were
aligned to district objectives, which were aligned to state testing targets, the results being that
teachers taught to the test (Goertz & Duffy, 2003). According to Wilson and Peterson,
29

“Research on learning has often been conducted independently of research on teaching, leading
to a gap in understanding between the two communities of researchers who understand and work
on learning and those who understand and work on teaching” (2006, p. 9). This achievement
tactic became an unintended effect of high stakes testing. Similarly, Grant (2004) summarized a
wide body of research that focused on the impact that high-stakes tests had on classroom
instruction and concluded that teachers, themselves, are the main forces that help to assist
students with increasing their achievement levels, not the tests that the students must actually
take throughout a school year. No evidence existed within Grant's (2004) review of pertinent
research that when students' tests scores rise, they are, ultimately, receiving a "better" education.
According to this research, tests do not lead to the development of "better" skills or "better"
learners. Yet, teachers have been required to perform many variations for instructing their
students to get ready for such high-stakes testing demands (Grant, 2004).
While teachers make specific instructional decisions, there were no research studies in
the literature review that created any clear link between a high-stakes testing learning
environment and increased positive levels of student learning in any content area, especially
within the domain of teaching writing in an English/Language Arts classroom. Thomas (2000)
views high-stakes tests as a type of "closed circuitry" for generating closed-ended, rather than
mastery-based student learning opportunities:
These standards and tests have overshadowed decades of research on
the most effective best practices for teaching reading and writing. The
cyclical nature of scope-and-sequence standards, isolated instruction, and
isolated test items only creates a closed system that has no authentic
system of purposeful learning beyond the 'academic' hallways of schools (p. 64-65).
30

Students' perceptions about high-stakes tests have also been uncovered and valued by
researchers in identifying feelings of the "acceptance of failure if they do not pass [state
assessments], along with denouncing how schools place significant importance on high-stakes
tests by creating a testing hype for their students" (Hughes & Bailey, 2002, p. 76). Impacts on
some of the outcomes linked to high-stakes testing for students include retention, increased
dropout rates, seeking alternative degrees, and incurring diminished motivation for students who
truly want to learn and attend school (Amrein & Berliner, 2003, p. 33).
This literature review validates that few resources were targeted at students who already
achieved proficiency on academic continent standards and no time was spent advancing those
students by providing them with the skills needed to be literate and successful in a 21
st
century
society (Wyner, Bridgeland, & Diiulio, 2007). Currently, effective districts are noticing such
gaps and are beginning to establish systems to empower teachers, support the connection of the
two communities, and integrate “21
st
Century Skills” (Wagner, 2008) as the pedagogy for
curriculum reform (Delandshere & Petrovsky, 2004).
Project Based Learning and Assessments
One area of focus is the incorporation of project based learning and assessments into the
curriculum for CCSS. Project based learning is a model that organizes learning around projects.
According to the definitions found in Project Based Learning Handbooks for Teachers, projects
are complex tasks, based on challenging questions or problems, that involve students in design,
problem-solving, decision making, or investigative activities; give students the opportunity to
work relatively autonomously over extended periods of time; and culminate in realistic products
or presentations (Jones, Rasmussen, & Moffitt, 1997; Thomas, Mergendoller, & Michaelson,
1999). Other defining features for project based learning found in the literature include authentic
31

content, authentic assessment, teacher facilitation but not direction, explicit educational goals,
cooperative learning, reflection, and incorporation of adult skills (Diehl, Grobe, Lopez, &
Cabral, 1999). Additionally, particular models of project based learning add a number of unique
features to this design (Moursund,1999). Definitions of project-based instruction include
features relating to the use of an authentic (driving) question, a community of inquiry and the use
of cognitive (technology-based) tools (Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, & Soloway, 1994; Marx, et.
al, 1994 ); and expeditionary learning adds features of comprehensive school improvement,
community service, and multidisciplinary themes (Moursund, 1999).
Literature analysis suggests there might be some gaps in teacher knowledge of project
based learning instruction and this literature review further proposes several criteria that are
designed to answer the question, “What should projects have in order to be considered an
example of project based learning?" The five criteria are centrality, driving questions,
constructive investigations, autonomy, and realism (Thomas, 2000).
Project based learning projects are central, not peripheral to the curriculum. This criterion
has two corollaries. First, according to this defined feature, projects are the curriculum. In project
based learning classrooms, the project is the central teaching strategy; students encounter and
learn the central concepts of the discipline via the project. There are instances where project
work follows traditional instruction in such a way that the project serves to provide illustrations,
examples, additional practice, or practical applications for material taught initially by other
means. However, these "application" projects are not considered to be instances of project based
learning, according to this criterion. Second, the centrality criterion means that projects in which
students learn things that are outside the curriculum ("enrichment" projects) are also not
examples of project based learning, no matter how appealing or engaging (Thomas, 2000).
32

Project based learning projects are focused on questions or problems that drive students
to encounter (and struggle with) the central concepts and principles of a discipline. This criterion
is a subtle one (Thomas, 2000). The definition of the project (for students) must be crafted in
order to make a connection between activities and the underlying conceptual knowledge that one
might hope to foster and is usually done with a driving question (Blumenfeld et al., 1991) or an
ill-defined problem (Stepien & Gallagher, 1993). Project based learning projects may be built
around thematic units or the intersection of topics from two or more disciplines, but that is not
sufficient to define a project. The questions that students pursue, as well as the activities,
products, and performances that occupy their time, must be orchestrated in the service of an
important intellectual purpose (Blumenfeld et al., 1991).
Project based learning projects involve students in a constructive investigation. An
investigation is a goal-directed process that involves inquiry, knowledge building, and resolution.
Investigations may be design, decision-making, problem-finding, problem-solving, problem-
based learning, expeditionary learning, and project-based instruction that conforms to the above
criteria (Thomas, 2000). The project may be based on discovery or model-building processes.
But in order to be considered as a project based learning project, the central activities of the
project must involve the transformation and construction of knowledge (by definition: new
understandings, new skills) on the part of students (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1999). If the central
activities of the project represent no difficulty to the student or can be carried out with the
application of already-learned information or skills, the project is an exercise, not a project based
learning project. This criterion means that straightforward service projects such as planting a
garden or cleaning a stream bed are projects, but may not be project based learning projects
(Thomas, 2000).
33

Project based learning projects are student-driven to some significant degree. Project
based learning projects are not mainstream, teacher-led, scripted, or packaged. Laboratory
exercises and instructional booklets are not examples of project based learning, even if they are
problem-focused and central to the curriculum. Project based learning projects do not end up at a
predetermined outcome or take predetermined paths. Project based learning projects incorporate
a good deal more student autonomy, choice, unsupervised work time, and responsibility than
traditional instruction and traditional projects (Thomas, 2000).
Project based learning projects are realistic, not school-like. Projects embody
characteristics that give them a feeling of authenticity to students. These characteristics can
include the topic, the tasks, the roles that students play, the context within which the work of the
project is carried out, the collaborators who work with students on the project, the products that
are produced, the audience for the project's products, or the criteria by which the products or
performances are judged (Thomas, 2000). Gordon (1998) makes the distinction between
academic challenges, scenario challenges, and real-life challenges. Project based learning
incorporates real-life challenges where the focus is on authentic (not simulated) problems or
questions and where solutions have the potential to be implemented.
In order to successfully implement CCSS, schools should embrace a project based
learning and assessment pedagogy that will engage 21
st
century students and enable them to
acquire and master “21
st
Century Skills” (Pearlman, 2013; Wagner 2008). Designing 21
st

century schools and new learning environments start with defining the outcomes. One must ask,
“What knowledge and skills do students need for the 21
st
century?” Real design, according to
Pearlman (2013), must go much further and address the following questions as well: (1) What
pedagogy, curricula, activities, and experiences foster 21
st
century learning? (2) What
34

assessments for learning, both school-based and national, foster student learning of the
outcomes, student engagement, and self-direction? (3) How can technology support the
pedagogy, curricula and assessments of a 21
st
century collaborative learning environment? (4)
What physical learning environments (classroom, school, and real world) foster 21
st
century
student learning?
Moreover, the majority of research literature emphasizes the degree to which the teaching
method of project based learning enhances student motivation. Various studies have
documented increased student motivation as a result of implementing project based learning
instructional techniques (Curtis, 2005; Liu & Hsaio, 2002). This is not surprising given the
number of factors that influence motivation and characterize problem based learning practices.
One example is a model which explains seven features of instruction that support student
motivation, the TARGETT model (Woolfolk, 2004). While certain elements of the TARGETT
model are not determined by the nature of the learning activity, many others are also reflected in
project based learning criteria. These include the acronym which represents T, challenging and
interesting learning tasks; A, opportunities for autonomy and self-regulation; R, rewards and
recognition that focus on student progress and effort; G, groupings that encourage positive
collaboration; E, frequent and variable methods of evaluation; T, flexible time structures that
allow for individual pacing; and T, teacher expectations that hold high standards for all students
(Woolfolk, 2004). Therefore, the inherent instructional design properties of project based
learning, as well as the conclusions of previous research, suggest that project based learning
enhances student motivation (Welsh, 2006). Project based learning methodology also provides
the opportunity to work in an effective domain that encourages both teacher and student
motivation (Welsh, 2006).
35

Given that authentic learning opportunities lend themselves to authentic interpersonal
interactions, it is inevitable that teachers be required to address a variety of issues related to the
habits of mind such as flexibility, persistence, responsibility, and creativity (Fleming, 2000).
Since the project based learning process involves active cooperation and is initiated by students
rather than the imposition of tasks by the teacher, students are able to practice important socio-
emotional skills that were not previously required by traditional instructional environments
(Fleming, 2000). Subsequently, project based learning lends itself not only to academic benefits
but also to socio-emotional development, a growing concern of schools and educators when
implementing the CCSS and the vision of “21
st
Century Learning Skills” (Wagner, 2008).
However, the literature likewise suggests that there are potential problems with teachers
being motivated into incorporating project based learning into the classrooms. Marx et al. (1994)
summarized findings from their research on motivation under three headings: challenges,
enactment, and change.
Challenges grew out of difficulties teachers had in accepting the ideas that: (1) effective
collaboration among students requires more than involvement, it requires exchanging ideas and
negotiating meaning; (2) effective use of technology requires that technology be used as a
cognitive tool, not merely as an instructional aid; and (3) effective Project-Based Science
requires not that all the concepts and facts of the curriculum are covered, but that students
construct their own understanding by pursuing a driving question (Wollfolk, 2004, Welsh, 2006).
Furthermore, Marx et al. (1994) delineate teachers' enactment problems for project based
learning as follows: (1) Time. Projects often take longer than anticipated. District guidelines
need to take into account the time necessary to implement in-depth approaches required by
project based learning. (2) Classroom management. In order for students to work productively,
36

teachers must balance the need to allow students to work on their flow of information while at
the same time believing that students' understanding requires that they build their own
understanding. (3) Support of student learning. Teachers may have difficulty scaffolding
students' activities, sometimes giving them too much independence or too little modeling and
feedback. (4) Technology use. Teachers may have difficulty incorporating technology into the
classroom, especially as a cognitive tool. (5) Assessment. Teachers may have difficulty
designing assessments that require students to demonstrate their understanding.
Finally, the review of literature established that change in teachers’ learning and behavior
tends to take certain forms (Marx et al., 1994). Teachers tend to prefer to explore those aspects of
project based learning related to their professional needs and current capabilities (e.g.,
technology). Teachers' efforts to change their teaching strategies incline to focus on one or two
aspects of the new approach (only) and one or two new strategies designed to cope with new
challenges. Teachers may be apt to modify their practices in idiosyncratic ways, mapping new
behaviors onto old behaviors and moving back and forth between old and new practices,
sometimes successfully, sometimes not so successfully. In addition, modifying their practices
may cause teachers to become novices again, which often results in awkward classroom
management behaviors and shortcomings associated with orchestrating the multiple features of
project based learning in a classroom environment (Thomas, 2000).
Potential Organizational Barriers
Accountability in education refers to the practice of holding educational systems
responsible for the quality of their products – students’ knowledge, skills and behaviors. It is
neither a new idea nor a new practice. The accountability system has three major components:
(1) goals, explicit statements of desired student performance, to convey clear and shared
37

expectations for all parties; (2) assessments, need to measure attainment of goals and judging
success; and (3) consequences (rewards or sanctions) to motivate administrators , teachers and
students to maximize effort and effectiveness (Stecher & Kirby, 2004).
For the purpose of this literature review, two types of accountability will be discussed as
they may affect teachers’ paradigms in regards to learning and teaching. One type is bureaucratic
accountability. Rules and regulations specify how districts, schools, and teachers are to behave.
Various public agencies review school performance and monitor compliance. Bureaucratic
accountability makes implicit assumptions that both policy and practice can be standardized,
i.e., policymakers can devise general rules and create broad program initiatives that make sense
for all schools, and teachers can apply general instructional principles that make sense for all
students (Stecher & Kirby, 2004).
Several authors also discuss the professional accountability model type, which holds the
professionals within the organization accountable to each other, making sure that they are
following recognized professional practices (Fuhrman, 1999; O’Day, 2002; Stecher & Kirby,
2004). These professionals should possess sufficient expertise to determine the best ways of
meeting the individual needs of their students and consequently, professional competence and
standards for professional practice become important. Professional teacher organizations have a
major role in establishing such standards. Quality is ensured through accreditation of teacher
preparation schools, certification and licensure of teachers, and requirements for continuous
professional development (Darling-Hammond, 2004; O’Day, 2002; Stecher & Kirby, 2004).
Based on published research, the role of the school leader (being second only to effective
teachers) is an important factor for bringing about school progress and influencing pupil learning
(Stewart, 2008). Certainly, it is arguable that school leaders assist with teachers becoming
38

effective professionals in the first place, but the emphasis on what these school leaders should
do, however, has more to do with demonstrating not just the technical skills of being a leader, but
acquiring the understanding that leadership is also a matter of culture and reflection (Fullen,
1991).
Additionally, professional accountability may contribute to this role in educators’
learning culture. Professional accountability is built upon the assumption that teachers are
professionals who possess sufficient expertise to determine the best ways of meeting the
individual needs of their students (Stecher & Kirby, 2004). Teacher quality, according to
Darling-Hammond (2004) goes far beyond issues of being certified versus uncertified, being
intellectual versus being static, or being a reflective versus non-reflective practitioner (p.16).
Teacher-functions within the intellectual professional community can be professionalized
attitudes for improving instruction outside the status quo (Darling-Hammond, 2004).
Framed as a special education policy construction context for conducting research on identifying
potential influences that lead to school leaders' behaviors within an accountability culture, Trider
and Leithwood (2007) introduce general topics that might very well be relevant to not only
special education policy, but for the organizational barriers that may present themselves during
the CCSS implementation. This study found that school leaders' problem-solving skills were
greatly affected by the policies that were constructed, along with noticing the task environment
changes that resulted from the special education policy practices.
Furthermore, it was evident that the perceptions of various school leaders within the
research conducted by Trider and Leithwood (2007) were more positive when the presence of
central office support existed. The desire to make localized decisions was a top priority so long
as upper administration demonstrated value, support, and empowerment for the school leader to
39

function within the constructs of these policies. Support would only take place if the school
leaders possessed a special knowledge of policy and decision-making tied to these special
education policy constructions. Policy implementation, then, shapes school leaders' behaviors
and even their most immediate practices:
Discrepancies between principals' values and beliefs and those assumed by policy are
likely to become major obstacles to policy implementation. This suggests that
implementation plans should provide for the discovery of such discrepancies and the
explicit resolution of conflicts in beliefs and values (Trider & Leithwood, 2007, p. 305).
From the influence that policy construction has on leadership behaviors, Egley’s (2003)
research of 67 Florida school districts included conducting a massive survey of classroom
teachers in order to understand their perceptions about school leaders' behaviors and practices
within a high-stakes testing culture. Findings included reporting a high correlation between
school leaders' invitational leadership characteristics and increased job satisfaction and
motivation for teachers, building an overall positive school climate, and achieving higher school
ratings. Invitational leadership has been defined by Purkey and Siegel (2003) as leadership
where positive organizational leadership can best be defined as a theory of practice that
addresses the total environment in which leaders function, insomuch that it is a powerful process
of communicating caring and appropriate messages. These messages are intended to summon
forth the greatest human potential as well as identifying and changing those forces that defeat
and destroy potential.
Fuhrman (1999) notes that one of the distinguishing characteristics in educational reform
is that the “who” responsible is usually the educators at the school. In addition, schools as
collective entities are accountable to the higher levels of the educational system (i.e. district or
40

state agencies). However, this bureaucratic accountability differs from traditional forms in one
aspect; educational systems do not hold schools and school personnel accountable for delivering
designated and educational inputs and processes but for producing specific levels or
improvements in student outcome (Fuhrman, 1999). O’Day (2002) argues that the combination
of administrative and professional accountability presents a much more promising approach for
implementing lasting and meaningful school reform.
The discussion of school improvement when implementing the incorporation of “21
st

Century Skills” (Wagner, 2008) has implications for how the potential relationship between
policies and school improvement will affect successful outcome of the implementation of the
CCSS. More specifically, there are implications about the organizational barriers that
accountability polices must overcome in order to foster successful adaptation. These potential
barriers center on the generation, interpretation, and use of information for school and system
improvement (O’Day, 2002). For example, Demoss (2002) looked closely at various Chicago
schools through case-study research methods and found that successful schools were the result of
school leaders who were committed to teachers' meaningful participation in making instructional
decisions. They led their schools with empowerment and had discourses about curriculum rather
than about high-stakes tests versus project based learning.
A suggested framework for analyzing the potential impact of accountability based
interventions on school improvement may be successful to the extent that those interventions are
able to generate and focus attention on information relevant to teaching and learning and to
changes in that information as it is continually fed back into and through the system. This focus
should not only occur at the school level, but at the level of individual teachers as well (O’Day,
2002).
41

Motivation of educators and others to attend to relevant information and to expend the
effort necessary to augment or change strategies in response to this information is imperative.
Motivation should ultimately occur at the individual level, but it is likely to be dependent in part
on the structures of the school as well as on individual characteristics of educators and students.
There may be a need to develop the knowledge and skills to promote valid interpretation of
information and appropriate attribution of causality at both the individual and system levels.
This should occur in the short run, but should also be applied to establish mechanisms for
continued learning (O’Day, 2002).
Professional Development
Demoss (2002) offers insights into the importance of focusing on staff involvement. He
contends concentrating on a more holistic approach within the entire process of creating a
comprehensive curriculum, along with seeking differentiated instructional approaches at the
school level while receiving district-wide support from other district leaders will help to ensure
success. This would also include providing professional staff development to school leaders for
building professional communities. These recommendations advise school leaders to promote a
relationship-based culture, not a test-based culture.
In order for the implementation of CCSS to be successful, teachers will play an important
role as leaders in the development and planning of incorporating 21
st
century skills in the
classroom (CCSS Initiative, 2010b). Two examples of professional development programs that
put teachers in the roles of both learners and leaders of educational reform are the Crista
McAuliffe Institute (CMI) fellowship program and the Quality Education for Minorities Teacher
Leadership Corps (TLC). The CMI fellows attend seminars in which they share ideas about
what is or is not working in their classroom. They also design a two week institute in which they
42

work with university staff and other experts to design and field test innovative programs to
implement in their home schools. To maintain ongoing collaboration and planning, the teachers
have established and electronic network. These teachers are working together to design
programs to make schools more effective for all students and work on establishing the
incorporation of “21
st
Century Skills” (Wagner, 2008) in the classroom (Futrell, 1999). The TLC
is made of elementary and secondary minority teachers. They experience continuous
professional development opportunities through seminars, conferences and workshops. TLC
teacher leaders, however also provide professional development opportunities by sponsoring
mini-conferences for their peers and interested members of the community. In addition, they
conduct in-service programs for the staff in their schools and use their classrooms as models for
the implementation of reform initiatives related to their discipline, Like the CMI teachers, they
also use electronic networking to plan future activities (Futrell, 1999).
Independent evaluations of the Christa McAuliffe and Teacher Leadership Corps
programs reveal that all students have benefited academically from the professional development
opportunities provided to their teachers. Teachers participating in these programs were better
motivated in the classroom, had more confidence in their ability to work with culturally diverse
student population, had higher expectations for their students, understood the importance of
collaboration, and emerged as strong advocates of liking education reform and teacher
preparation and professional development (Futrell, 1999).
Finally, it is suggested that school leaders should examine the strengths and weaknesses
related to promoting the school learning climate, defining the school mission, and self-reflecting
on their own leadership behaviors (Demoss, 2002). All of the above studies and findings
illustrate how effective schools build trusting relationships that focus on collaboratively inclusive
43

instructional planning. This is necessary when implementing new educational programs within
an accountability culture (O’Day, 2000).
Gaps in the Literature
A vast array of theoretical literature has already been discussed in this section on how
school districts can best support the use of 21
st
Century skills as a pedagogy for the
implementation of CCSS. However, few, if any, case studies examine how educators may need
to shift their paradigms from incorporating standard based learning/assessments to project based
learning/assessments within the complete framework of this study. This dissertation will bridge
that gap.
Conclusion
The criterion established within the CCSS is an ongoing topic of conversation throughout
many educational environments. While the rigor and depth of complexity of the CCSS is based
on standards, the implementation of the knowledge based goes beyond standards based learning
and assessment. The CCSS aims to implement 21
st
century learning skills within the classroom
in order to prepare students for higher education and be career ready upon the completion of high
school.
In order for this to be achieved, educators will need to move beyond teaching rote
memorization and teaching to the test. Students will need to be able to apply “21
st
Century
Skills” such as complex problem solving skills, new forms of literacy, students and teachers
working collaboratively and analytically to solve real word problems, and implementing new
ways of acquiring and communicating knowledge (Wagner, 2008). This focus then becomes
embedded within the curriculum. In order for students to attain the depth of knowledge at a level
they need in order to be successful in college and the work world, districts will have to promote
44

rigorous curriculum, relevant instruction, and mentoring relationships which align to the CCSS.
Successful implementation of this framework produces student achievement as measured with
new forms of assessments, such as performance tasks, student portfolios, public exhibitions, or
research reports which are considered project based learning and assessments (Welsh, 2010).
This will require educators to become familiar with project based learning and
assessment as it represents many of the attributes of the “21
st
Century Learning Skills” (Wagner,
2008) for the CCSS. According to the definitions found in Project Based Learning Handbooks
for Teachers, projects are (a) complex tasks, based on challenging questions or problems, that
involve students in design, problem-solving, decision making, or investigative activities, (b)
give students the opportunity to work relatively autonomously over extended periods of time and
(c) culminate in realistic products or presentations (Jones, Rasmussen, & Moffitt, 1997; Thomas,
Mergendoller, & Michaelson, 1999). These concepts should become an integral part of the
curriculum rather than an additional activity.
There may be organizational barriers, in addition to knowledge acquisition that educators
may need to address. These include both bureaucratic and professional accountability issues in
regards to the roles of both teachers and educational leaders and how to address teacher’s
motivation in the implementation of project based learning and assessments (Sketcher & Kirby,
2004). In turn, this may require a shift in paradigms towards project based learning/assessment
rather than standards based learning/assessment.
In order to help promote this change, implementation issues should be addressed. Clark
and Estes (2008) explain that the following areas need to be examined and analyzed in order for
solutions to take place. They are (1) the understanding of educators’ knowledge and skills, (2)
their motivation to achieve goals, and (3) the organizational barriers that may deter them from
45

reaching the curriculum implementation. Additionally, professional development will have to
occur at both the individual, site and district level. The framework of this study will address the
following four questions in order to determine what areas the chosen school district needs to
focus on.
(1) What is the extent of elementary school educator’s knowledge of standard based
learning/assessments in developing curriculum?
(2) What is the extent of elementary school educator’s knowledge of project based
learning/assessments in developing curriculum?
(3) What organizational barriers might hinder the implementation of project based
learning and assessments?
(4) What will help educators achieve a 21
st
century (project based) classroom for the
implementation of the CCSS?
Once issues related to knowledge, potential organizational barriers and subsequent
professional development are addressed, it is hoped that “21
st
Century Skills” (Wagner, 2008)
which feature project based learning and assessment will be incorporated as an integral portion
of the curriculum for the CCSS implementation process.

46

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This study focuses on how elementary school educators may have to shift their paradigms
from standard based learning/assessments to project based learning/assessments for the
implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) curriculum within the classroom.
This chapter describes the research design, sampling method, and data collection and analysis
methods used to address the following research questions which guided this study:
(1) What is the extent of elementary school educator’s knowledge of standard based
learning/assessment in developing curriculum?
(2) What is the extent of elementary school educator’s knowledge of project based
learning/assessment in developing curriculum?
(3) What organizational barriers might hinder the implementation of project based
learning and assessment?
(4) What will help elementary school educators achieve a 21
st
century (project based)
classroom for the implementation of the CCSS?
Restatement of the Problem
A major pedagogical change with the CCSS is the implementation of project based
learning/assessments within the curricula. For over a century, educators such as John Dewey
have espoused the benefits of experimental, student-directed learning opportunities (Buck
Institute for Education [BIE], 2002). Unfortunately, despite the numerous benefits of project-
based learning, few educational environments have been focused on such holistic curricular
47

innovations in light of the quantitative federal standards that have been used with NCLB to
evaluate schools.
The aim in this study was to evaluate 40 urban, Southern California, elementary
educators’ understanding of the necessary knowledge of project based learning/assessments for
the implementation of the CCSS and to identify any organizational barriers which might impede
the educators’ learning processes. Additionally, this study aimed to determine what might help
elementary school educators implement “21
st
Century Skills” (Wagner, 2008) which include
project based learning/assessments in the classroom.
Restatement of the Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was twofold. First, it was necessary to evaluate the
understanding that elementary school educators possessed between implementing standard based
learning/assessments versus project based learning/assessments. This was necessary in order for
administration, teachers and students to implement the new learning goals established by the
CCSS. These standards provide guidelines of what students should know, understand and be
able to accomplish in order to become successful in both college and the workplace (Eilers &
D’Aminco, 2012). By determining knowledge gaps, professional development or training could
occur which would lead to improved accountability within the organization and the requested
paradigm shift towards project based learning and assessment. This shift may help teachers feel
that they are responsible for improving student achievement by establishing curriculum which
reflected the CCSS vision (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Secondly, in order for learning goals and assessments to be successful, department faulty
should be involved in (1) defining learning outcomes for students, (2) developing tools to access
learning, (3) identifying, discussing and rectifying organizational barriers in order to meet the
48

implementation requirements, and (4) making program changes based on the research
methodology findings (Clark & Estes, 2008; Shulock & Moore, 2002). Elementary school
teachers should be furnished with information about what was expected of them in order to
proceed with the development of project based learning curriculum which reflects CCSS
guidelines. Furthermore, elementary school educators should have the knowledge to incorporate
these learning activities into lesson plans and the curriculum and be able to demonstrate what
they contributed to the promotion of student learning (Elmore, 2002). Some of this learning may
have been established through the utilization of professional development which did more than
just present the facts of the CCSS. The professional development needs to be focused on
improving student learning through the incorporation of the concepts within the CCSS (Elmore,
2002).
Each elementary school educator’s target suggested the motivation needed to achieve the
curriculum development goal. This directly relates to professional accountability measurements
and the common-good ethic approach to learning and teaching. People want to believe they are
a community of professionals, working diligently and with integrity to help increase student
learning (Clark & Estes, 2008; Goldberg & Morrison, 2003; Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, &
Meyer, 1996). Furthermore, educational accountability must be reciprocal, everyone must “buy
in” for this goal to be achieved (Elmore, 2002).
Research Design
The design of this study was guided by Creswell’s (2009) six steps for conducting
research. The steps are:
(1) Identify the research problem.
(2) Review the literature.
49

(3) Specify the purpose of the research.
(4) Collect the data.
(5) Analyze and interpret the data.
(6) Report and evaluate the data.
This study has been built around these six steps, with chapter three specifically
addressing steps four, five, and six. The methodology employed in this research included
quantitative data from surveys using electronic questionnaires and qualitative data from semi-
structured interviews, gathered from elementary school teachers in an urban school district in
Southern California.
Based on prior research for both project based learning/assessments, the tools required
for the implementation of a 21
st
century classroom, the literature review and the subsequent gaps
in literature for this area, it was determined that best methodology for this study was a mixed
methods design.
Mixed-methods designs combine theoretical and technical elements of quantitative and
qualitative approaches. A mixed-methods design can be both inductive and deductive, employing
one or more of the following five models: triangulation, concurrent embedded, explanatory,
exploratory, and sequential embedded. The mixed methods design unites both the procedural and
theoretical approaches and in this study; triangulation of the findings were used to check for
consistency (Creswell, 2009). Creswell (2009) states that triangulation helps the researcher to
maximize the strength of the quantitative research by providing descriptive information and
helps the researcher to maximize the strength of qualitative research by providing an explanation
of the depth of the understanding of the issue by the participants. Furthermore, since an
appropriate design depends on the research questions, the data types, and the implementation
50

timeline, (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2011) a mixed-methods research can provide richer, more in-
depth analysis and is accepted by the broader research community (Bergman, 2008).
First, a quantitative approach was used for this study because the researcher wanted to
measure the attitudes and knowledge base of the participants in regards to CCSS and provide
demographic data for the participants. In research of this type, it is generally accepted that the
researcher is measuring the participants’ opinions in regards to the research question, i.e. CCSS
(Patton, 2002). Quantitative data was collected through survey questionnaires. There were both
close ended on the survey questionnaire. For the purpose of this study, all of the close ended
questions were considered to be comprised of equal interval data. Equal interval data indicated
where respondent’s choices were placed on a numerical scale (Likert) that had equal intervals
among the score points. These surveys were distributed through the use of Qualtrics.com to the
respective teachers.
Secondly, qualitative data provided more in-depth information of educators’ viewpoints
and knowledge base on project based learning/assessments, 21
st
century classrooms, and how
professional development may affect CCSS implementation. The qualitative methodology
answers were collected by a follow up, semi structured interview within a subcategory of
participants based on responses to the survey.
Sample Population and Criteria
The study was considered a people-centric study. The participants were elementary
teachers in an urban Southern California Unified School District. People-centric is a model used
for studying individuals who have common experience within the same location (Patton, 2002).
Based on Patton’s recommendation, the minimum sample size was identified as 40, elementary
51

school teachers for the survey questionnaires and four, elementary school teachers from the 40
who responded for the interviews.
The sample was drawn from a population of 20 schools within a Southern California
School Unified District. Although some districts within a city are designated as “unified”, other
communities are served by several school districts (elementary, high school). A “unified” school
district is a district serving K-12 and adult education students. Elementary school districts
generally provide services to K-8 students. High school districts provide services to grades 9 –
12 and adult education (CTC, 2010).
The researcher was aware that all of the schools within the Southern California Unified
School District were in the beginning phase of implementation of CCSS. However, it was noted
that the Southern California school district chosen had been involved with various training
provided by both independent companies and the County Office of Education. The district was
subsequently selected based on the focus on this research study and the Southern California
Unified School District’s exposure to CCSS.
Data Collection Process
The acquisition of consent must be well thought out as it provides the initial groundwork
for good rapport with study participants in a qualitative study (Bodgen & Biklen, 2007). The
intent of the research, the participants who may be involved, and a letter providing assurance of
the autonomy of the participants was discussed and approved by the selected Southern California
school district office.
Then, an email with general information about the study’s intent was sent to the
participants along with an invitation to participant in the study (Appendix A), and a link to the
survey questionnaire (survey items can be found in Appendix B). The email stated that the
52

questionnaire would take approximately between 10-20 minutes to complete. The researcher
followed the recommendations of Creswell (2009) on the effectiveness of sending follow up
emails to the participants to help ensure a high response rate and reliable results. As such, after
the survey questionnaires were completed, the participants received a thank-you email for their
participation from the researcher (Appendix C).
For the semi-structured interview, an initial email was distributed the elementary teachers
within the district who participated in the electronic survey invitation. This email reintroduced
the researcher, described the purpose of the study, central research questions, projected length of
the interview and asked permission to record the interview (Appendix D). It was explained that
this would help the researcher avoid recording notes during the interview and would allow more
engagement in the conversation (Merriam, 2009). These interviews were transcribed by the
researcher from the audio recording.
Finally, once the participants agreed to the interview, via email response, the participants
were asked to determine which day and time would work best for them to complete the
interview. According to Bodgen and Bilken (2007), this strategy helps the participant feel more
at ease and may promote more thoughtful and honest answers from the participant.
Appointments were confirmed and the interviews began on the designated place and time
(interview questions can be found in Appendix E). Again, once the participants had completed
the interviews, a follow up thank you email was sent (Appendix F).
To avoid sampling bias, the complete population of elementary teachers within this
district was emailed the invitation to participate in the study (Creswell, 2009), along with
information about the survey questionnaire and possible subsequent interviews. This population
was comprised of 160 elementary school teachers. Of the individual elementary school teachers
53

who were emailed the invitation to participate in the study, the first 40 who completed the survey
by accessing the link on Qualtrics.com were designated as participants.
The data from the survey questionnaire was reviewed and commonalities were noted
which provided the basis for the selection of the interview participants. These participants were
randomly chosen from the first 40 elementary school teachers’ responses. The first criterion was
whether the participant indicated a willingness to be interviewed as a follow up for the research
project. Another criterion was the knowledge base of the participant about the vision statement
for the CCSS, standard based learning/assessments and project based learning/assessments.
The next phase of data collection was semi-structured interviews in which a conversation
is focused on the questions related to the research study (Merriam, 2009). Four interviews with
elementary school teachers from the chosen Southern California Unified School District were
conducted. Interviews allowed the researcher to address the research questions in depth thus,
maximizing both the time of the researcher and the participants (Patton, 2002).
Instrumentation
Creswell’s (2009) recommendations on how to create an effective survey instrument was
used. Questions on background, knowledge of standard based assessment/learning, project based
assessment/learning, 21
st
century classrooms and professional development, which may help
with understanding, were then developed by the researcher. The survey questions were also
developed based on the literature review and gaps present in the literature which were considered
relevant to the study.
The initial approach involved the collection of data through the use of a survey
instrument developed by the researcher specifically for this study. Data was analyzed from the
results of the mean, median and mode established from the Likart scale questions and the open
54

ended questions which were relative to a specific hypotheses or research questions. Qualitative
data was then gathered from a subgroup of respondents, through either a face-to-face or
telephone. This semi-structured interview process is designed to provide in-depth analysis
(Patton, 2002). Concisely, by collecting and analyzing quantitative data first and qualitative data
second, this study followed an implicit design path, testing variables using a large sample before
organizing data for more in-depth exploration which is noted in Chapter Two (Creswell, 2009).
As a result of this sequential or two-phased approach to the study design, quantitative and
qualitative analyses were completed separately and then integrated into the final discussion.
The procedures for the quantitative data analysis in this inquiry were based on Creswell’s
Six Step Model (2011). The steps which comprise this six step model are listed in Table 1.
Table 1
Creswell’s Six Step Model
Model Instructions Instruction Details
1. Organize and prepare data
2. Read through Data for a general
sense of information

3. Code data ** **1. List predetermined codes
2. Read through everything; make
list of topics for underlying meaning.
3. Compile topics and make
descriptive codes.
4. Go back and put codes next to
sections of text.
5. Revisit/revise code list
6. Make final code list
7. Add additional documents and
recode documents in necessary
4. Analyze data – Use codes to create
description

5. Write a narrative about findings of
analysis

6. Interpret the data (lesson learned)

Semi-structured interviews were used as a means to collect data. Interviews that are
considered semi-structured provide flexibility with the questions and allow the interviewer to
follow the lead of the respondents. The interview is still being guided by a list of questions and
55

issues to be explored (Merriam, 2009), however, the less structured design allows the researcher
to stay focused without disrupting the conversation flow (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
The following data was gathered from 40 elementary teachers through semi-structured
interviews: educational background and teaching experience of the teachers, understanding of
standard based learning and assessment, comprehension of project based learning and
assessment, current understanding of the CCSS, perceptions about how current pedagogical
knowledge may influence the implementation of the CCSS, how to acquire knowledge
acquisition on implementation (CCSS), implications of the new CCSS initiative, awareness
about what a 21
st
century classroom encompasses, and professional development requisites
which might be needed in order to better implement CCSS.
The topic of CCSS implementation is still in the initial planning phase and most
educators have unique experiences and understanding of how the CCSS will affect their
classrooms. Therefore, the interview instrument was comprised of a list of guided questions.
Having a guided list of questions was a necessity to gather specific information from the
participants without allowing researcher’s input to be present throughout the interviews
(Merriam, 2009).
In order to produce a meaningful interview instrument, a pilot interview protocol was
created based on the research questions and the data that the researcher wanted to collect based
on the research questions were considered. A list of interview questions was developed and
reviewed with USC colleagues who were also researching CCSS. According to Maxwell (2013),
testing the questions before the interview is crucial. Adjustments were made and the final
protocol included questions about the educator’s viewpoints, knowledge and perceptions, as well
as background questions.
56

Additionally, Merriman (2009) states that probing questions are essential to acquire
details, clarifications and examples. This allows the researcher the flexibility to explore and
expand on important themes which emerge from the data (Patton, 2002). Furthermore, as probing
is a skill that increases with practice, (Merriman, 2009) probes were added to certain questions to
help the researcher and the participants remain on task.
Data Analysis
The goal of this study was to analyze if and how educators may need to shift their
paradigms from standard based learning/assessments to project based learning/assessments in the
classroom for the implementation of the CCSS. This was accomplished through both
quantitative and qualitative research methodology.
After collection of data from the online questionnaire and semi-structured interviews,
separate reports were written documenting findings from each data source. Time was spent
coding and analyzing the data from both the quantitative and qualitative instruments in addition
to a comparison to the literature review. Prior categorization of survey and interview protocol
with the research questions and their relationship with the literary review and/or gaps in literature
allowed for more efficient use of time in the categorization process. Additional codes within
each of these question based areas led to a further (subcategory) coding of the data.
Quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistics such as those referencing
central tendencies: mean, median and mode. Statistical analysis was completed to find the
frequency distributions (per question) on the ordinal data. This data was used to determine if the
mean or median was to be used for the average. The mean was used as the average for equal
interval data that was roughly symmetrical. The median was used as the average for the equal
interval data that was highly skewed or more extreme scores (Salkind, 2011). Analysis of such
57

central tendencies was used to develop and understanding of the demographic and professional
experiences of the educators. In addition, the participants’ answers also represented knowledge
bases of the educators in regards to informational goal provided by the application of the
research questions.
Analysis of the qualitative data from the semi-structured interviews was conducted from
a grounded theory approach. The grounded theory approach validates and acknowledges the
complexities of the concepts being studied and systematically and rigorously explores and
generates a theory regarding a phenomenon (Creswell, 2009; Patton, 2002). The raw data from
transcribed interviews were coded as field notes, knowledge, and professional development
information. Transcripts of the interviews were read through many times whereas the researcher
continually adapted codes for the data.
Prior categorization of survey and interview protocol with the research questions allowed
for more efficient use of time in the categorization process. Subcategory codes within each of
these question based areas led to a further coding of the data.
After a systematic method of coding the data had been performed, a visual model of the
themes and emerging theories was constructed. Then, this information was analyzed,
categorized and triangulated with the literature review and its relationship to the research
questions. Triangulation occurred been the quantitative findings of the survey instrument, the
qualitative findings on the interviews, the literature review, and the research questions. The
purpose of triangulating the data was to find points of convergence and divergence between the
data sets and data sources (Patton, 2002).

58

Ethical Considerations
The researcher successfully completed the Collaborative Institutional Training initiative
offered through the University of Southern California (USC) Institution Review Board (IRB),
which maintains and enforces appropriate guidelines for research (APPENDIX G). Participation
in this research study was entirely voluntary, and no information was reported without the
written consent of the participant (s) from whom the information was elicited.
All interviewees were also reminded before the interview that they had signed the
consent form as well as that all interviews would be held in the strictest of confidence. All
names are actually aliases, if included in the Chapters Four or Five. The recording device was
left in plain view and any request to comment “off the record” was granted. All data collected,
including survey questionnaire results, audio recordings, and transcribed interviews, were stored
in a secure location, and access was limited the researcher, chairperson, and the USC IRB. The
researcher will destroy all data in 2017 according to UCS policy guidelines.
Conclusion
This study used a mixed-methods approach that incorporated quantitative data from
survey questionnaires and qualitative data from responses to open-ended questions on the
surveys as well as semi-structured interview. Quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive
statistics, while qualitative data was analyzed through content analysis. Connections and
analysis was performed using triangulation between the quantitative findings of the survey
instrument, the qualitative findings on the interviews, the literature review, and the research
questions. In addition, triangulation between qualitative sources was conducted through analysis
of multiple interview participants and the open-ended responses from the survey instrument.
59

This methodology allowed the researcher to find points of convergence and divergence between
the data sets and data sources (Patton, 2002). The results of these findings will be discussed in
Chapter Four.

60

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
Introduction
A major pedagogical change with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is the
implementation of project based learning/assessments within the curricula. For over a century,
educators such as John Dewey have espoused the benefits of experimental, student-directed
learning opportunities (Buck Institute for Education [BIE], 2002). Unfortunately, despite the
numerous benefits of project-based learning, few educational environments have been focused
on such holistic curricular innovations in light of the quantitative federal standards that have
been used with NCLB to evaluate schools (CCSSI, 2010b).
This study focuses on how 40, elementary school educators in an urban, Southern
California Unified School District may have to shift their paradigms from standard based
learning/assessments to project based learning/assessments for the implementation of the CCSS
curriculum within the classroom. This chapter presents the findings from a mixed-methods study
consisting of a quantitative survey completed by 40 elementary educators and four qualitative
interviews conducted with aforementioned educators. The questions for the survey and the
interviews were aligned to the following research questions:
(1) What is the extent of elementary school educator’s knowledge of standard based
learning/assessments in developing curriculum?
(2) What is the extent of elementary school educator’s knowledge of project based
learning/assessments in developing curriculum?
(3) What organizational barriers might hinder the implementation of project based
learning and assessments?
61

(4) What will help elementary school educators achieve a 21
st
century (project based)
classroom for the implementation of the CCSS?
Purpose of the Study
The aim of this study was to evaluate the understanding of project based learning and
assessments versus standard based learning and assessments for the implementation of the
CCSS. The study also determined ways in which any learning gaps should be addressed and any
organizational barriers which might impede the educators’ learning processes. Additionally, this
study aimed to determine what might help elementary school educators implement the 21
st

Century learning competencies of project based learning/assessments in the classroom.
Response Rate
Based on the selection criteria for this study as described in Chapter 3, 40 elementary
teachers in an urban Southern California School Unified School District participated in the study.
This sample was drawn from a population of 20 schools within the district. Five schools were
contacted with four agreeing to participate in the study. The four schools within the district were
selected based on the Southern California Unified School District’s exposure to CCSS. Table 2
indicates that of the 79 potential participants, 42 elected to participate, with a response rate of
53%. This pool surpassed the goal of the researcher, which was a response rate of 50%.
However, two surveys were incomplete resulting in 40 completed surveys for a final response
rate of 50%. This reflected a minimum sample size based on Patton’s (2002) recommendation
and these teachers exemplified the goal of attaining a people-centric model, used to study
individuals who have common experience within the same location (Patton, 2002). Since it had
been determined that all participants from the four schools had been involved with various
training provided by both independent companies and the Ventura County Office of Education
62

and subsequently had a knowledge base about the vision statement for CCSS, standard based
learning/assessments and project based learning/assessments, interviews were based on
participants who wished to participate via confirmation from the survey. Subsequently, the four
participants for the qualitative interviews were selected from the quantitative survey and are
consistent with the sampling criteria.
Table 2
Quantitative Survey: Participants Response
Measure Number of Survey
Emailed
Number Participated % Participated

Teachers

79

40

53%

Of the 40 teachers who participated in the survey, eight agreed to a follow-up qualitative
interview via the survey. Of these eight, only four responded when contacted by a follow-up
email. Consistent with the sampling criteria described in Chapter Three, each respondent
indicated a willingness to be interviews, had been involved with various training provided by
both independent companies and the Ventura County Office of Education, had a knowledge base
about the vision statement for CCSS and standard based learning/assessments and project based
learning/assessments.
Quantitative Demographic Data
As the study reflects the knowledge base that educators need in regards to the
implementation of standard based learning/assessments and project based learning/assessments
for CCSS, the demographic data that was considered for this study includes basic personal and
professional information. Personal and professional information was limited to the educator’s
age, number of years teaching, and degrees and credentials obtained. These demographic
63

questions function as a foundation on which to understand the experience, training, and depth of
knowledge these educators may have about pedagogy in order to implement CCSS in the
classroom.
Table 3 shows the degrees held by teachers. The survey question asked teachers to select
the highest degree held. Table 3 lists the information as reported in the survey for all
respondents.
Table 3
Quantitative Survey: Degrees Obtained

The majority of the teachers (72%) had obtained a master’s degree. The second most
prevalent degree earned was the bachelor’s degree at 22%. Only .025% of the teachers had
earned a doctorate degree and while .025% of the teachers were currently pursuing a master’s
degree, 0%, were pursuing a doctorate degree.
Table 4 outlines the credentials held by the respondents. Choices included Multiple
Subject Credential or Elementary Teaching Credential, Single Subject Credential or Secondary
Teaching Credential, Emergency Teaching Credential, and Substitute Teaching Credential.
Measure
Teachers Percentage
Credential Number %
B.A. or B.S

9 22%
Master’s Degree

29 72%

Ed.D. or Ph.D.

1

.025%

Currently pursuing a Master’s
Degree

1

.025%
Currently pursuing a Doctorate
Degree
0 0%
64

The Elementary Teaching Credential allows the holder to teach in any self-contained
classroom most commonly associated with Elementary Schools (California Commission on
Teacher Credentialing [CTC], 2010). However, those with this credential can teach in any
multiple subject self-contained classrooms as well as in a core or team teaching setting (CTC,
2010).
The Secondary or Single Subject Credential authorizes the holder to teach the specific
subject or subjects listed on the credential (CTC, 2010). This credential is most often associated
with middle school and high school settings.
The Emergency Cross-cultural Language and Academic Development (CLAD) Service
Permit authorizes the holder of the permit: Instruction for English language development
(ELD) in preschool, grades K-12, and in classes organized primarily for adults, except when the
prerequisite credential or permit is a Designated Subjects Adult Education Teaching Credential,
or a Children’s Center or Child Development Permit, in which case instruction for English
Language development is limited to the programs authorized by that credential or permit,
specially designed academic instruction delivered in English (SDAIE) in the subjects and at the
levels authorized by the prerequisite credential or permit (CTC, 2010).
The Emergency Substitute Teaching Permit for Prospective Teachers authorizes the
holder to serve as a day to day substitute teacher in any classroom, including preschool,
kindergarten, and grades 1-12 inclusive or in classes organized primarily for adults. The holder
may serve as a substitute for no more than 30 days for any one teacher and may only serve for a
maximum of 90 days during the school year. In a special education classroom the holder may
serve for no more than 20 days for any one teacher during the school year. The permit is valid for
one year and may be renewed only once (CTC, 2010).
65

Of the 40 respondents, 36 hold a Multiple Subject Teaching Credential. Eight of the 40
respondents indicated that they had a Single Subject Teaching Credential. The question asked
teachers to select all that apply; however, there were inconsistent responses—notably that 4
respondents only held a Single Subject Teaching Credential and subsequently could not teach in
an elementary classroom. This led the researcher to infer that respondents misunderstood the
question and, therefore, all respondents must have earned a Multiple Subject Teaching
Credential. No teacher held either an Emergency Permit or a Substitute Teaching Credential.
Table 4
Quantitative Survey: Credentials Obtained
Measure All Principals Percentage
Credential Number %
Multiple Subject Credential

36 90%
Single Subject Credential 8 20%

Emergency Service Teaching
Credential

0

0%
Substitute Teaching Credential

0

0%

The teachers surveyed have a wide range of years spent in the classroom. Table 5 shows
that based on survey results, the most prevalent amount of years are between 10-15 years, 28%,
followed closely by 15-20 years classroom experience, 25%, and then teachers who have been in
the classroom for over 20 years, 18%. The majority of surveyed teachers have been in the
classroom for 10 or more years and have experienced multiple change initiatives in education—
from the state standards initiative and NCLB to CCSS. Since the CCSS are not part of a set
curriculum and are instead a set of shared goals and expectations on what knowledge and skill
will help students succeed, (CCSSI, 2010b) experience in previously designed curriculum may
help with the initial planning process for CCSS. As this shift will require change, it infers that
66

change, especially deep-seated change, takes time to develop and requires an ongoing
commitment exemplified by the numbers of years in the classroom (Marzano et al., 2005).
Table 5
Quantitative Survey: Years in Current Position
Measure Teachers Percentage
Time Period Number %
1-5 years

6 15%
5-10 years 6 15%

10-5 years

11

28%

15-20 years

10

25%

More than 20 years

7

18%

Total

40

100%
As noted previously, deep-seating change requires an ongoing commitment (Marzano et
al., 2005). The researcher therefore wanted to investigate the age groups of the respondents.
Given that authentic learning opportunities lend themselves to authentic interpersonal
interactions, it is inevitable that teachers be required to address a variety of issues related to the
habits of mind such as flexibility, persistence, responsibility, and creativity (Welsh, 2006).This
could be a positive or negative attribute based on age group. Additionally, there are potential
problems with teachers being motivated into incorporating project based learning, as emphasized
in CCSS into the classrooms (Marx et al., 1994) once their role has been established. Table 6
reflects that 45% of teachers were between 45-55 years old, followed by the 35-45 year old
bracket. Respondents who were in the 25-35 year bracket (18%) were followed by respondents
who were 55 years old at 10% and finally the respondents which between 21-25 years old tallied
the 3% mark.

67

Table 6
Quantitative Survey: Age Groups of Teachers
Measure Teacher Percentage
Age Group Number %
21-25 years old

1 3%
25-35 years old 7 18%

35-45 years old

10

25%

45-55 years old

18

45%
55 or older 4 10

Total

40

100%

In conclusion, since schools are held accountable for student knowledge through student
performance on standardized tests, mandates such as federal policies require schools to take
action and implement change not only at the district or school level but also in each classroom
(Burke, 2004; Flett & Wallace, 2005; O’Day, 2002). Change is occurring two-fold at the site
level: at the schools as a whole and in each individual classroom managed by an individual
teacher. This twice-occurring change lends to both issues of urgency as teachers harbor their own
beliefs and values regarding educational reform as well as a whole school sense of urgency to
accomplish the task at hand (Brighton, 2003; Datnow & Castellano, 2000; Flett & Wallace,
2005). Professional education, credentials held, number of years in the classroom, and age
groups all contribute to how individuals manage and cooperate with one another to make this
change feasible.
Qualitative Demographic Data
Interview data was collected during thirty to forty-five minute sessions with the
respondents either by phone or in person. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim
in order to ensure reliability of responses. The transcripts were then coded for patterns and
68

themes that relate to the research questions described previously. Once data was collected, an
open coding system guided by Creswell (2009) was used. Cresswell’s six-step process, which is
described in Chapter Three, helped the researchers to manage the data and make sense of the
emergent themes that allow for analysis:
(1) Organize and prepare the data for analysis
(2) Read through all the data
(3) Code the data
(4) Generate description
(5) Create narrative
(6) Interpret the data
Teachers Exposure to CCSS
Teachers were asked via the survey, to what extent they had been exposed to CCSS. This
was deemed necessary in order to assure that all potential interviewees had sufficient background
knowledge of CCSS to objectively answer the interview questions. As California transitions to
CCSS, many schools have and will institute curricular and instructional changes in order to
prepare teachers for these new demands. The new focus for CCSS will not simply be “the what”
of curriculum but also on the “the how” of new curriculum implementation. Understanding this
process will assist teachers in providing the instructional techniques that lend themselves to
assuring success for all students (Causey-Bush, 2005).
All of the respondents replied that they either had some (60%) or a lot (40%) of exposure
to CCSS. Table 8 reflects this statistic. As schools are held accountable for student knowledge
through student performance on standardized tests, mandates such as federal policies require
schools to take action and implement change not only at the district or school level but also in
69

each classroom (Burke, 2004; Flett & Wallace, 2005; O’Day, 2002). Furthermore, since teachers
are responsible for making the change to CCSS within their classrooms, it was imperative that
the respondents who participated in the interview process could speak to the implementation
process for CCSS from its initial phase to the present. This exposure is necessary to understand
the changes which may need to occur for the planning and actual implementation of CCSS.
Subsequently, based on the survey information, participants who had begun the planning
process and had received some training in CCSS were qualified to participate in the follow up
interview. Since the survey indicated that all participants had some degree of exposure to CCSS,
the first four educators who agreed to the follow up interview were deemed interview
participants.
Table 7
Quantitative Survey: Exposure to CCSS
Measure Teachers Percentage
Exposure Number %
None

0 0%
Some

24 60%

A Lot

16

40%

Total

40

100%

Table 8 details the demographic profile of each elementary teacher who participated in a
qualitative interview. This information provides a contextual foundation for the teachers
interviewed and reflects the sampling criteria for this study.

70

Table 8
Qualitative Interview: Characteristics of Elementary Educators
Elementary
Teachers
Gender
Highest Degree
Obtained
Credentials
Held
Years as
Teacher
Years at Site
1 Female Bachelor’s Degree Multiple
Subject
7 4
2 Female Bachelor’s Degree Multiple
Subject; S/A
English
11 4
3 Female Master’s Degree Multiple
Subject
7 2
4 Male Master’s Degree Multiple
Subject
9 9

Consistent with the findings in Table 5, the elementary teachers interviewed have been
teaching and have been educators at their sites long enough that the conditions for change
implementation exist. On average, these teachers had been teaching for eight and one half years
and worked at their site five years. While time spent teaching at the site is not the definitive
factor to predict success for change implementation, the ability to implement change does have
some relationship to time spent at the school site. After two years, Earley and Weindling (2007)
suggest that teachers are familiar and comfortable enough with school culture and organizational
socialization to feel comfortable implementing change. One of the distinguishing characteristics
in educational reform is that the “who” responsible is generally the school unit (i.e. teachers) and
are held accountable for producing specific levels or improvements in student outcome
(Fuhraman, 1999). The data suggests that teachers consider themselves a unit, due to the time
spent at the school site.
Additionally, in order for learning goals and assessments to be successful, the teachers
need to be involved in defining learning outcomes for students and making program changes
based on the research methodology findings (Clark & Estes, 2008; Shulock & Moore, 2002).
This comes through having gained the knowledge to incorporate learning activities into lesson
71

plans and the curriculum. The credential (s) acquired demonstrates that the teachers have had the
training to contribute what they have learned to promote student learning (Elmore, 2002).
The demographic data gleaned from the survey and the interview lays the foundation for the
research questions findings. It provides a framework which reflects the knowledge base on
which the elementary teachers have planned and implemented instructional change for CCSS.
By understanding this and their underlying beliefs in regards to change incorporation,
discussions about their perceptions and motivation to implement this change reflect their identity
as reform advocates for CCSS implementation.
Research Question One:
What is the extent of elementary school educator’s knowledge of standard based
learning/assessments in developing curriculum?
The alignment of statewide testing with the established state standards for NCLB caused
districts and schools to rethink the way courses are structured, students tested, and the way
teachers were trained. Teacher professional development was refocused on how to use data from
district provided pacing guides and student assessment data to revamp instruction. (Darling-
Hammond, 1990).
Table 9 presents the disaggregated survey responses of educators to research question
number 1. Educators were asked to indicate their level of knowledge using a Likert-type scale in
which strongly agree, agree, neither agree or disagree, disagree strongly disagree were
respondents choices. For all survey items, data was self-reported, and the Likert-type scale
remained consistent for all items in the remaining sections of Chapter Four.

72

Table 9
Educator Responses to Levels of Knowledge about Standard Based Learning and Assessments
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Standard based learning and assessments represent a viable means to document and analyze student
achievement in the course of study.
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neither

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Response
Mean
Total
Responses
4 24 4 8 0 2.40 40
2. Standard based learning and assessments lends that curriculum is geared to teach to the test.
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neither

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Response
Mean
Total
Responses
9 19 9 3 0 2.15 40
3. Teachers must understand the components of standard based learning and assessments in order to
establish a curriculum which represents the elements of this type of teaching and learning.
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neither

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Response
Mean
Total
Responses
3 20 3 9 0 2.33 40
4. Standard based learning and assessments should be the focal point for the implementation of CCSS in
classrooms.
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neither

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Response
Mean
Total
Responses
5 10 8 14 3 3.00 40

Student Achievement Documentation
Current research and documentation on CCSS focuses on the standards themselves and
their alignment to current standards and the purpose of education (Jenkins & Agamba, 2013;
Kirst, 2013; Tienken, 2011). Since these standards focus on analytical thinking and justifying
reasoning, teaching practices and the overseeing of them, the documentation of student
achievement may require significant overhaul (Causey-Bush, 2005; Dee & Jacob, 2011; Kirst,
2013; Linn, 2005).
73

Twenty four teachers believe that standard based learning and assessments represent a
viable means to document and analyze student achievement in the course of study. The teachers
who were interviewed, however, also believe that a summative assessment should not be the
“end all” for measuring student achievement. Each elementary school educator’s target should
incorporate the motivational goal(s) needed to achieve the curriculum development objective.
Teacher 2 said, “This should be an ongoing process.” Formative assessments and performance
tasks encompass a variety of strategies for revealing students’ understanding, allowing teachers
to pinpoint and address any impediments to a student’s progress. Teachers use formative data to
decide how much and what kind of learning, support, and practice a student needs to reach the
goal. When formative assessment is employed before, during, and after instruction, both
teachers and students have a measure of progress (Greenstein, 2010, p. 2). Teacher 4
acknowledged that it is imperative when planning curriculum, the documentation must reflect
what standards are being measured and how that achievement is being measured in an empirical
manner.
Teach to the Test
Tests have been aligned to district objectives, which were aligned to state testing targets,
the results being that teachers taught to the test (Goertz & Duffy, 2003). Each of the teachers
interviewed spoke about how the CCSS offered an opportunity for the students to attain an
application of knowledge rather than just assuring that student test scores are high. Teacher 1
emphasized that this initiative offers “a more varied instructional approach to meeting the
standards, rather than only being concerned about a test”.
Many in education pitch the battle between academic content standards and “21
st
Century
Skills” (Wagner, 2008) as an either/or proposition, when in reality the most effective
74

instructional programs integrate the two (Dede, 2007). Teacher 1 clarified, “You have to
understand the requirements before you design projects and assessments. We have to realize that
there should be multiple ways to do this. Summative assessments are not the only answer.”
Teacher 3 echoed that thought. One of the strategies that her grade level used was aligning
CCSS to curricula and programs already in place, effectively easing the transition by linking
prior knowledge and experience.
Given that assessments, such as standardized tests, do not measure higher-order thinking
skills, such assessments are generally not aligned with the goals of reforms such as the CCSS.
For this reason, Fleming (2000) emphasized that teachers must be careful to design curriculum
around projects that focus on standards and align the activities, rather than the tests, accordingly.
Component Understanding
The lack of curriculum development from educational agencies has led to concerns from
Teacher 1 that CCSS is just another standards roadmap rather than true educational reform.
While most teachers agree that one needs to understand the components of the standards (50%) ,
the focus should not be on simply designing assessments which test the knowledge of those
standards. The emphasis, rather than teaching for the mastery of the standards, should be the
application of these standards into real world situations. In order to achieve this goal, Teacher 4
alluded that “All teachers need to understand the concepts behind standard based learning and
assessments and how they apply to CCSS ... or decide if they do.”
The alignment of projects to the standards will assure greater depth of knowledge for the
student (BIE, 2002; Fleming, 2000). Teacher number 3 asserted that altering the negativity that
is associated with standard based learning and assessment is necessary for successful
implementation of Common Core since standards are a major benchmark for the assuring the
75

success of student learning goals. She stated, “Standards are not a bad thing. It is the way that
we have been teaching them which will need to change.” The teachers that were interviewed
recognized that this change in thinking will be difficult as it will ask some teachers to go beyond
their comfort zone.
However, this change is not optional. CCSS is a federal initiative adopted by California.
It will alter not only what is taught but most importantly, how it is taught.
Focal Point
Standard based knowledge and assessment went from being strongly encouraged to
federally mandated with the assessment scores made public due to NCLB (Hursh, 2005). A vast
amount of teachers were trained as required under NCLB and lack the depth of teaching
practices and learning pedagogy that consider the day-to-day complexities inherent in teaching
deep structures in various cultural contexts and communities (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p.
22; NCLB, 2001). Under NCLB, the validity and reliability of standardized and commercially
produced assessments outweighed the subjectivity of teacher created tests, particularly
innovative, authentic performance assessments designed to test student application, analysis, and
synthesis of knowledge (Hursh, 2005; Sloane & Kelly, 2003). Teacher 3 believes that this has
been a disservice to the students and does not give the teacher enough “professional credit” to the
extent that they did not have input into how the tests were designed and no consensus was given
to how the tests were to be implemented. Teacher 3 also hopes that CCSS will provide the
teachers with more opportunity to design curriculum, appropriate assessments and participate in
feedback about the aforementioned testing during CCSS implementation phase.
The CCSS provides the teachers with a guideline on the knowledge that students need in
order to acquire knowledge, skills, and perspectives relevant to their success as citizens, life-long
76

learners, and participants in the economy of the 21
st
century. All four teachers think that
educators are in a precarious situation in applying their own knowledge to better serve the
students. Thusly, most of the teachers agreed that teaching to a test only for the implementation
of standard based assessments, should not be the main focus of CCSS implementation. Teacher
2 juxtaposed, “We have no real curriculum maps. During the planning stages, we should just use
these standards to develop teaching parameters.” Teacher 1 emphasized that achievement on a
test should not be the main parameter that that is implemented for CCSS. Rather, student
learning should be the parameter that is measured by the CCSS in multiple venues.
Based on the research as presented in Chapter Two, it is evident that demands from the
community represent more than test scores alone. Although standard based learning and
assessments are present with CCSS, these standards reflect the expectation that schools will
serve to educate the next generation of citizens to succeed in a 21
st
century world and economy.
Research Question Two:
What is the extent of elementary school educator’s knowledge of project based
learning/assessments in developing curriculum?
One area of focus is the incorporation of project based learning and assessments into the
curriculum for CCSS. Project based learning is a model that organizes learning around projects.
According to the definitions found in Project Based Learning Handbooks for Teachers,
(Pearlman, 2013) projects are complex tasks, based on challenging questions or problems, that
involve students in design, problem-solving, decision making, or investigative activities; give
students the opportunity to work relatively autonomously over extended periods of time; and
culminate in realistic products or presentations (Jones, Rasmussen, & Moffitt, 1997; Thomas,
Mergendoller, & Michaelson, 1999). In addition to the measurable qualitative benefits of
77

project-based learning, such as motivation, self-esteem, and cooperative learning skills, research
has demonstrated gains in students’ standardized test scores in schools where project-based
learning reforms have been implemented (Thomas, 2000).
The second research question sought to determine how teachers perceived project based
learning and assessments. This knowledge base is crucial because modifying teaching practices
may cause veteran teachers to become novices again, which often results in awkward classroom
management behaviors and shortcomings associated with orchestrating the multiple features of
project based learning in a classroom environment (Thomas, 2000). Table 10 depicts the
educators views in regards to the levels of knowledge about project based learning and
assessments.

78

Table 10
Educator Responses to Levels of Knowledge about Project Based Learning and Assessments
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Project based learning and assessments represent a viable means to document and analyze student
achievement in the course of study.
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neither

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Response
Mean
Total
Responses
10 16 11 3 0 2.18 40
2. Project based learning and assessments enable students to develop critical thinking skills, collaborate, and
analyze material in more detail than direct instruction or summative assessments.
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neither

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Response
Mean
Total
Responses
15 20 4 3 0 1.72 40
3. Teachers must understand the components of project based learning and assessments in order to establish
a curriculum which represents the elements of this type of teaching and learning.
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neither

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Response
Mean
Total
Responses
20 17 2 1 0 1.60 40
4. Project based learning and assessments should be incorporated into the implementation of the CCSS in
classrooms.
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neither

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Response
Mean
Total
Responses
12 26 2 0 0 1.75 40

Student Achievement Documentation
The CCSS represents a comprehensive set of national standards to be used by all states
that have adopted them with individual state standards to supplement and reflect context (NGA
& CCSSO, 2010a; NGA & CCSSO, 2010b; Porter et al., 2011). The hope is that the CCSS will
provide an equitable education and equally rigorous standards for all students—effectively
promoting “fewer, clearer, and higher standards” that will prepare students for college and the
workforce (Marzano et al., 2013, p. 6; NGA & CCSSO, 2010a; NGA & CCSSO, 2010b; Porter
et al., 2011).
79

All the teachers noted that there are fewer standards but they seem more generic.
Teacher 1 thinks that it will be easier to incorporate these standards across all disciplines but
worries that understanding, both by students and faculty, may become convoluted in the process.
Given that summative assessments, such as standardized tests, do not measure higher-order
thinking skills, such assessments are generally not aligned with the goals of reforms such as
project-based learning (Wagner, 2008). Teacher 4 emphasized that it does not mean that tests
are not valid measurements of student learning. However, formative tests should be given
throughout the unit to check for understanding in addition to only a summative test at the end of
the unit.
Since projects can be time-consuming, standards must be taken into consideration when
designing projects. Teacher 3 knows this is the case but worries "just how much time we will be
given" to actually design the projects. Nevertheless, it has been proven that this method will
help to ensure that students are provided with meaningful learning opportunities that involve
important grade-level skills (Fleming, 2000). Teacher 2 asserted:
Project based learning and assessments are an effective way to teach, but it is not a
license for teachers to teach whatever they want. There must be solid rubrics that
validate the student is meeting the requirements of the standard being taught. Right now,
we have generic rubrics supplied by testing companies. These will need to be modified.
This may take additional training and planning on what to measure, how to measure and
how to communicate the requirements to the student.
Challenges may grow out of difficulties teachers have in accepting the idea that effective
collaboration among students requires more than involvement, it requires exchanging ideas and
80

negotiating meaning and determining learning outcome based on that negotiation (Marx et all.,
1991).
Three teachers have concerns that this is a more subjective than objective approach to
learning and wonder if students are mature enough to take on that challenge of responsibility,
especially in the elementary grades. Teacher 1 feels that the responsibility lies with the
stakeholders in the entire community to reinforce these social expectations for further
generations of students, but most importantly, individuals in order to meet 21 century learning
goals.
Provides Students with Opportunities for Analysis
Project based learning projects are student-driven to some significant degree. Likewise,
the projects are not mainstream, teacher-led, scripted, or packaged. Most incorporate a good deal
more student autonomy, choice, unsupervised work time, and responsibility than traditional
instruction and traditional projects (Thomas, 2000). Teacher 1 thinks that this is fine as long as
the students are mature enough to stay on task. This may not always be the case. Teachers 1 and
2 are concerned that in addition to teaching the required subject matter, now they will have to
teach students how to manage their time and be more self- disciplined in achieving learning
goals. Teachers 3 and 4 agree that this is not an issue until there are overcrowded classrooms
with fewer teachers or teacher assistants present. Teacher 4 is concerned that more students will
“fall through the cracks” simply due to the sheer volume of classroom size.
Various studies have documented increased student motivation as a result of
implementing project based learning instructional techniques ( Curtis, 2005; Liu & Hsaio, 2002).
Teacher 4 believes working with CCSS may achieve that, but only if students have enough time
to reflect on the outcome of projects and have the ability to rework any mistakes or substandard
81

thinking patterns. This may prove difficult if achievement levels are still measured by the
breath rather than the depth of student understanding. Students will need to apply the knowledge
and concepts gained from one lesson to other lessons throughout the disciplines and through the
duration of their academic experience.
Component Understanding
The implementation change for CCSS will be significant and challenging, and will
require change in instruction, curriculum, teacher preparation, resources and accountability
measures (Grossman et al., 2011; Jenkins & Agamba, 2013; Kirst, 2013; Sawchuk, 2012). One
of the central questions asked from the teachers interviewed was, “What should projects have in
order to be considered an example of project based learning?" The five criteria recommended for
project based learning and assessments are centrality, driving questions, constructive
investigations, autonomy, and realism (Thomas, 2000).
However, this recommendation often creates an additional challenge for teachers who
must facilitate the development of an investigation that addresses both students’ interests and
required curriculum standards (Curtis, 2005; Thomas, 2000). Teacher 1 deemed this will be
possible, but time will be needed to plan and collaborate with other teachers. Those interviewed
agreed that teachers need to know what is expected of them and how much guidance will they
receive in order to implement CCSS goals.
Research indicates the first step in planning a high-quality instructional project is the
identification of specific learning goals, or standards that will be covered by the project (Bolman
& Deal, 2003; Thomas, 2000). It is important to understand that project-based learning is not an
instructional accessory but rather a central part of classroom curriculum. While project-based
learning does not replace other teaching methods, such as direct instruction, it should be used as
82

a thoughtful and deliberate complement to other forms of instruction (BIE, 2002; Hennes, 1921).
Teacher 2 stated, "I wish we could just see some examples of projects and curriculum that other
schools are using. This would just make it easier to know if we are on the right track."
While there has been scant documentation provided as examples, Teacher 2 verified that
there had been opportunities to participate in training where teachers come together to
collaborate at the district and then return to their school sites to share these learning experiences
with others. This provides the scaffolding for site committees, teams, and learning opportunities
to take CCSS from a set of standards to instructional practice, which includes project based
learning.
Incorporation into CCSS Implementation
Past studies by Thomas (2000) have shown that teachers tend to prefer to explore those
aspects of project based learning related to their professional needs and current capabilities (e.g.,
technology). Teacher 2 does not understand how student achievement is supposed to be
measured by project based learning and assessments when administration does not have the
means to ensure materials are accessible to all. “We don’t have the tools for students to
complete projects that require advanced technological requirements. How are we supposed to
plan and compete with those that do?” Teacher 4 maintained that things will remain status quo
in the regards that schools that are at a socioeconomic disadvantage will remain under par in
attaining higher student achievement levels.
Subsequently, teachers' efforts to change their teaching strategies incline to focus on one
or two aspects of the new approach (only) and one or two new strategies designed to cope with
new challenges. Teachers may be apt to modify their practices in idiosyncratic ways, mapping
new behaviors onto old behaviors and moving back and forth between old and new practices,
83

sometimes successfully, sometimes not so successfully (Thomas, 2000). While this may not be a
detriment to teaching practices, teachers will need to strive to ensure that old practices
incorporate the goals of the CCSS. Teacher 3 noted:
CCSS incorporates more than academic knowledge and understanding and consequently,
teachers will no longer be able to use one universal, descript lesson plan. Most lessons
will have to be reworked based on the need for students to attain a greater depth of
knowledge and for teachers to achieve a 21
st
century classroom. This will take time and
effort from all stakeholders in the teaching community.
In order for students to work productively, teachers must balance the need to allow
students to work on their flow of information while at the same time believing that students'
understanding requires that they build their own understanding. Teachers also must realize that
there will be a learning curve for them. Many may have difficulty scaffolding students'
activities, sometimes giving them too much independence or too little modeling and feedback
(Thomas, 2000).
Consequently, project based learning should end itself not only to academic benefits but
also to socio-emotional development, a growing concern of schools and educators when
implementing the CCSS and the vision of 21
st
century learning skills (Wagner, 2008).
Research Question Three: What organizational barriers might hinder the implementation
of project based learning and assessments?
CCSS is a relatively recent initiative, whose directives and resources have been
distributed from the framers of the standards to the district and finally to individual sites and
teachers in the classrooms. As described in Chapter Two, there is scant research on how best to
implement CCSS at the site level (i.e. classrooms); rather the scholarly research has focused on
84

the standards themselves. The change process is often hampered during the implementation
phase by various external and internal pressures, demands, and a lack of communication or
vision (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 1990; Elmore, 2002; Fowler, 2009; Fullan,
1991; Kotter, 2012; Kotter & Cohen, 2008; Marzano et al., 2005).
Yet successful change implementation, as previously described, is possible when the
right decisions, resources, and people are made, mobilized, and supported. In the context of
education, Elmore (2002) argues, capacity building is rooted in instruction and involves
interaction amongst teachers, students, and content. Teachers—in addition to administration—
are critical players or team members in the implementation of curricular and instructional
change. Moreover, these top-down decisions have bottom-up solutions as developing internal
capacity leads away from “power over” and moves to “power with” (Elmore, 2002; Darling-
Hammond, 1990; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012, p. 14).
Table 11 presents the disaggregated survey responses of educators to research question
number 3.

85

Table 11
Educator Responses to Organizational Barriers
1. Organizational barriers may hinder the successful implementation of the CCSS into the curriculum.
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neither

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Response
Mean
Total
Responses
0 6 19 12 3 3.30 40
2. Organizational barriers which may occur outside of the classroom will be addressed in a timely manner.
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neither

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Response
Mean
Total
Responses
0 6 19 12 3 3.30 40
3. Collaborative discussions about any organizational barriers which may occur will be crucial to the
successful implementation of the CCSS into the curriculum.
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neither

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Response
Mean
Total
Responses
13 19 6 2 0 1.93 40

Hindrance from Internal and External Barriers
Research Questions One and Two focused on the perceived notions that teachers had in
regards to organizational barriers would hinder the implementation of CCSS. The largest
percentages for each question were the strongly agree and the agree columns (2/3). This
percentage verifies that teachers are not certain organizational barriers will be taken into
consideration and overcome during the implementation phase. These organizational barriers can
be delineated as resources. Resources include both tangible and intangible entities such as time
and funding while lack of communication is both a cause and result of a resistance to change
(Sketcher & Kirby, 2004).
Kotter (2012) believes that the key to taking action is to provide people opportunities to
remove any barriers that will hinder the implementation process. Teacher 2 thinks that it will be
difficult to “get everyone on board ,” a concept that is reflected in the professional accountability
86

model. The professional accountability model holds the professionals within the organization
accountable to each other, making sure that they are following recognized professional practices.
These professionals should possess sufficient expertise to determine the best ways of meeting the
individual needs of their students and consequently, professional competence and standards for
professional practice become important (Stecher & Kirby, 2004). All four teachers believed that
it will be difficult to know if their colleagues have the pedagogy knowledge based on the new set
of standards. There are no models to emulate. Everyone will have to share what they learn, as
they go. This may mean adopting a new philosophy for some teachers and may prove stressful
for others who feel as though they have become novices again. Teacher 1 stressed,
“Communication throughout this process will be paramount.” Through communication,
collaboration, alignment, training, and maintaining focus, people will be empowered through
their knowledge, skills and motivation gained via involvement (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Fullan,
2012; Kotter, 2012; Senge,1990).
During implementation, effective change begins with communication of the goals and
need for change. This creates buy-in and support and leads to mobilizing efforts by all
stakeholders to embark on the change journey. Communication serves as a task-oriented and
direct leadership strategy and behavior in which leaders communicate the change vision, make
the change vision universally known, motivate constituents, and promote teamwork (Battilana et
al., 2010; Gilley et al. 2009a; Gilley et al. 2009b). Teacher 3 clarified “communication is not
the key; effective communication is the key.” It can manifest itself in nonverbal modalities
including trust, visibility, accessibility, and a willingness to allow others to lead and experiment;
each demonstrated by the principals interviewed. Teacher 1 stated, “We have to believe that we
87

are good at our jobs. We want the students to achieve great things. We just have to work
together to accomplish this at all levels.”
Thus communication and trust is a pyramid under which all other strategies—both direct
and indirect—exist. Communication and trust promote professional accountability and a culture
of inquiry in which a community of learners—including teachers and principals—form a
collaborative, productive environment focused on a single goal: student learning (Dowd, 2005).
Collaborative Discussion
Teacher 3 realizes that this development of a community of leaders is easier said than
done. As evidenced by Research Question Three, most teachers do not think that organizational
barriers outside the classroom will be addressed in a timely manner (15 teachers) and 19 teachers
said they neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement. This suggests an uncertainty in role
that outside influences may have in the classroom. Cultural models—the shared schema of how
the world works—influence the setting and therefore shape the culture through often “inimical”
ways that can be counterproductive to school reform and change (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2008). Teacher 1 acknowledged there have been numerous debates between school boards,
parents and administration. While some of these debates are planned in an organized forum
setting, it is apparently obvious there is still a lot of negativity towards the implementation of
CCSS and if it will truly enhance student achievement.
Organizational change can be deeply personal despite many working toward a shared
goal; it is also a deeply human endeavor that can lead to significant tensions between those who
support the cause and those who resist it (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Calabrese, 2002; Fowler, 2009;
Kotter, 2012; Senge, 1990). Three teachers said that they do not always feel comfortable voicing
their views to disgruntled participants. This may be due to the lack of communication in regards
88

to the vision of CCSS to all stakeholders. Educational reform is rooted in new ways of thinking,
believing, acting and leading. It is more than a re-culturation of the organizational structures and
tasks; it is also a re-culturation of the people and stakeholders (Marzano et al., 2005).
Research Question Four:
What will help elementary school educators achieve a 21
st
century (project based)
classroom for the implementation of the CCSS?
Accountability is a practice of continuous improvement, and research suggests that the
impetus for such change is on school leadership to promote a continued effort toward the
education of teachers who must also implement change (Elmore, 2002; Flett & Wallace, 2005;
Harpell & Andrews, 2010; Norton Grubb & Badway, 2005; Smit & Humpert, 2012).
Educators were asked to indicate their level of knowledge using a Likert-type scale with
not at all, occasionally, and frequently as choices. The response mean and total respondents are
also reported. For all survey items, data was self-reported. Teachers surveyed responded to
Likert-style questions regarding the extent they have been given tools and have begun the
implementation process for CCSS, as shown in Table 12.
Table 12
Implementation of CCSS
Question

Not at all

Occasionally

Frequently

Response
Mean
Total
Responses
To what extent have
you begun to
implement CCSS
lessons you’re your
classroom?
0 24 16 2.40 40
To what extent have
your been given
tools to help
implement CCSS
lessons into your
classroom?
13 24 3 1.75 40
89

Extent of Implementation of CCSS
While little research has been done on how best to implement the standards at the site
level, research through the Center on Educational Policy (CEP) has listed possible routes for
implementation at the state level that are echoed by organizational change literature (Kober &
Rentner, 2011a; Kober & Rentner, 2011b; Kober & Rentner, 2012; Rentner, 2013). Teachers are
aware of this, however, most want feedback on new lessons that they are planning for CCSS and
want to know if their vision is in line with the national implementation goals. As evidenced by
Table 12, all of the teachers are beginning to implement CCSS in the classroom.
Motivation of educators and others to attend to relevant information and to expend the
effort necessary to augment or change strategies in response to this information is imperative.
Motivation should ultimately occur at the individual level, but it is likely to be dependent in part
on the structures of the school as well as on individual characteristics of educators and students.
(O’Day, 2002). All four teachers believe that both teachers and administrators in their district
are working towards successful implementation. However, there may be a need to develop the
knowledge and skills to promote valid interpretation of information and appropriate attribution of
causality at both the individual and system levels. This should occur in the short run, but should
also be applied to establish mechanisms for continued learning (O’Day, 2002). Teacher 4
stressed:
Right now, there is a huge learning curve for everyone. Most feel that the community
needs to be aware that there may be a drop in test scores implemented by the national
testing agency. Tests have been rewritten to go beyond basic knowledge and skills to
asking student to apply that knowledge and the skills associated with it to analyzing and
deconstructing other concepts.
90

Tools for Implementation
All of the teachers believe that the district office plays an integral role in the
implementation of instructional change, especially with CCSS. Several of the publications and
much of the research surrounding implementation of CCSS has been directed at the district level,
describing the policy, directives, and the implications to districts and states (Kober & Renter,
2011a). Once more, all four teachers are concerned this is a very broad view to effective
curriculum planning and implementation.
In the beginning of the implementation process, Teacher 2 thought that there was no
place to find resources for CCSS. Teacher 3 described it as “putting the cart before the horse.”
This situation is beginning to change. In the past two years, more publications have centered on
the implementation process, noting the alignment between CCSS planning and programs with
Professional Development (PD) and other training opportunities. Myriad companies and
websites have published books and resources to increase teacher knowledge. Teachers have
been directed to national websites, teacher websites and textbook companies are renaming
lessons as Common Core compliant. While Teachers 1,2, and 3 agree that in most cases, the
lesson plans are not project based, it is a place to start. They are hoping that as more
collaboration happens between educators at both the site, district and state levels, there will be a
database to extract information from to unify the district’s implementation of CCSS.
Professional Development
One way to mitigate these potential learning and organizational barriers is by having
teachers attend Professional Development (PD) for CCSS. PD in education is often synonymous
with training, workshops, and conferences that seek to provide continuous learning opportunities
for in-service teachers (Borko, 2004; Desimone, 2009; Elmore, 2002; Fenstermacher & Berliner,
91

1985; Fullan, 1991). Both on-site and off-site, through the district and through independent
consultants, PD takes shape through formal and informal meetings, staff development, and
specialized conferences or workshops that seek to enhance knowledge and improve student
learning. PD is both a program and a strategy that may be used to build internal capacity and
implement curriculum for CCSS.
Table 13 presents the disaggregated survey responses of educators to research question
number 4 in regards to professional development. Educators were asked to indicate their level of
knowledge using a Likert-type scale in which strongly agree, agree, neither agree or disagree,
disagree strongly disagree were respondents choices.
Table 13
Professional development concerns for CCSS
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Professional development for CCSS will be necessary for teachers to understand the new curriculum
requirements.
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neither

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Response
Mean
Total Responses
23 13 3 1 0 1.55 40
2. The district will provide sufficient professional development for teachers in order to help them meet the
requirements of implementing CCSS in the classroom.
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neither

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Response
Mean
Total
Responses
4 12 7 12 4 3.00 39
3. Professional development will need to be adapted based on the needs of the teachers.
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neither

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Response
Mean
Total
Responses
14 21 5 0 0 1.78 40
4. The viewpoints reflected in a 21
st
century classroom will need to be addressed in professional development.
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neither

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Response
Mean
Total
Responses
11 19 8 2 0 2.03 40
92

In order for the implementation of CCSS to be successful, teachers will play an important
role as leaders in the development and planning of incorporating 21
st
century skills in the
classroom (CCSS Initiative, 2010a) and reflect what is known as internal capacity. Internal
capacity speaks to the ability of teachers to transform into change agents acting as “conduits for
instructional policy” (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 1990, p. 345; Elmore, 2002).
Teacher 1 verified:
Teachers and the practices implemented in the classroom will be the focal point for
ensuring that students experience a 21
st
learning experience. Since students are with
teachers every day, what they learn will be reflected in the teaching practices they
experience in the classroom.
All teachers were very clear on this point. Teacher 4 added, “There can be no exceptions
in regards to making certain that our students are learning skills both for college and for the
workforce. This is what CCSS is all about.”
Teacher education will be at the forefront of the debate as teachers are changing the way
in which they teach and assess student’s subject matter knowledge (Jenkins & Agamba, 2013;
Kirst, 2013; Kober & Rentner, 2011b; Kober & Rentner, 2012; Tienken, 2011). It is hoped that
PD will be focused on improving student learning through the incorporation of the concepts
within the CCSS (Elmore, 2002). Each of the four teachers acknowledged the opportunities that
the district was providing them to become familiar with CCSS. These PDs include taking time
off to attend training sessions, quarterly in service meetings for collaboration in regards to best
practices and collaboration time during staff meetings. The district has also provided the
teachers information about national, state and county webinars and websites which offer insights
into CCSS. This has provided teachers with choices, based on their own knowledge base for
93

which learning areas they would like to focus on in each particular class (i.e. project based
learning).
PD, above all, connected to particular issues of content and pedagogy that are tied to
student learning and achievement (Elmore, 2002; Guskey, 2000). By viewing PD as ongoing,
focused, and a part of the institutional and instructional structure of the school, the barriers that
often hamper the implementation of effective PD are lessened. Teacher 4 verifies this thought
by saying:
“It is not a question on whether teachers want to learn or not…that is what we do. If we
all go into this new thought process with a positive attitude and being open to suggestions
on new teaching approaches, I have no doubt that we will succeed in implementing the
concepts behind a 21
st
century classroom.”
Concurrently, PD and capacity building must be sustained and woven into the fabric of a
school’s identity. This maintenance and sustainability of change and improvement can be
integrated into a school’s identity through the reculturing of teacher learning as a learning culture
(Elmore, 2002; Desimone, 2009; Fenstermacher & Berliner, 1985; Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2008). This has been accomplished, in part, by having a shared CCSS disc drive with lessons,
websites, new ideas and individual experiences which is accessible to all teachers in the district.
CCSS will require a change in behaviors and beliefs as well as a commitment to continuous
improvement (Elmore, 2002; Helsing et al., 2008). The four teachers think the opportunities for
this learning is a really positive move on the part of the district. Both successes and failures in
the implementation of newly designed curriculum can be shared. This provides administration
with opportunities to focus on problem areas, promote teacher growth and help to initiate PD
sessions that are geared to teacher input.
94

Moreover, schools become environments for continuous, collaborative and productive
professional learning that are focused on student achievement (Elmore, 2002; Good &
Gassenheimer, 2004; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012).
Summary
Students need to acquire knowledge, skills, and perspectives relevant to their success as
citizens, life-long learners, and participants in the economy of the 21
st
century. This focus
typically includes complex problem-solving, new forms of literacy, working collaboratively, and
new ways of acquiring and communicating knowledge. These skills have been packaged together
and defined as “21
st
Century Skills” (Wagner, 2008). While much of the emphasis is placed on
the acquisition of knowledge in regards to students, teachers also face a complex paradigm shift
in regards to implementing new teaching practices in the classroom.
The adoption of the CCSS may help to achieve this shift of implementing “21
st
Century
Skills” (Wagner, 2008) through project based learning and assessments (Common Core State
Standard Initiative, 2010a). In order for learning goals and assessments to be successful,
department faculty may want to be involved in (1) defining learning outcomes for students, (2)
developing tools to access learning, (3) identifying, discussing and rectifying organizational
barriers in order to meet the implementation requirements, and (4) make program changes based
on the research methodology findings (Clark & Estes, 2008; Shulock & Moore, 2002). This
change process will become sustainable over time by making them an inextricable part of the
school’s culture (Kotter, 2012). As Teacher 1 theorized:
If implemented correctly, CCSS will make teaching fun again. We will be able to spend
more time on conceptualization with the students and create projects that will teach life
95

lessons in addition to history lessons. [CCSS] will help the entire educational community
bond over viewing things from a different angle.
In order for this to happen, the teachers surveyed and interviewed for this study indicated
that a number of issues need to be addressed in order to successfully implement instructional
change. The data suggests the following findings for elementary teachers related to the four
research questions.
Research question one asks, What is the extent of elementary school educator’s
knowledge of standard based learning/assessments in developing curriculum? Twenty four
teachers believe that standard based learning and assessments represent a viable means to
document and analyze student achievement in the course of study and the teachers agreed that
curriculum needs to be designed with standards in mind. While most teachers agree that one
needs to understand the components of the standards (50%) , they felt that student achievement
should no longer be measured on student performance on statewide assessments that are
specifically developed for states or purchased commercially rather than interactive, formative
lessons (O’Day, 2002). The emphasis, rather than teaching for the mastery of the standards,
should be the application of these standards into real world situations. Since these standards
focus on analytical thinking and justifying reasoning, teaching practices and the overseeing of
them, the documentation of student achievement may require significant overhaul (Causey-Bush,
2005; Dee & Jacob, 2011; Kirst, 2013; Linn, 2005).
Research question two asks, What is the extent of elementary school educator’s
knowledge of project based learning/assessments in developing curriculum? This knowledge
base is crucial because modifying teaching practices may cause veteran teachers to become
novices again, which often results in awkward classroom management behaviors and
96

shortcomings associated with orchestrating the multiple features of project based learning in a
classroom environment (Thomas, 2000). This may take additional training and planning on what
to measure, how to measure and how to communicate the requirements to the student.
Challenges may grow out of difficulties teachers have in accepting the idea that effective
collaboration among students requires more than involvement, it requires exchanging ideas and
negotiating meaning and determining learning outcome based on that negotiation (Marx et al.,
1997). Most project based learning lessons incorporate a good deal more student autonomy,
choice, unsupervised work time, and responsibility than traditional instruction and traditional
projects (Thomas, 2000). Teachers worry that students are not mature enough to stay on task and
in addition to teaching the required subject matter, now they will have to teach students how to
manage their time and be more self- disciplined in achieving learning goals.
Research question three asks, What organizational barriers might hinder the
implementation of project based learning and assessments? These organizational barriers can be
delineated as resources. Resources include both tangible and intangible entities such as time and
funding while lack of communication is both a cause and result of a resistance to change. Most
felt even with communication, they were expected to possess sufficient expertise to determine
the best ways of meeting the individual needs of their students and consequently, professional
competence and standards for professional practice became important (Stecher & Kirby, 2004).
All four teachers believe that it will be difficult to know if their colleagues have the pedagogy
knowledge based on the new set of standards. There are no models to emulate. The fear of
failure stems from the newness of CCSS, but with more time, the respondents felt teachers will
gain confidence in their skills.
97

Research question four asks, What will help elementary school educators achieve a 21
st

century (project based) classroom for the implementation of the CCSS? All respondents
indicated that training—whether onsite or offsite—were integral for preparing teachers for
implementing CCSS. The structure of that training differed across sites, but the need for
knowledge and resources did not. All of the teachers utilized PD from the district office. It was
emphasized that the resources they received from various outside sources needed to be shared
and discussed. This concept centers around a cultural shift which makes student directed
learning opportunities the emphasis of the curriculum development and a paradigm shift from
“teaching to the test” will be needed for the project based curriculum to be successful.
In the Chapter Five, a summary of the research will be provided along with final
conclusions, implications, and recommendations for further research.

98

CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
The implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is a rare, state- led,
student- centered opportunity to improve outcomes throughout the entire educational pipeline
and achieve the ultimate goal of academic success for all students (Beatty, 2010). These
standards are (1) aligned with college and workforce expectations, (2) are clear, understandable
and consistent, (3) include rigorous content and application of knowledge through high order
skills, (4) build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards, (5) are informed by
standards in other top performing countries, so that all students are prepared to succeed in or
global economy and society and (6) are evidence based (Common Core State Standards
Initiative, 2010a).
The CCSS define the knowledge and skills students should have within their K-12
educational careers so that they will graduate from high school able to succeed in entry-level,
credit-bearing academic college courses and in workforce training programs (i.e., “21
st
Century
Skills”), (Wagner, 2008). These educational standards aim to ensure that all students, no matter
where they live, are prepared for success in post-secondary education and the workforce. The
implementation of the CCSS has affected all aspects of teaching and learning in the K-12
continuum. CCSS has and will change not only what and how curriculum is taught, but how that
knowledge is gained and leveraged for students and teachers (Jenkins & Agamba, 2013; Kirst,
2013; Sawchuk, 2012).
It is the duty of the educator—the teacher—to implement the change in both teaching
practices and the thought process that accompanies it. However, while the implementation phase
99

of CCSS has offered broad guidelines for teachers, the possibility of the necessity of a shift in
paradigms in the teaching process has been overlooked in the literature on CCSS. Therefore, this
study sought to interpret how teachers felt about standard based learning and assessments versus
project based learning and assessments and the subsequent redesign of the curriculum to meet the
goals of the CCSS. In doing so, this study explored the viewpoints, planning, strategies and
barriers elementary school teachers faced during this change process.
This final chapter provides a summary of the study, including a statement of the problem,
purpose of the study, research questions, and a review of the literature and methodology used,
followed by findings related to the three research questions. In closing, implications and
recommendations for future study will be explored.
Statement of the Problem
A major pedagogical change within the CCSS is the implementation of project based
learning/assessments within the curricula. For over a century, educators such as John Dewey
have espoused the benefits of experimental, student-directed learning opportunities (Buck
Institute for Education [BIE], 2002). Unfortunately, despite the numerous benefits of project-
based learning, few educational environments have been focused on such holistic curricular
innovations in light of the quantitative federal standards that have been used with NCLB to
evaluate schools (Wagner, 2008; Welsh, 2006 ). Today, Magner, Soule and Wesolowski (2011)
believe that curricula must be designed around what students need to know and what might be
applicable to help solve problems in the future. The implementation of project based
learning/assessments for the CCSS will play a vital role in this adoption.
Research on CCSS has focused on the standards themselves and the role of the district
and state in implementing this top-down directive (Jenkins & Agamba, 2013; Kirst, 2013; Linn,
100

2005; Teinkin, 2011) but there have been few guidelines and directives to help teachers
understand what needs to change in order to establish a 21
st
century classroom. Much of the
CCSS literature stops short of site-level descriptions for implementation and instead focuses on
suggestions for implementation at the district and state level (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a; NGA &
CCSSO 2010b). Many in education pitch the battle between academic content standards and
“21
st
Century Skills” (Wagner, 2008) as an either/or proposition, when in reality the most
effective instructional programs integrate the two (Dede, 2007).
Fleming (2000) emphasizes that teachers must be careful to design curriculum around
projects that focus on standards and align the activities, rather than the tests, accordingly. This
recommendation often creates an additional challenge for teachers who must facilitate the
development of an investigation that addresses both students’ interests and required curriculum
standards (Curtis, 2002; Thomas, 2000). Consequently, this problem of defining the role of the
teacher who is responsible for implementing CCSS and the subsequent instructional change
persists.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to evaluate educators’ knowledge of project based learning
and assessments versus standard based learning and assessments and determine gaps in that
knowledge for the implementation of the CCSS at their school sites. This study also identified
perceived organizational barriers that may impede this paradigm shift as well as what will help
educators achieve the criteria of a 21
st
century classroom.

101

Research Questions
The following four research questions were explored for this study:
(1) What is the extent of elementary school educator’s knowledge of standard based
learning/assessments in developing curriculum?
(2) What is the extent of elementary school educator’s knowledge of project based
learning/assessments in developing curriculum?
(3) What organizational barriers might hinder the implementation of project based
learning and assessments?
(4) What will help elementary school educators achieve a 21
st
century (project based)
classroom for the implementation of the CCSS?
Review of the Literature
The review of the literature sought to capture relevant knowledge as it related to
educators’ background, understanding, potential organizational barriers, and instructional
strategies in the context of the adoption of CCSS goals to promote student achievement reform.
Three major themes related to CCSS implementation emerged from the literature: (1) the need to
understand the educators’ knowledge and skills, (2) their motivation to achieve goals, and (3) the
organizational barriers that may deter them from reaching the education goals of CCSS. Clark
and Estes (2008) explain that these areas need to be examined and analyzed in order for solutions
to take place. In addition, the need for project based learning and assessment training—whether
onsite or offsite—are integral to prepare teachers for implementing CCSS and to develop a 21
st

century classroom.
The CCSS provides the teachers with a guideline on the knowledge that students need in
order to acquire knowledge, skills, and perspectives relevant to their success as citizens, life-long
102

learners, and participants in the economy of the 21
st
century. The review of literature established
that change in teachers’ learning and behavior tends to take certain forms (Marx et al., 1997).
Teachers tend to prefer to explore those aspects of project based learning related to their
professional needs and current capabilities (e.g., technology). Teachers' efforts to change their
teaching strategies incline to focus on one or two aspects of the new approach (only) and one or
two new strategies designed to cope with new challenges. Teachers may be apt to modify their
practices in idiosyncratic ways, mapping new behaviors onto old behaviors and moving back and
forth between old and new practices, sometimes successfully, sometimes not so successfully. In
addition, modifying their practices may cause teachers to become novices again, which often
results in awkward classroom management behaviors and shortcomings associated with
orchestrating the multiple features of project based learning in a classroom environment
(Thomas, 2000).
The implementation change for CCSS will be significant and challenging, and will
require change in instruction, curriculum, teacher preparation, resources and accountability
measures (Grossman et al., 2011; Jenkins & Agamba, 2013; Kirst, 2013; Sawchuk, 2012). The
change process is often hampered during the implementation phase by various external and
internal pressures, demands, and a lack of communication or vision (Bolman & Deal, 2003;
Darling-Hammond, 1990; Elmore, 2002; Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 1991; Kotter, 2012; Kotter &
Cohen, 2008; Marzano et al., 2005).
Records delineate teachers' enactment problems for project based learning, which is
critical for the implementation of CCSS, as follows: (1) Time. Projects often take longer than
anticipated. District guidelines need to take into account the time necessary to implement in-
depth approaches required by project based learning. (2) Classroom management. In order for
103

students to work productively, teachers must balance the need to allow students to work on their
flow of information while at the same time believing that students' understanding requires that
they build their own understanding. (3) Support of student learning. Teachers may have
difficulty scaffolding students' activities, sometimes giving them too much independence or too
little modeling and feedback. (4) Technology use. Teachers may have difficulty incorporating
technology into the classroom, especially as a cognitive tool. (5) Assessment. Teachers may have
difficulty designing assessments that require students to demonstrate their understanding (Marx,
et al., 1997).
Accountability is a practice of continuous improvement, and research suggests that the
impetus for such change is on school leadership to promote a continued effort toward the
education of teachers who must also implement change (Elmore, 2002; Flett & Wallace, 2005;
Harpell & Andrews, 2010; Norton Grubb & Badway, 2005; Smit & Humpert, 2012). In order
for the implementation of CCSS to be successful, teachers will play an important role as leaders
in the development and planning of incorporating “21
st
Century Skills” (Wagner, 2008) in the
classroom (CCSS Initiative, 2010a).
One way to mitigate these potential learning and organizational barriers is by having
teachers attend Professional Development (PD) for CCSS. PD training in education is often
synonymous with training, workshops, and conferences that seek to provide continuous learning
opportunities for in-service teachers (Borko, 2004; Desimone, 2009; Elmore, 2002;
Fenstermacher & Berliner, 1985; Fullan, 1991). For the implementation of CCSS, PD and
teacher learning has become a way to unite teachers as a coalition of learners committed to
implementing instructional change. However, research on CCSS has focused on the standards,
the extent to which instruction will change, and the lack of learning opportunities for teachers
104

rather than on what CCSS PD should look like, or the process of building a coalition of learners
(Fullan, 2014, p. 25; Jenkins & Agamba, 2013; Kirst, 2013; Sawchuk, 2012).
Methodology
This study used a mixed-methods research design that included a survey and interviews
and it was considered a people-centric study. The participants were elementary teachers in a
urban, Southern California Unified School District. People-centric is a model used for studying
individuals who have common experience within the same location (Patton, 2002). The
researcher was aware that all of these districts were in the beginning phase of implementation of
CCSS. However, it was noted that the Southern California Unified School District chosen had
been involved with various training provided by both independent companies and the County
Office of Education. The district was subsequently selected based on the focus on this research
study and the Southern California Unified School District’s exposure to CCSS.
The methodology employed in this research included quantitative data from surveys
using electronic questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, gathered from 40 elementary
school teachers in an urban school district in Southern California Unified School District.
Fulfillment of the criteria for the interview process was determined by the participant’s responses
to the survey. Four elementary teachers were selected for a qualitative interview.
The online survey solicited information regarding the teachers’ demographic data, school
site data, background and knowledge of CCSS and a willingness to participate. It included a 25-
item, Likert-style survey that queried specifically about a teacher’s knowledge of, preparation
for, and receptivity to CCSS (including project based learning/assessments) at their individual
sites. The qualitative interviews were conducted using a semi-structured protocol. All interviews
were recorded and transcribed.
105

Instrument design, data collection, and data analysis were informed by the scholarly
literature and were aligned to the research questions in order to ensure reliability and validity.
Each instrument was analyzed using research-supported methods such as the Creswell Method
(2009) which was discussed in Chapter Four.
Findings
The findings of this study related not only to teacher understanding of standard based
learning/assessment and project based learning/assessment but also to how best incorporate both
these practices into the design of curricula for the implementation of CCSS. Teacher education
will be at the forefront of the debate as teachers are changing the way in which they teach and
assess student’s subject matter knowledge (Jenkins & Agamba, 2013; Kirst, 2013; Kober &
Rentner, 2011b; Kober & Rentner, 2012; Tienken, 2011). Therefore, teachers not only identified
themselves as classroom mentors but also as change agents during the CCSS implementation
process. All teachers emphasized that this is a shared goal between teachers, administrators,
community members and students. In order to achieve this educational reform goal,
communication, collaboration, support and motivation within all units must be maintained.
Research Question One:
What is the extent of elementary school educator’s knowledge of standard based
learning/assessments in developing curriculum?
Teachers believe that standard based learning and assessments represent a viable means
to document and analyze student achievement in the course of study. The teachers who were
interviewed, however, also believe that a summative assessment should not be the “end all” for
measuring student achievement. Each elementary school educator’s target should incorporate the
motivational goal(s) needed to achieve the curriculum development objective. This will include
106

assessments based on standards, but these assessments should be formative and other projects
based on standards need to be applied in the classroom.
This may mean that altering the negativity that is associated with standard based learning
and assessment is necessary for successful implementation of CCSS since standards are a major
benchmark for the assuring the success of student learning goals. Based on the research as
presented in Chapter Two, it is evident that demands from the community represent more than
test scores alone. Although standard based learning and assessments are present with CCSS,
these standards reflect the expectation that schools will serve to educate the next generation of
citizens to succeed in a 21
st
century world and economy with a multitude of achievement
indicators.
Research Question Two:
What is the extent of elementary school educator’s knowledge of project based
learning/assessments in developing curriculum?
The elementary teachers interviewed identified the incorporation of project based
learning/assessment as one of the most significant CCSS strategies that will need to be utilized.
This knowledge base is crucial because modifying teaching practices may cause veteran teachers
to become novices again, which often results in awkward classroom management behaviors and
shortcomings associated with orchestrating the multiple features of project based learning in a
classroom environment (Thomas, 2000).
While various studies indicate that the employment of these teaching strategies increase
student motivation and hence, student achievement, teachers are worried that the time allotment
to understand, design, and implement these strategies in insufficient. Therefore, they relied on
prior knowledge and experience to draw connections between established instructional practices
107

and the instructional practices required under CCSS. For example, most projects incorporate a
good deal more student autonomy, choice, unsupervised work time, and responsibility than
traditional instruction and traditional projects (Thomas, 2000). There are concerns that students
are not mature enough to stay on task. Teachers are concerned that in addition to teaching the
required subject matter, now they will have to teach students how to manage their time and
become more self- disciplined in achieving learning goals.
In order for students to work productively, teachers must balance the need to allow
students to work on their flow of information while at the same time believing that students'
understanding requires that they build their own understanding. Teachers also must realize that
there will be a learning curve for both students and themselves during the implementation
process.
Research Question Three:
What organizational barriers might hinder the implementation of project based learning
and assessments?
The change process is often hampered during the implementation phase by various
external and internal pressures, demands, and a lack of communication or vision (Bolman &
Deal, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 1990; Elmore, 2002; Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 1991; Kotter, 2012;
Kotter & Cohen, 2008; Marzano et al., 2005 ). All interviewed teachers discussed resources
such as time and lack of communication as a major barrier. During implementation, effective
change begins with communication of the goals and need for change. This creates buy-in and
support and leads to mobilizing efforts by all stakeholders to embark on the change journey.
While teachers are at the center of this mobilization, the goals of CCSS must be communicated
efficiently and consistently to motivate team work and to motivate all constituents.
108

Organizational change can be deeply personal despite many working toward a shared
goal; it is also a deeply human endeavor that can lead to significant tensions between those who
support the cause and those who resist it (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Calabrese, 2002; Fowler, 2009;
Kotter, 2012; Senge, 1990). Teachers sometimes do not feel entitled or comfortable to debate
with those who do not agree with the overarching goals of CCSS. This may be due to the lack of
communication in regards to the vision of CCSS to all stakeholders. Educational reform is rooted
in new ways of thinking, believing, acting and leading and administration must be the models of
instructional leadership for these teacher mentors to emulate. This will require an amount of
trust for all involved, as trust promotes professional accountability and a culture of inquiry for a
community of learners (Marzano et al., 2005).
Research Question Four:
What will help elementary school educators achieve a 21
st
century (project based)
classroom for the implementation of the CCSS?
Most teachers want feedback on new lessons that they are planning for CCSS and want to
know if their vision is aligned the national implementation goals. In the past two years, more
publications have centered on the implementation process, noting the alignment between CCSS
planning and programs with PD and other training opportunities. Many companies and websites
have published books and resources to increase teacher knowledge. Teachers have been directed
to national websites, teacher websites and textbook companies are renaming lessons as Common
Core compliant. While all teachers agree that in most cases, the lesson plans are not project
based, it is a place to start. They are hoping that as more collaboration happens between
educators at both the site, district and state levels, there will be a database to extract information
from to unify the district’s implementation of CCSS.
109

One way that this collaboration may happen is through the use of PD. By viewing PD as
ongoing, focused, and a part of the institutional and instructional structure of the school, the
barriers that often hamper the implementation of effective PD are lessened (Borko, 2004;
Desimone, 2009; Elmore, 2002, Fenstermacher & Berliner, 1985). These PDs include taking
time off to attend training sessions, quarterly in service meetings for collaboration in regards to
best practices and collaboration time during staff meetings. The district has provided the
teachers information about national, state and county webinars which offer insights into CCSS.
This has provided teachers with choices, based on their own knowledge base for which learning
areas they would like to focus on in each particular class (i.e. project based learning).
Implications
The findings of this study contribute to the body of scholarly literature on teachers’
paradigm shifts in instructional change. This shift may be necessary for the implementation of
CCSS in schools throughout the nation. Using the visions of a 21
st
century classroom as a
vehicle to discuss change, the major findings shed light on the conversion to project based
learning and assessments as a viable mean to measure student achievement. While current CCSS
research and the findings emphasize the acquisition of knowledge in regards to students, this
study brings attention to the crucial fact that teachers also face a complex paradigm shift in
regards to implementing new teaching practices in the classroom.
The findings, therefore, can be used by school sites and districts to highlight the
importance helping to analyze, develop, and implement project based learning and assessments
geared towards the standards of Common Core. As CCSS guidelines and literature suggests, the
emphasis, rather than teaching for the mastery of the standards, should be the application of these
standards into real world situations. Since these standards focus on analytical thinking and
110

justifying reasoning, teaching practices and the overseeing of them, the documentation of student
achievement may require significant overhaul (Causey-Bush, 2005; Dee & Jacob, 2011; Kirst,
2013; Linn, 2005).
There was evident communication and participation in training occurring between the
district and teachers, but the teachers noted that the PD is rather generic. The PD may need to be
focused on improving student learning through the incorporation of the concepts within the
CCSS (Elmore, 2002). Teachers would like to see additional training what to measure, how to
measure and how to communicate the requirements to the students and their parents. Since
research recognizes that teachers are catalysts for instructional change, opening the lines of
communication between all parties involved and including them in the change process will help
to promote professional accountability (Desimone, 2009; Marzano et al., 2005, Fullan, 2014).
People want to believe they are a community of professionals, working diligently and with
integrity to help increase student learning (Clark & Estes, 2008; Goldberg & Morrison, 2003;
Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, & Meyer, 1996). Furthermore, educational accountability must be
reciprocal, everyone must “buy in” for this goal to be achieved (Elmore, 2002) and open
communication may promote this.
Beyond CCSS, this study speaks to the strategies necessary for implementing educational
change. A clearly articulated change in process, both in instruction and in teaching philosophy
will lessen the barriers and ease the transition process. This change process will become
sustainable over time by making the strategies an inextricable part of the school’s culture
(Kotter, 2012).

111

Recommendations for Future Study
Since this study examined the early stages of CCSS implementation and in some cases,
an initial introduction to project based learning and assessments on the part of districts, sites and
teachers, there is a need to explore the impact and sustainability of the instructional strategies.
This needs to occur as CCSS continues to be implemented over the next few years. Shifts in
thinking and changes to incorporate “21
st
Century Skills” (Wagner, 2008) in the classroom take
time; therefore, the researcher recommends that the following be considered for future study:
1. This study focused on the pre-implementation and early implementation phases of CCSS,
thus, it will be necessary to continue to study the strategies that districts, sites, and
teachers are implementing to sustain the goals of CCSS. While the summative
assessment implemented by the national testing company is an indicator of student
achievement, more research needs to occur to document if students are acquiring
knowledge, skills, and perspectives relevant to their success as life-long learners, citizens
and participants in the economy of the 21
st
century.
2. Continued research on the best practices of project based learning and assessments and
how these practices fit into a 21
st
century classroom.
3. Research on the effective and efficient models for collaboration at the site level and how
the implementations of those models may help to mitigate the barriers during the change
process.
4. There is a need to study how administration and the district perceive the the role of the
teacher in regards to designing, implementing, and reflecting on the barriers and
successes of the CCSS execution.

112

Conclusion
The CCSS will provide a greater opportunity to share experiences and best practices
within and across states which may improve our ability as educators to best serve the needs of
students (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010). The CCSS define the knowledge and
skills students should have within their K-12 educational careers so that they will graduate from
high school able to succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing academic college courses and in
workforce training programs Wagner (2008) has defined the skills needed to accomplish this as
complex problem solving skills, new forms of literacy, students and teachers working
collaboratively, and implementing new ways of acquiring and communicating knowledge and
they are packaged simply as “21
st
Century Skills” (2008).
If students are expected to learn in this manner, then teachers must be prepared to teach
this. This can be achieved if leadership strategies for change and teacher learning equally reflect
the same 21
st
century learning themes. Hover, in order to accomplish this, teachers may have to
shift their paradigms from standard based learning and assessment (i.e. summative projects and
assessments) to project based learning and assessments (i.e. formative projects and assessments).
This shift may prove difficult for some and this change process may cause teachers and
educators to feel as though they are novices again. Therefore, motivation of educators and others
to attend to relevant information and to expend the effort necessary to augment or change
strategies in response to this information is imperative. Motivation should ultimately occur at
the individual level, but it is likely to be dependent in part on the structures of the school as well
as on individual characteristics of educators and students (O’Day, 2002).
This study documented that while most teachers are open to this change, they are
concerned that the resources (i.e. time and collaboration) needed for successful implementation
may be limited. There may be a need to develop the knowledge and skills to promote valid
113

interpretation of information and appropriate attribution of causality at both the individual
(teacher) and system (site and district) levels.
This should occur in the short run, but should also be applied to establish mechanisms for
continued learning (O’Day, 2002) for the successful implementation of CCSS in the future.

114

References
Abdal-Haqq, I. (1996). Making time for teacher professional development. ERIC Digest.
Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.
Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2003). The effects of high-stakes testing on
student motivation and learning. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 32.
Battilana, J., Gilmartin, M., Sengul, M., Pache, A. C., & Alexander, J. (2010). Leadership
competencies for implementing planned organizational change. The Leadership
Quarterly, 21(2010), 422-438.
Barron, B.J.S., Schwartz, D.L.,Vye, N.J., Moore. A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., et al. (1998).
Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem-and project-based
llearning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 271-311.
Beatty, A. (2010). National Research Council State Assessment Systems: Exploring best
practices and innovations: Summary of two workshops. Washington, D.C. National
Academies Press.
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1999). Process and product in PBL research. Toronto: Ontario,
Institutes for Studies in Education/University of Toronto.
Bergman, M. (2008). Advances in mixed methods research: Theories and applications.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Black, P., & and Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through
classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-148.
Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991).
Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning.
Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369-398.
115

Boaler, J. (1999). Mathematics for the moment, or the millennium? What a British study has to
say about teaching methods. Retrieved July 30, 2013 from:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1999/03/31/29boaler.h18html?querystring=boaler.
Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, S.K. (2007). Chapter 3: Fieldwork. Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (5
th
ed.) (p. 82-112). Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Bolman L. & Deal, T. (2003). Third Edition. Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.
Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
Bracy, G. (1996). International comparisons and the condition of American education.
Educational Researcher, 25(1), 5-11.
Brighton, C. (2003). The effects of middle school teachers’ beliefs on classroom practices.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2-3), p. 177.
Broadfoot, P. (2002). Comparative education for the 21 century: Retrospect and prospect.
Comparative Education, 36(3), 357-371.
Buck Institute for Education (BIE). (2002). Introduction to project-based learning. Retrieved
July 29, 2013 from http://www.bie.org/pblpbhandbook/intro.php.
Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.) The many faces of accountability, 1-24. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Calabrese, R. L. (2002). The school leader’s imperative: Leading change. The International
Journal of Educational Management, 16(7), 326-332.
116

California Commission on Teaching Credentialing. (2010). Credential Requirements. Retrieved
July 7, 2014 from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/requirements.html.
Causey-Bush, T. (2005). Keep your eye on Texas and California: A look at testing, school
reform, no child left behind, and implications for students of color. The Journal of Negro
Education, 74(4), 332-343.
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school districts.
Harvard Business Review, 55-68.
Clark, R. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Coburn, C.E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change.
Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-12.
Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher
learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-304.
Common Core State Standard Initiative (2010a). Common Core State Standards for English
Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects
Appendix A. [PDF]. Retrieved November 10, 2014 from
http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A .pdf.
Common Core State Standard Initiative (2010b). Common Core State Standards for English
Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects
Appendix A. [PDF]. Retrieved November 17, 2014 from
http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A .pdf.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
117

Curtis, D. (2005). Start with the pyramid. Retrieved January 11, 2015 from
http://www.edutopia.org/php/article.php?id=Art_884.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Instructional policy into practice: “The power of the bottom over
the top.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 339-347.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability and school reform. Teachers College
Record, 106(6), 1047-1085.
Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform models in changing
district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 121-153.
Datnow, A. & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers’ responses to success for all: How beliefs,
experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research
Journal, 37(3), 775-799.
Dede, C. (2007). Transforming Education for the 21st Century: New Pedagogies that Help All
Students Attain Sophisticated Learning Outcomes. Raleigh, NC: Friday Institute, North
Carolina State University.
Dee, T. S. & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of no child left behind on student achievement.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418-446.
Delandshere, G. & Petrosky, A. (2004). Political rationales and ideological stances of the
standards-based reform of teacher education in the US. Teaching and Teacher Education,
20(2004), 1-15.
Demoss, K. (2002). Leadership styles and high stakes testing: Principals make a difference.
Education and Urban Society, 35(1), 111-132.
Desimone, L. M. (2009) Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:
Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
118

Diehl, W., Grobe, T., Lopez, H., & Cabral, C. (1999). Project-based learning: A strategy for
teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Center for Youth Development and Education,
Corporation for Business, Work, and Learning.
Dowd, A. C., (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to
assess community college performance. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts,
Lumina Foundation for Education.
Earley, P. & Weindling, D. (2007). Do school leaders have a shelf life?: Career stages and
headteacher performance. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(1),
73-88.
Edelson, D.C. (2007). IES Proposal.
Education Northwest (2013). Services and Resources. Retrieved October 1, 2013 from
http//www.educationwest.org.
Egley, R. (2003). Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 9, 57 – 70.
Eilers, L. & D’Aminco, M. (2012). Essential leadership elements in implementing
Common Core State Standards. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin 78(4), 46-50.
Elmore, R. (2002). Hard questions about practice. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 22-25.
Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (1999a). A design for comprehensive school reform.
Cambridge, MA: Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound .
Fenstermacher, G.D. & Berliner, D.C. (1985). Determining the value of staff development. The
Elementary School Journal, 85(3), 281-314.
Flett, J. D., & Wallace, J. (2005). Change dilemmas for curriculum leaders: Dealing with
mandated change in schools. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 20(3), 188-213.
119

Fleming, D. S. (2000). A teacher’s guide to project-based learning. Retrieved November 4, 2014
from ERIC Full Text.
Fowler, F. C. (2009). Policy strategies for educational leaders. Boston, MA: Pearson Education,
Inc.
Fuhrman, S. H. (1999). The new accountability (CPRE Policy Brief NO. RB 27). Philadelphia
Consortium on Policy Research in Education.
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Fullan, M. (2010). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Futrell, M. (2013). The challenge of the 21
st
century: Developing a highly qualified cadre of
teachers to teach our nation’s diverse student population. The Journal of Negro
Education, 68(3), 318-334.
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2008). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.
Gilley, A., McMillan, H. S. & Gilley, J.W. (2009a). Organizational change and characteristics of
leadership effectiveness. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 16(4), 38-47.
Gilley, A., Gilley, J. W., McMillan, H. S. (2009b). Organizational change: Motivation,
communication, and leadership effectiveness. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
21(4), 75-93.
120

Goertz, M. & Duffy, M. (2003). Mapping the landscape of high-stakes testing and accountability
programs. Theory into Practice, 42(1) 4-11.
Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-Nect: Purpose, accountability, and school
leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons from comprehensive
school reforms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Good, J., Miller, V. & Gassenheimer, C. (2004). Reforming professional development at the
school site: New standards and new practices. Journal of Educational Research and
Policy Studies, 4(1), 27-45.
Gonzales, P. (2007). Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of US
fourth and eighth grade students in an international context. International Center for
Educational Statistics, Washington, DC.
Gordon, R. (1998). Balancing real-world problems with real-world results. Phi Delta Kappan,
390-393.
Grant, S. G. (2004). Teachers and tests: Exploring teachers’ perceptions of changes in the
New York State testing program. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 14-22.
Greenstein, L. (2010). What teachers really need to know about formative assessment.
Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. p. 2 Retrieved December 1,
2014 from http://site.ebrary.com/livb/uscisd/Doc?id+104086ppg=11.
Grossman, T., Reyna, R. & Shipton, S. (2011). Realizing the potential: How governors can lead
effective implementation of the common core state standards. Washington, DC: NGA
Center for Best Practices.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,
Inc.
121

Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every
school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Harpell, J. V., & Andrews, J. J. W. (2010). Administrative leadership in the age of inclusion:
Promoting best practices and teacher empowerment. The Journal of Educational
Thought, 44(2), 189-210.
Helsing, D., Howell, A., Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (2008). Putting the “professional” in
professional development: Understanding and overturning educational leaders’
immunities to change. Harvard Educational Review, 78(3), 437-465.
Hennes, M. (1921). Project teaching in an advanced fifth grade. Retrieved February 8, 2014,
from http://www.tcredord.org/Content.asp?ContentId_3996.
Hess, F.M. (2009, January 29). The inauguration episode. The Education Gadfly. Podcast
retrieved October 9, 2014 from www.edexcellence.net.
Hughes, S., & Bailey, J. (2002). What students think about high-stakes testing.
Educational Leadership, 59(4), 74-76.
Hursh, D. (2005). The growth of high-stakes testing in the USA: Accountability, markets, and
the decline of equality. British Educational Research Journal, 31(5), 605-622.
International Center for 21
st
Leadership in Education (2010). Techniques, 84(5), 56. Retrieved
October 28, 2013 from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/216130930?accountid=14749.
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.
122

Jones, B. F., Rasmussen, C. M., & Moffitt, M. C. (1997). Real-life problem solving.: A
collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Kantor, H. & Lowe, R. (2006). From new deal to no deal: No child left behind and the
devolution of responsibility for equal opportunity. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4),
474-502.
Kirst, M.W. (2013). The common core meets state policy: This changes almost everything.
Stanford, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.
Klieger, A. & Yakobovitch, A. (2010). Perception of science standards’ effectiveness and their
implementation by science teachers. Science Educational Technology, 20, 286-289.
Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2011a). Common Core State Standards: Progress and challenges in
school districts’ implementation. Washington, DC: Center on Educational Policy.
Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2011b). States’ progress and challenges. Washington, DC: Center
on Educational Policy.
Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2012). Year two of implementing the Common Core State
Standards: States’ progress and challenges. Washington, DC: Center on Educational
Policy.
Kotter, J. (2012). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2008). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change
their organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.
Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for
helping middle-grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary
School Journal, 94, 483-497.
123

Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership.
Philadelphia, PA: Laboratory for Student Success.
Linn, R. L., (2005). Fixing the NCLB accountability system. Los Angeles: University of
California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Liu, M., & Hsaio, Y. (2002). Middle school students as multimedia designers: A project-based
learning approach. Journal of Interactive Learning, 13, 311-337.
Manger, T., Soule, H., & Wesolowski, K. (2011). P21 common core toolkit: A guide to aligning
the Common Core state Standards with the framework for 21 century skills. Retrieved
November 28, 2013 from: http://www.p21.org.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Blunk, M., Crawford, B., Kelley, B., & Meyer, K.
M. (1994). Enacting project-based science: Experiences of four middle grade teachers.
Elementary School Journal, 94, 517-538.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J.S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based
science: Challenges for practice and policy. Elementary School Journal, 97, 341-358
Marzano, R. J., Yanoski, D. C., Hoegh, J. K., & Simms, J.A. (2013). Using common core
standards to enhance classroom instruction and assessment. Bloomington, IN: Marzano
Research Laboratory.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, J. T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
124

Moursund, D. (1999). Project-based learning using information technology. Eugene, OR:
International Society for Technology in Education Mullis, I.V.S., & Martin, M.O. (2006).
National Educational Association. (2006). Theories of learning and teaching: What do they
mean for educators? Washington, DC: Wilson, S.M., Peterson, P.L.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010a). Common Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in
history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010b). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Washington, DC:
Authors.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 stat. 1425 92002, January).
Retrieved October 20, 2013 from http://www.ed.gov//nclb/landing.jhtml.
Norton Grubb, W., & Badway, N. (2005). From compliance to improvement: Accountability and
assessment in California community colleges. Higher Education Evaluation and Research
Group.
Obama, B. (2009, January 22). “Presidential Inauguration Speech.: Presidential inauguration.”
Washington, DC.
O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational
Review, 72, 293-329.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA;
Sage Publications.
125

Pearlman, B. (2013). Lessons from pioneer 21
st
century schools. Retrieved Septermber 30, 2013
from www.p21.org/tools-and-resources.
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J, & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards: The new U.S.
intended curriculum. Educational Researcher 40(3), 103-116.
Purkey, W., & Siegel, B. (2003). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach to
professional and personal success. Atlanta, GA: Humantics.
Reimer, F. (1971). School is dead. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Rentner, D. S. (2013). Year 3 of implementing the common core state standards: States prepare
for common core assessments. Retrieved November 19, 2013 from http://www.cep-
dc.org.
Rivit, A.E., & Kajcik, J.S. (2003). Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An example
of a six grade project-based science curriculum. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 41(7), 669-692.
Salkind, N. J. (2011). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (4th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Sawchuk, S. (2012). Many teachers not ready for common core. Education Week, 31(April 25,
2012), 16-22.
Scheliecher, A. (2006). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. OECD
Briefing. Retrieved February 2, 2014 from www.pisa.oecd.org.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of learning organization. New
York, NY: Doubleday.
126

Shmidt, W.A. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of US mathematics and science
content /002202 from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies.
Retrieved December 19, 2013 from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0022027042000294682.
Shulock, N. & Moore, C. (2002). An accountability framework for California higher education:
Informing public policy and improving outcomes. Institute for Higher Education
Leadership and Policy. California State University, Sacramento, California, 1-38.
Sloane, F. & Kelly, A. (2003). Issues in high stakes testing programs. Theory Into Practice, 42,
(1), 12-17.
Stecher, B.& Kirby, S.N. (2004). Introduction. In B. Stecher & S.N. Kirby, Organizational
improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other sectors, 1-7. Santa
Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Retrieved November 17, 2013 from
http://www.rand.org/publications.MG/MG136.
Stepien, W. & Gallagher, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: As authentic as it gets. Educational
Leadership, 51, 25-28.
Stepien, W. J., Gallagher, S. A., & Workman, D. (1993). Problem-based learning for traditional
and interdisciplinary classrooms. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 338-357.
Stewart, J. (2008). Transformational Leadership: An Evolving Concept Examined through the
Works of Burns, Bass, Avolio, and Leithwood. Canadian Journal of Educational
Administration and Policy, 76(3).
Smit, R. & Humpert W. (2012). Differentiated instruction in small schools. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 28,1152-1162.
127

Tamir, E. (2009). Choosing to teach in urban schools among graduates of elite colleges. Urban
Education, 44, 522-544. Doi:10.1177/0042084909339373.
Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2011). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating
quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. The
Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 151-153.
Tienken, C. H. (2011). Common core standards: The emperor has no clothes, or evidence. Kappa
Delta Pi, 47(2), 58-62.
TIMMS in perspective: Lessons learned from IEA’s four decades of international mathematics
assessments. Boston, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
Thomas, J.W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Retrieved July 29, 2013,
from http://www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL.Research.pdf
Thomas, J. W., Mergendoller, J. R., and Michaelson, A. (1999). Project-based learning: A
handbook for middle and high school teachers. Novato, CA: The Buck Institute for
Education .
Trider, D. & Leithwood, A. (2007). Exploring the influences on principal behavior. Curriculum
Inquiry, 18(3), 289-311.
Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, S.J., & Meyer, M. (1996). Thinking ethically: A framework
for moral decision making. Issues in Ethics, (7), 1-3.
Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don’t teach the
new survival skills our children need – and what we can do about it. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
128

Welsh, J.A. (2006). An exploration of project-based learning in two California charter schools.
Dissertation presented to faculty of the Rossier School of Education, University of
Southern California. Proquest Learning Company.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of
practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Woolfolk, A. (2004). Educational psychology (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Allyn
& Bacon.
Wyner, J.S., Bridgeland, J.M., & Diiulio, J.J. (2007). The achievement trap. Washington, DC:
The Jack Kent Cooke Foundation.

129

APPENDIX A

GENERAL RECRUITMENT EMAIL COVER LETTER

March [insert date], 2014

Dear [insert name of school] teachers,

My name is Zara E. Navarro and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of Education at
University of Southern California. I am a candidate under the direction of Dr. Rudy Castruita. I
am conducting a research study as part of my dissertation, focusing on how educator’s may have
to shift their paradigms from the practice of standard based learning and assessment to project
based learning and assessment for the implementation of the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS).

Your school has been identified and approved for participation by Dr. Morales, superintendent of
Oxnard Unified School District. Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. If you agree,
you are invited to participate by completing the attached survey and email it back to me. The
survey is anticipated to take no more than 10-15 minutes to complete.

At the end of the survey, you will be asked if you are willing to be considered for participation in
a face-to-face, follow-up interview. If selected, follow-up interviews will last approximately 45
minutes and may be audio-taped.

Please note, your identity as a participant will remain confidential at all times during and after
the study.

If you have any questions, please contact me via email at znavarro@usc.edu or by phone at 805-
657-2063.

Thank you in advance for your consideration and participation.

Sincerely,

Zara E. Navarro
Ed.D. Candidate
University of Southern California

130

APPENDIX B

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

By beginning the survey, you agree you have read the above information and are willing to participate in
this survey.

2. Standard Based Learning and Assessment Viewpoints
Please check the box to show the extent of your agreement or disagreement with each statement.

1. Standard based learning and assessments represent a viable means to document and analyze
student achievement in the course of study.

strongly agree agree undecided disagree strongly disagree

2. Standard based learning and assessments lends curriculum to be geared to teach to the test.

strongly agree agree undecided disagree strongly disagree

3. Teachers must understand the components of standard based learning and assessments in
order to establish a curriculum which represents the elements of this type of learning.

strongly agree agree undecided disagree strongly disagree

4. Standard based learning and assessments should be incorporated into the implementation of
the CCSS in classrooms.

strongly agree agree undecided disagree strongly disagree

3. Project Based Learning and Assessments Viewpoints
Please check the box to show the extent of your agreement or disagreement with each statement

1. Project based learning and assessments represent a viable means to document and analyze
student achievement in the course of study.

strongly agree agree undecided disagree strongly disagree

2. Project based learning and assessments enable students to develop critical thinking skills,
collaborate, and analyze material in more detail.

131

strongly agree agree undecided disagree strongly disagree

3. Teachers must understand the components of project based learning and assessments in order to
establish a curriculum which represents the elements of this type of learning.

strongly agree agree undecided disagree strongly disagree

4. Project based learning and assessments should be incorporated into the implementation of the
CCSS in classrooms.

strongly agree agree undecided disagree strongly disagree

3. Organizational Barriers Viewpoints

Please check the box to show the extent of your agreement or disagreement with each statement.

1. Organizational barriers may hinder the successful implementation of the CCSS into the
curriculum.

strongly agree agree undecided disagree strongly disagree

2. Organizational barriers which may occur outside of the classroom will be addressed in a timely
manner.

strongly agree agree undecided disagree strongly disagree

3. Organizational barriers which may occur inside the classroom will be addressed in a timely
manner.

strongly agree agree undecided disagree strongly disagree

4. Collaborative discussions about any organizational barriers which may occur will be crucial to
the successful implementation of the CCSS.

strongly agree agree undecided disagree strongly disagree

4. Professional Development Viewpoints
Please check the box to show the extent of your agreement or disagreement with each statement.

132

1. Professional development training for the CCSS will be necessary for teachers to understand the
new curriculum requirements

strongly agree agree undecided disagree strongly disagree

2. The viewpoints reflected in a 21
st
century classroom needs to be addressed in professional
development training.

strongly agree agree undecided disagree strongly disagree

3. This district will provide sufficient professional development training for teachers to meet the
requirements of implementing the CCSS in their classrooms. development training.

strongly agree agree undecided disagree strongly disagree

4. Professional development training will need to be adapted based on the needs of the teachers
who are implementing the CCSS in their classrooms.

strongly agree agree undecided disagree strongly disagree

4. Personal Characteristics
Please check the box which is applicable to you.

1. Age Range

21-25 years 25-35 35-45 45-55 over 55

2. Number of years teaching

1-5 years 5-10 years 10-15 years 15-20 years over 20 years

3. What is the highest degree you hold?

BA or BS Master’s Degree Ed. D. Ph. D. Currently pursuing a
graduate degree
4. What teaching credentials do you hold?

Multiple Subject Single Subject Multiple and Single Subject Emergency or
substitute credential
5. What is your exposure to the CCSS?

None Discussions but no training Attended training

133

5. Follow-up
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.
1. Would you be willing to be contacted for a follow-up interview related to this topic?

No Yes

134

APPENDIX C
THANK YOU LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS
May [insert date] 2014,

Dear Teachers,

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your voluntary participation in my
dissertation research project. Your insights in how to best implement the Common Core State
Standards will provide valuable information for my analysis.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email at znavarro@usc.edu or
by phone at 805-657-2063.

Sincerely,

Zara E. Navarro
Ed. D. Candidate
University of Southern California

135

APPENDIX D
INTERVIEW COVER LETTER/EMAIL
April [insert date], 2014

Dear [insert teacher’s name],

My name is Zara E. Navarro and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of Education at
the University of California under the direction of Dr. Rudy Castruita. As you know, my
research focuses on the practice of shifting educator’s paradigms from standard based learning
and assessment to project based learning and assessment for the implementation of the Common
Core State Standards (CCSS).

As indicated on the survey questionnaire, you are willing to participate in a 30-45 minute
interview. Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity as a participant will
remain confidential at all times. No one will be identified by name and you may withdraw from
participating in this research at any time without prejudice. There are no known risks for
participating in this research, but the benefits may be used to further understand the implications
for implementing the CCSS criteria within the classroom. Your participation is voluntary, but
encouraged, since teachers are affected by the implementation of the CCSS.

Please respond to this email with a date and time that is most convenient for you to be
interviewed. If you have any questions, please contact me via email at znavarro@usc.edu or via
phone at 805-657-2063.

Thank you for your participation.

Regards,

Zara E. Navarro
Ed. D. Candidate
University of Southern California

136

APPENDIX E
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
My name is Zara Navarro and I am working on a doctorate in education at the University of
Southern California. I am studying how the current knowledge pedagogy of teachers affects the
implementation of Common Core State Standards within this site and what professional
development teachers are in the process of receiving or feel that they need in this district. Thank
you for agreeing to this interview. I appreciate your response to the email granting permission
for this interview to occur.

During this conversation, I am hoping to learn more about your thoughts and experiences
regarding Common Core State Standards implementation. Specifically, I would like to know
how this implementation may affect teaching practices, how professional development is being
introduced and your views on a 21
st
century classroom. This study’s ultimate goal is to create a
useful guide for others when planning an implementation strategy for the Common Core State
Standards.

I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. I will not identify you or
your organization by name. I would like to tape this interview in order to have an accurate
record of our conversation. Would that be okay? If at any time during this interview you want
me to stop recording, please let me know and the machine will be turned off.

The interview should take about 30 minutes. Do you have any questions before we begin?

1. Please describe your experience as a professional education (including years of experience,
grade levels taught and content) and your professional preparation for education (including
credentials, certifications, and professional development).
2. What can you tell me about standard based learning and assessment?
3. What can you tell me about project based and performance based learning and assessment?
4. Describe your current understanding of the Common Core State Standards.
5. What are your perceptions of how current pedagogical knowledge will influence the
implementation of the Common Core State Standards?
6. How do you feel that teachers can best acquire knowledge necessary to implement the
Common Core State Standards?
7. What are the implications of a new standard’s based initiative (Common Core) that focuses
on project/performance based learning and assessment
a. In the district?
b. In your school?
c. In your classroom?
8. The Common Core State Standards focus on skills needed for students to be college and
career ready. On that note, please describe your view on a 21
st
century classroom.
9. Do you feel that there might be any organizational barriers which may impede the
implementation of the CCSS in the classroom? If so, please explain.
137

10. How is professional development being carried out to help educators in the district achieve a
21
st
century (project/performance based learning and assessment) classroom for Common Core
State Standards??
11. How should professional development carried out to help educators in the district achieve a
21
st
century (project/performance based learning and assessment) classroom for Common Core
State Standards?

Do you have anything to add in regards to Common Core state Standards implementation or
professional development?

Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it.

Zara E. Navarro
Ed. D. Candidate
University of Southern California

138

APPENDIX F
THANK YOU LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS
May [insert date] 2014,

Dear Teachers,

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your voluntary participation in my
dissertation research project. Your insights in how to best implement the Common Core State
Standards will provide valuable information for my analysis.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email at znavarro@usc.edu or
by phone at 805-657-2063.

Sincerely,

Zara E. Navarro
Ed. D. Candidate
University of Southern California

139

APPENDIX G

IRB TRAINING

1. Information Sheet

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to appraise the understanding that high school educators have of
both the CCSS, 21
st
century learning skills, and project based learning and assessments versus
standard based learning and assessments. Additionally, this study will help to identify and
analyze what organizational barriers educators feel might impede the implementation of CCSS
and what professional development that educators consider important in order to improve student
learning through the incorporation of the concepts within the CCSS.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
Participants of this study are elementary teachers in a urban Southern California School district.
You will be asked to complete the attached survey and return answers to the researcher via email
at znavarro@usc.edu. It is anticipated that the survey will take not more than 10-15 minutes to
complete. You may decline to answer any question throughout the duration of the survey and all
responses will remain confidential. The last question of the survey will ask you if you are
willing to participate in a follow-up interview that will ask you to expand on your viewpoints in
regards to CCSS. If you are will to do so and are chosen to participate, the interview will be
recorded and last approximately 30-45 minutes.

CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no identifiable information obtained in connection with this study. Your name,
address or other identifiable information will not be disclosed. If you volunteer to participate in
a follow-up interview, your information will be coded and presented as general data. If specific
information related to your interview is quoted or described, your name will be changed to
protect your privacy and identity.

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

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
The Ed. D. candidate is Zara E. Navarro (805-657-2063).

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room
224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146. (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to evaluate educator’s knowledge of standard based learning/assessments (summative tests) versus project based learning/assessments (formative assessments) and determine gaps in that knowledge for the ensure the successful implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) at their school sites. This study also identified perceived organizational barriers that could impede this paradigm shift as well as what would help educators the criteria of a 21st century classroom. The current literature on instructional change—including the research on CCSS—focuses on the standards but not on the “21st Century Skills” (Wagner, 2008) that the teacher is expected to incorporate in the curricula. These include the implementation of project based learning and assessments. This study used a mixed-methods approach in which 40 elementary teachers from an urban, Southern California Unified School District completed a survey. This was followed by semi-structured interviews with four of the surveyed 40 elementary teachers. Through the process of triangulation, the study’s findings indicate that teachers believe that standard based leaning and assessments represent a viable means to document and analyze student achievement in the course of study. However, project based learning and assessments based on the CCSS standards must be incorporated in the learning process. This will require collaboration with the district office to build the internal capacity of staff, increasing the knowledge and skills of teachers through the creation of CCSS and leadership teams as well as district and site professional development opportunities.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

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

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

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

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

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

PDF

A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st century skills

PDF

The process secondary administrators use to implement twenty‐first century learning skills in secondary schools

PDF

A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st century skills

PDF

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

PDF

Globalization and the need for 21st-century skills: implications for policy education in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and project-based learning in schools in Ireland

PDF

A Catholic school dilemma: Adopt Common Core State Standards?

PDF

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

PDF

Influence of globalization and educational policy on development of 21st-century skills and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and the science and technology fairs in ...

PDF

A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st century skills

PDF

A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st -century skills

PDF

Common Core implementation: decisions made by Southern California superintendents of unified school districts

PDF

Strategies California superintendents use to implement 21st century skills programs

PDF

The leadership skills, knowledge, and training required of high school principals to effectively evaluate classroom teachers

Asset Metadata

Creator Navarro, Zara E. (author)

Core Title 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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/28/2015

Defense Date 03/23/2015

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

Tag Common Core State Standards,OAI-PMH Harvest,project based learning and assessments,standard based learning and assessments

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy M. (committee chair), Garcia, Pedro E. (committee member), Roach, John (committee member)

Creator Email zenavarro@yahoo.com,znavarro@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-562298

Unique identifier UC11301361

Identifier etd-NavarroZar-3408.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-562298 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-NavarroZar-3408.pdf

Dmrecord 562298

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Navarro, Zara E.

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