University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Developing a culture of teacher collaboration in middle school

(USC Thesis Other)

Developing a culture of teacher collaboration in middle school

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 1

DEVELOPING A CULTURE OF TEACHER COLLABORATION IN MIDDLE SCHOOL

by

Lisa Drzymala

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

December 2018

Copyright 2018 Lisa Drzymala

2

Dedicated to my family,

My parents,
who always believed that I could accomplish anything and who told me that we all have it in us
to accomplish hard things.

My husband,
who survived dating me, proposing to me, and marrying me all around my school schedule. You
sacrificed more than I know and shared in every struggle and joy along this journey.

My children, Kaylie, Grace, Harbor, and Brynn,
may this be the legacy I pass on for you to follow, to know that you can accomplish anything you
put your mind to, even the hard things, as long as you have your family’s love and support.

3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This dissertation was certainly not completed without the motivation and persistence of
my dissertation chair, Dr. Eugenia Mora-Flores. Her expertise in this process gave me valuable
insight to focus and communicate my thoughts about my topic. Something far more valuable
than her insight was her unwavering dedication to getting me through this dissertation. After I
put down my dissertation for a few weeks to focus on classes or family, I would try to beat her to
the “checking-in” email, because I knew it was coming. Especially at the end of my dissertation,
it seemed as though she was constantly sitting behind her email waiting to answer my next
question and always turning around my work with her feedback in just a matter of minutes or
hours. Dr. Sandra Kaplan graciously offered her expertise to this study and her pointed
recommendations added immeasurably to this study. She was instrumental in giving me insight
into refining my study by serving on my committee. Dr. Ravneet Tiwana started this journey
with me as a student in the virtual classroom, teaching me about methods of inquiry. She always
impressed me with her straightforward and to the point feedback that gave me insight about
things I had not considered. She opened my eyes to the importance of focusing on some things
and analyzing them well, rather than focusing on everything in my study.
When I first received the template for the dissertation and the chapters, it noted the words
on the front page “In partial fulfillment for the requirement of the degree doctor of education.”
This dissertation represents a culmination of a journey in which I’ve had many exceptional
teachers and mentors. The knowledge passed down and support from Dr. Monique Datta, Dr.
Doug Lynch, Dr. Kathy Stowe, Dr. Melanie Brady, Dr. Kathy Hanson, Dr. Sarah Lillo, and Dr.
Adrian Donatto was exceptional. They displayed exceptional patience and willingness to give of
themselves. I see clearly at the end that every assignment, including the substantial number of
4
readings I articles and books had a purpose directed towards my scholarship. To all Rossier
faculty, know that I am truly grateful.
This study would not have been possible without the support of my school district,
especially the Deputy Superintendent and Executive Director of Support Services, who allowed
me to conduct this study. Most importantly, I am extremely grateful for the candor shared by the
teachers at the school I studied who allowed me to get outside of my own perspective and see
things from another perspective.
Finally, the students in my cohort at Rossier made this journey just a little more fun. The
friends I have made through this program will not soon be forgotten. They provided me with a
safe environment to conduct thought experiments, to share and revise my work, and to lean on
for academic and personal help.

5
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that helped or hindered a collaborative professional learning environment in a 5
th

through 8
th
grade middle school campus. Although the results are specific to one school site,
there are implications for other school sites that may assist in schools developing robust teacher
development programs that improve teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical delivery of
instruction. This study employed an explanatory sequential research method gathering both
quantitative survey data and qualitative interview data. The data from this study found that
teachers generally employed common norms for interacting with their colleagues; however,
systemic structures and expectations were known but not explicit. While teachers were given
time to collaborate with their colleagues, the meetings either had too many objectives or lacked a
purpose altogether. Teachers shared that professional development opportunities were limited or
ineffective because it lacked much substance beyond a single day of training and feedback about
how it was implemented in their classrooms. The final section of this study was an
implementation and evaluation plan to address the performance gaps that were identified in the
data.

6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………………2
Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………………………3
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………5
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………...9
Chapter 1: Introduction…………………….…………………………………………………….11
Introduction to Problem of Practice……………………………………………………...11
Organizational Context and Mission…………………………………………………….12
Organizational Goal……………………………………………………………………...14
Related Literature………………………………………………………………………...15
Importance of the Evaluation…………………………………………………………….17
Description of Stakeholder Groups………………………………………………………18
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals………………………………………………...19
Stakeholder Group for the Study………………………………………………………...20
Purpose of the Project and Questions……………………………………………………20
Methodological Framework……………………………………………………………...21
Definitions………………………………………………………………………………..22
Organization of the Project………………………………………………………………22
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature…………………….……………………………………….24
Importance of Teacher Collaboration……………………………………………………24
Teacher Engagement in Collaborative Learning Opportunities…………………………25
Models for Collaboration………………………………………………………………...27
Professional Learning Communities……………………………………………..27
Communities of Practice…………………………………………………………29
Effective Qualities of Collaboration……………………………………………………..30
General Characteristics of a Collaborative Culture……………………………...30
Developing Trust in Collaborative Teams……………………………………….32
Providing Time and Space for Collaborative Opportunities……………………..34
Teacher and Leadership Involvement and Expectations………………………………...35
Teacher Involvement and Support……………………………………………….36
Leadership as a Model for Collaboration………………………………………..37
Leadership Involvement in Collaborative Teams……………………………….38
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework……………………..39
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences…………………...40
Knowledge and Skills……………………………………………………………40
Knowledge Influences…………………………………………………...42
Teacher Collaboration Improves Student Performance………………….43
Conceptual Transfer to the Classroom…………………………………..44
Reflection on Participation in Organizational Change…………………..45
Motivation Influences……………………………………………………………46
Utility Value……………………………………………………………..47
Utility Value in Professional Growth……………………………………47
Self-Efficacy……………………………………………………………..48
Teacher Self-Efficacy……………………………………………………48
Organizational Influences………………………………………………………..50
Cultural Models………………………………………………………….50
Leadership Role………………………………………………….51
7
Cultural Settings………………………………………………………….52
Leadership Modeling…………………………………………….52
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context ……………………………………………………………...55
Chapter 3: Methodology………...……………………………………………………………….61
Participating Stakeholders……………………………………………………………….62
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale…………………………………………62
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale………………………...62
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale………………………………………63
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale……………………………………..64
Document Analysis Sampling Criteria and Rationale…………………………...65
Explanation for Choices…...……………………………………………………..65
Data Collection and Instrumentation…………………………………………………….66
Surveys…………………………………………………………………………...68
Interviews………………………………………………………………………...69
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………….71
Credibility and Trustworthiness………………………………………………………….71
Validity and Reliability…………………………………………………………………..72
Ethics……………………………………………………………………………………..73
Limitations and Delimitations……………………………………………………………75
Chapter 4: Results and Findings……………………………………….………………………...76
Participating Stakeholders……………………………………………………………….77
Survey Participants………………………………………………………………77
Interview Participants……………………………………………………………79
Results and Findings……………………………………………………………………..80
Knowledge Results and Findings………………………………………………...81
Understanding Campus Administrators’ Expectations for Collaboration.81
Understanding the Expected Outcomes for Formal and Informal Meetings
……………………………………………………………………………83
Norms Relative to Teacher’s Experience………………………………..89
Motivation Results and Findings………………………………………………...92
Value in Collaboration…………………………………………………...93
Why There is Value in Collaboration……………………………………96
Teachers’ Contributions to Changing the Organization………………..100
Organization Results and Findings……………………………………………..101
Input with Colleagues…………………………………………………..108
Input with Campus Administration…………………………………….110
Input About Campus Changes………………………………………….111
Systematic Ways to Communicate……………………………………..112
Availability of Professional Development……………………………...114
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...116
Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations………….………………………………………118
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………118
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences…………………………..122
Knowledge Recommendations…………………………………………………123
Introduction……………………………………………………………..123
Declarative Knowledge Solutions, or description of needs or assets…..124
Motivation Recommendations………………………………………………….125
8
Introduction……………………………………………………………..126
Self-Efficacy……………………………………………………………127
Value……………………………………………………………………128
Mood……………………………………………………………………129
Organizational Recommendations……………………………………………...129
Introduction……………………………………………………………..129
Cultural Models………………………………………………………...131
Cultural Settings………………………………………………………..132
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan………………………………………..133
Implementation and Evaluation Framework……………………………………134
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations..……………………………..134
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators………………………………………..135
Level 3: Behavior……………………………………………………………….136
Level 2: Learning……………………………………………………………….139
Level 1: Reaction……………………………………………………………….142
Evaluation Tools………………………………………………………………..143
Data Analysis and Reporting…………………………………………………...144
Summary………………………………………………………………………..144
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...145
References……………………………………………………………………………………....146
APPENDIX A: Quantitative Survey Instrument……………………………………………….155
APPENDIX B: Qualitative Interview Protocol………………………………………………...158
APPENDIX C: Immediate Program Implementation Survey………………………………….159
APPENDIX D: Delayed Program Implementation Survey…………………………………….161

9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals…………..19
Table 2: Knowledge Influences, Types and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis……….45
Table 3: Motivation Influences, Types and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis…….…..49
Table 4: Organization Influences, Types ad Assessments for Organization Gap Analysis……...54
Table 5: Years of Teaching Experience………………………………………………………….77
Table 6: Content Area Taught at the Campus……………………………………………………78
Table 7: Interview Participant Background Information………………………………………...79
Table 8: Survey Responses for Expectations to Collaborate…………………………………….81
Table 9: Survey Responses for Outcomes of Collaborative Meetings…………………………..84
Table 10: Goals of PLC………………………………………………………………………….89
Table 11: Range of Expected Norms…………………………………………………………….91
Table 12: Motivation Survey Results……………………………………………………………94
Table 13: Motivation Results for the Value of Collaboration…………………………………...97
Table 14: Teachers’ Confidence to Change the Organization………………………………….100
Table 15: Time Allocated for Collaboration……………………………………………………103
Table 16: Responses about Follow-Up Feedback and Coaching After PD…………………….105
Table 17: Openness Towards Colleagues and Help-Seeking Behavior………………………...107
Table 18: Survey Responses Regarding Level of Trust………………………………………...108
Table 19: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations………………………...123
Table 20: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations………………………...126
Table 21: Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations…………………….130
Table 22: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes……………..135
Table 23: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods and Timing…………………………………..137
10
Table 24: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors……………………………………..138
Table 25: Components of Learning for the Program…………………………………………...141
Table 26: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program…………………………….........142

11
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
The lack of effective teacher collaboration is limiting the ability of teachers to deliver
their best instruction and students to achieve to their fullest potentials (Lomos, Hofman, Bosker,
2011; Ronfeldt, Famer, McQueen, & Grissom, 2015; Vangrieken, Dochy, Raes, Kyndt, 2015).
Teachers improve their teaching practice within a collaborative community at a faster rate than in
isolation (Ronfeldt et al., 2015). Teachers who are involved in collaborative learning
communities also reported in the Teaching and Learning International Survey (2013) that they
utilize more innovative teaching strategies, and they demonstrated more job satisfaction and self-
efficacy (European Commission, 2013). Formal and informal opportunities for teacher
collaboration provide essential professional development from an in-house support network of
fellow colleagues (Egodawatte,Mcdougall, Stoilescu, 2011). In addition, neglecting these
opportunities for teachers to collaborate severely affects the campus culture by deteriorating the
level of trust (Ahmed, Shahzad, Aslam, Bajwa, Bahoo, 2016; Cerit, 2013; Hakanen,
Soudunsaari, 2012; Hallam, Smith, Hite, Hite, & Wilcox, 2015) and communication
(Economides, 2008; Egodawatte,Mcdougall, Stoilescu, 2011) within a campus. Enabling and
prioritizing teacher collaboration by allocating time for teachers to engage in dialogue about
curriculum and instruction decisions can alter the culture of a school (Gajda & Koliba, 2008;
Gates & Robinson, 2009). However, without prioritizing collaboration, schools miss the
opportunity to reach their highest performance levels (Englert, 2008; Lomos, Hofman, & Bosker,
2011; Ronfeldt et al, 2015) and get the maximum daily effort from their employees (Cerit, 2013).
A lower cost way to provide professional development and develop a collaborative culture is to
utilize the collective human resources already employed on the campus (Bolman & Deal, 2013).
12
Effective leadership is integral to building a culture of teacher collaboration where innovative
and engaging curriculum and instructional methodologies are employed.
Organizational Context and Mission
Leaping Forward Middle School (LFMS) is a fifth through eighth grade middle school
campus currently situated in Cook Independent School District, which has significant tax
revenue from oil and gas industries and industrial factories. Leaping Forward Middle School was
recently a subsidiary acquisition in a state Department of Education appointed school district
annexation. Therefore, at the beginning of the 2016-2017 fiscal year, control of the school
moved from its original home district (Leak ISD) to the neighboring district (Cook ISD). This
process occurs after a school district’s accreditation has been revoked following investigations of
the previous district’s unsatisfactory financial and educational ratings (State Education Agency,
2015). If school districts and boards of trustees do not follow the directives in Chapter 11 in the
state Education Code, they can be subject to closure and consequently annexed to another
district. State Education Code requires that all school districts are accredited by the state
Education Agency (Sec. 11.001); therefore, the closed district (Leak ISD) was annexed to Cook
ISD. The school district is currently undergoing significant change, so background about the
annexation is important to clarify factors that may influence the campus culture.
The annexation agreement voided all current Leak ISD employee contracts (Cook ISD,
2014). All previous 2015-2016 Leak ISD employees, including administrators, teachers, and
support staff, were afforded the opportunity to reapply for teaching contracts within Cook ISD
for the 2016-2017 school year (Cook ISD, 2014). Many students already transferred from Leak
ISD into Cook ISD in previous school years (State Education Agency, 2015). District
administration requested that students return to their neighborhood school (Cook ISD, 2014).
This transition also meant the consolidation of Leak ISD’s six smaller campuses into four larger
13
campuses for the 2016-2017 school year. This consolidation of campuses had the greatest impact
at LFMS campus. At the start of 2016-2017 LFMS housed three out of six Leak ISD campuses,
including Cook Junior High, Cook Intermediate, and Scholar Academy (Cook ISD, 2014).
At the time of this dissertation, the campus is also displaced due to severe building
damage from flooding during a hurricane in Fall 2017. The middle school campus is currently
housed at one of the district’s high school campuses indefinitely.
The predominant ethnicity represented on the campus is African American/Black. The
campus also serves a large population of students who receive free and reduced lunch. In the
campuses first year of consolidation, the campus shared the mission statement of the district.
However, in May 2017, the campus principal co-constructed a mission and vision statement with
teachers. The current mission statement in the school’s faculty handbook is that Leaping Forward
Middle School’s faculty is dedicated to developing students to be all that they can become in
conduct and academics and always make decisions that lead to student success.
The teacher demographics for core subject (i.e., English Language Arts, Math, Science,
and Social Studies) teachers at LFMS include 34 teachers: six English Language Arts and Social
Studies combination classes, four English Language Arts only, ten math, ten science, four social
studies. There are six electives teachers: four physical education, one art, one choir, one band.
Half of the staff are new staff members at LFMS who have only been employed with the district
for six months at the time of the study. The other half of the staff have been with the campus for
both years after the annexation. The years of the staffs teaching careers in the classroom range
from 0-25 years. Approximately 15% are first year teachers; approximately 18% have 1-3 years
of teaching experience; 18% have 4-6 years of teaching experience; 20% have 7-9 years of
experience; and approximately 29% have 10+ years of teaching experience.

14
Organizational Goal
By December 2017, Leaping Forward Middle School would like to reach the goal of
100% of the teaching staff engaging in collaborative practices that develop their content
knowledge and pedagogical delivery of instruction. Collaborative practices include the following
teacher behaviors and campus structures:
1. Allocating time within the day for teachers to attend Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs)
2. Teachers understanding the campus structure and expected outcomes of PLCs
3. Informal professional discussion among colleagues to improve classroom
experiences (i.e., conversations about classroom management and instructional
delivery)
4. Campus leadership giving constructive input and feedback about instruction
5. Teacher input into collaborative meeting agendas
The new school site administration (Principal, Dean of Instruction, Assistant Principals,
and Instructional Specialists) set the goal for collaboration in the first year of the campus
opening as Cook ISD school. The goal for teachers addresses the need for developing teachers’
pedagogical delivery of instruction and content knowledge through collaborative instructional
planning aligned to state content standards. The goal will be measured by the way teachers
participate in formal collaborative structures, like Professional Learning Communities (PLC) and
weekly staff meetings, and informal interactions among colleagues that are indicative of a
pervasive culture of collaboration.
Curriculum and instruction decisions are communicated to teachers in formal
collaborative learning opportunities, like PLCs and staff meetings, if those decisions are not
already determined by the district. There is a tension between the district, school, and teachers
15
over the amount of control the district should have on curriculum and instruction decisions
versus the amount of control and input the teachers should have over these decisions. The
educators are ultimately responsible for implementing curriculum and instruction decisions.
Ideally, a collaborative professional learning culture means district and campus administrators
provide the support for teachers to navigate the challenges of daily implementation of the
curriculum. A collective agreement on pedagogical methodologies develops cultural norms that
influence teachers’ behaviors in the classroom. The collective goal of the organization is to
provide the most effective instruction for every student in order to afford them the best
opportunities at the culmination of their K-12 education. It is important that formal and informal
collaborative opportunities promote effective instructional practices among teachers and develop
the teacher’s capacity to better manage minute-by-minute decision-making in the classroom.
Related Literature

Professional Learning Communities (PLC) were established by the Dufour’s in the early
2000’s as a means for developing a culture of inquiry that would lead to improved standardized
test scores (Riveros, 2012). The notion of teacher collaboration as a PLC has evolved from a
single meeting that revolves around discussion of students and data (Dufour, 2004) to a more
general idea that any meeting in education can be named a PLC (Dufour, 2004). Teacher
collaboration is further evolving into an embodiment of collegiality and collaboration; in this
regard, any formal or informal professional interaction can be considered collaboration (Riveros,
2012). Wenger’s Communities of Practice model for collaboration emerged in the business field
in 2010, and it was quickly applied to the education field (Brouwer, Brekelmans, Nieuwenhuis,
& Simons, 2012). The largest difference between the two models is that PLC’s are intended to be
a single meeting for collaborative inquiry (Dufour, 2004) and the Community of Practice is a
constructivist approach for deriving meaning from social interactions with colleagues (Wenger,
16
2010). The culture of collaboration as used in this dissertation considers both the single meeting
PLC model of the Dufours and the informal, daily interactions that occur between colleagues.
Collaboration is not being evaluated as an isolated meeting or behavior, but as a pervasive
campus culture that can be seen formally (meetings) and informally (daily interactions).
General qualities of collaboration include knowledge sharing (Ahmed, Shahzad, Aslam,
Bajwa, & Bahoo, 2016; Riveros, 2012) and professional development (Riveros, 2012). Formal
and informal professional interactions among colleagues promote knowledge sharing that
provides critical professional development. Furthermore, the teamwork that is developed in
collaborative opportunities (Ahmed, et al, 2016) develops a campus culture of trust among
employees (Hallam, Smith, Hite, Hite, & Wilcox, 2015; Hakanen, Soudunsaari, 2012). Trust is
an essential ingredient to a healthy campus culture and improves communication throughout the
campus. In fact, the quality of dialogue in the team’s communication is one way of evaluating
effective collaboration. Gajda and Koliba’s (2008) report on evaluating and improving teacher
collaboration classified PLC dialogue as in an emergent state when it revolves around technical
aspects, such as exchanging curriculum ideas, pacing, or grouping. However, dialogue can
evolve into a proficient state when teachers begin to analyze and evaluate their pedagogical
practices and student work. Proficient dialogue revolves around meeting individual student needs
for rigor, student performance, and engagement (Gajda & Koliba, 2008). Through effective
communication employees garner knowledge and professional development that not only
promotes and healthy culture but best teaching practices.
Leadership plays a critical role in creating a collaborative community by allocating time
for collaboration (Gajda & Koliba, 2008; Gates & Robinson, 2009). Although administrators
play an essential role in developing structures that make collaboration possible, they also play a
role in facilitating collaboration as instructional leaders. Szczesiul and Huizenga (2014)
17
suggested that principals were ineffective at facilitating teacher collaboration because they failed
to establish and communicate a vision for teacher collaboration. Because the vision for
collaboration wasn’t established, principals relied on formal processes to promote collaboration
instead of providing employees with a guiding vision by which to base their decisions and
interactions. Many campus leaders provide time and space for formal collaboration, but campus
leaders establish the campus culture of collaboration through their vision and instructional
leadership. Instructional leaders provide the structure for collaboration and the ongoing
evaluation of collaborative teams (Gates & Robinson, 2009). However, instructional leaders lack
in skills for facilitating collaboration. For example, Gates and Robinson (2009) found that an
administrator’s presence during PLCs produced dialogue that revolved around technical
decision-making, such as grading policies or ways to structure tutoring, rather than collaborative
dialogue about teachers’ challenges in the classroom or innovative proposals about instructional
strategies.
Leaders are uncertain about how to mediate productive dialogue in collaborative learning
opportunities (Szczesiul & Huizenga, 2014). While teacher collaboration is often valued by the
campus leadership and time within the school day is often given, leaders are not providing the
type of instructional leadership or frequent evaluation of the effectiveness of teacher
collaboration (Gajda & Koliba, 2008). A difficult balance for campus leaders is providing
enough guidance and motivation for collaboration, while not revoking teacher autonomy in their
pedagogy (Hallam, Smith, Hite, Hite, & Wilcox, 2015).
Importance of the Evaluation
It is important to evaluate the organization’s performance in relationship to 100% of
teachers engaging in collaborative professional learning for a variety of reasons. Educational
accountability systems require organizations to strive for meeting set student proficiency levels.
18
Professional teacher collaboration can improve student performance on tests (Englert, 2008) and
improve the amount of effort expended by teachers (Cerit, 2012). Englert (2008) and Cerit’s
(2012) research goes hand-in-hand because teacher behavior is a vital for student achievement of
state and federal proficiency standards. The transparency of teachers about their challenges in
their teaching practices will improve student outcomes and increase innovative problem solving
as teachers address the unique learning needs of each child (McREL, 2005). Structures for
formal professional learning communities (i.e., time for collaboration and clear administrator
expectations for collegial participation in collaborative opportunities) are integral to a successful
collaborative culture (Gable & Manning, 2007; Gajda & Koliba, 2008; Gates & Robinson,
2009). However, clearly establishing a vision that makes collaboration a pervasive element of the
school culture is still a work in progress.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
There are three primary stakeholders at Leaping Forward Middle School: the school-site
administrators, the teachers, and the students. School site administrators, including the principal,
assistant principals, and instructional specialists, directly influence the direction of the
organization and achievement of the performance goal. This group is responsible for establishing
the organizational structures that allow time for teachers to collaborate. School-site
administrators develop and communicate the vision for collaboration that becomes an
expectation for teachers’ engagement in collaborative opportunities. This stakeholder group is a
facilitator for teacher collaboration by how they interact in meetings and the organizational
structures they provide for the staff.
Teachers are a second stakeholder group. Their engagement in collaboration is essential
for maximized student learning. Teachers are skilled and trained individuals who can either
passively attend meetings that result in little pedagogical change, or they can utilize the time in
19
collaboration to alter their instruction for more effective student engagement. Ultimately,
whatever directives or expectations are communicated from administration can either be
successful or fail with this stakeholder group. Teachers are ultimately the implementers of the
campus programs and initiatives, so their interpretations and understanding of the initiatives are
critical. If teachers do not know and understand the importance of collaboration or how to
collaborate, then leaders need to modify and adjust their communication and alignment of
priorities to ensure teachers understand.
Students are a third stakeholder group. Students reap the benefits of teacher collaboration
or suffer the consequences of the absence of collaboration. Egodawatte, McDougall, and
Stoilescu (2011) establish a direct connection between student success and teacher collaboration.
Dufour’s PLC model was conceived with the hope that students would flourish if teachers were
data driven. Students are not just a stakeholder in teacher collaboration, but their success is the
ultimate goal of collaboration.
Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of district is to develop students to their fullest potential so they may become
responsible, productive citizens in a rapidly changing multicultural society. Inherent within this
mission is the belief that all students will learn.

Organizational Performance Goal
By Fall 2017, the campus will develop a systematic and sustainable plan for ongoing
collaborative professional development and implement this plan by developing the culture and
structures it requires within the organization.
Teachers School-Site Leadership Students
20
By December 2017, teachers
will engage in collaborative
practices that develop their
content knowledge and
pedagogical delivery of
instruction.
By Spring 2017, the school-
site leadership team will
provide weekly opportunities
for teachers to meet in PLCs
and monitor PLC
implementation in the
classroom
By May 2018, students will
demonstrate a 10% overall
growth in all tested subjects on
the State of Texas Assessment
for Academic Readiness
(STAAR) test administered in
May.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
While a study including all stakeholder groups would give a complete analysis of the
problem of practice, the teachers’ engagement in collaboration is the focus of this particular
study. Collaboration among teachers strengthens teachers’ pedagogy and instructional delivery;
however, a teacher working in isolation only has a capacity limited by their own pedagogical and
curriculum competence. The administrators’ role is to provide the organizational structures so
that collaboration can take place. Organizational structures include time for collaboration,
funding for professional development, and clear expectations for the campus norms of
collaboration. How teachers actually collaborate determines whether the goals and plans for a
collaborative culture are merely good intentions from campus administrators or if it results in
improving pedagogical practices that help students learn. The leadership team (i.e., principal,
assistant principals, and instructional specialists) determined this stakeholder goal in the summer
of 2016 when the team determined focus priorities in the campus improvement plan. The goal
reads that by December 2017, teachers will engage in collaborative practices that develop their
content knowledge and pedagogical delivery of instruction.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that help or hinder the teaching staff at Leaping Forward Middle School to engage in
collaborative professional learning that develops their content knowledge and pedagogical
21
delivery of instruction. The analysis focused on knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences related to achieving this organizational goal. While a complete evaluation project
would focus on all Leaping Forward Middle School stakeholders, for practical purposes the
stakeholders in this analysis are all Leaping Forward Middle School teachers.
As such, the questions that guide the overall project are as follows:
1. To what extent is Leaping Forward Middle School meeting its goal of 100% of teachers
engaging in collaborative professional learning?
2. What are teachers’ knowledge and motivational influences that relate to the organization
meeting its goal?
The research questions that will guide the data collection and analysis are:
1. What are the teachers’ perspectives about the organizational influences that relate to the
organization meeting its goal?
2. What is the interaction between the culture of the organization and teachers’ knowledge
and motivation?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Methodological Framework
This project employed a mixed method data gathering and analysis. Teacher
collaboration at Leaping Forward Middle School was assessed in multiple contexts, including
but not limited to weekly PLC meetings, informal interactions among colleagues, and staff
meetings. Collaboration was assessed using surveys, interviews, document analysis, literature
review, and content analysis to evaluate alignment of teacher collaboration with the
organizational goals revolving around improving student performance outcomes. Research-based
solutions are recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive manner.
22
Definitions
Communities of Practice: A term taken from the business practice of intentional collaboration to
develop a culture of collaboration.
Collaborative Model: A term used to identify the established system that the district uses to
facilitate collaboration on their campus. Two common models are Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs) and Communities of Practice (COP)
Learning Organization: A term used to describe the organization’s vision and orientation of the
organization’s stakeholders as inclined to continually grow and learn
Professional Learning Community (PLC): A meeting among teachers to facilitate collaboration
among professionals
Teacher collaboration: A general term for teachers coming together to plan lessons and ask and
receive advice about challenges in the classroom.
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about teacher collaboration. The
organization’s mission, goals, stakeholders, and the framework for the project were introduced.
Chapter Two provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope of the study. The topic
of teacher collaboration will be explored by contrasting models for teacher collaboration and
stakeholders’ engagement in facilitating a collaborative culture. Also, research from
organizational leadership in fields, such as business, will be used to support analysis and
recommendations. Chapter Three details the knowledge, motivation and organizational elements
to be examined, as well as methodology when it comes to choice of participants, data collection
and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five
23
provides solutions, based on data and literature, for closing the perceived gaps as well as
recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.

24
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Review of the Literature
This literature review will examine the root causes for gaps in knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences on productive teacher collaboration in a K-12 setting. The review
begins by examining the importance of teacher collaboration within a campus to promote high
academic achievement. The review will present an in-depth discussion on how teachers engage
in collaborative learning opportunities, the models used for teacher collaboration, the effective
qualities of collaboration, and the involvement of school-site in teacher collaboration that either
helps or hinders teachers. Following the general research on teacher collaboration models and
characteristics and school leadership’s involvement in this process, the review will turn to Clark
and Estes Gap Analysis Framework, specifically knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences, on teacher’s ability to participate in collaboration to deliver the best instruction for
students.
Importance of Teacher Collaboration
The human capital employed in a K-12 educational setting are the core of a school’s
strength and a great portion of the district’s instructional expenditures. The policies and
procedures that evolve over time to improve organizational systems do not negate the critical
role and symbiotic nature of the people within the organization that will ultimately determine the
success or failure of the organization as a whole (Bolman & Deal, 2013). Teacher quality is
widely regarded as necessary for positive student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2004;
Darling-Hammong & Young, 2004). Analysis of 452 schools found that 52% of the variance in
language scores and 59% of the variance in math scores can be attributed to socioeconomic
status or race (White, Stepney, Hatchmonji, Moceri, Linsky, Ryes-Portillos, and Elias, 2016).
However, Hanushek and Rivkin (2010) reviewed literature of ten studies on teacher quality that
25
arrived at an average standard deviation of 0.12 in language gains and 0.19 in math gains when
students had an effective teacher as opposed to just an average teacher. Teacher quality matters
(Hanushek & Rivkin, 2010) and can have an effect over factors such as race and poverty
(Goldhaber, 2016). Furthermore, schools that perform higher on state standardized tests have
reported higher levels of collaboration among teachers (Englert & Barley, 2008; Styron &
Nyman, 2008). Therefore, collaboration is a critical element in providing the best opportunities
for students to learn. The following section will uncover the research in engaging teachers in
these collaborative learning opportunities.
Teacher Engagement in Collaborative Learning Opportunities
Professional development is often the term used when discussing learning opportunities
for teachers. Abu-Tineh (2015) even calls professional development (PD) a necessity for
teachers. However, teacher engage in PD is dependent on it being relevant, timely, and effective
(Abu-Tineh, 2015). Often leaders in education solve the problem of pedagogical weaknesses or
initiate pedagogical growth among teachers by providing PD. However, teachers still have
complaints about PD being ineffective. Research questionnaires to 900 administrators and
teachers on effective PD delineated three common ways to engage teachers in effective PD: (1) it
must be practical, not just theoretical, (2) it must take place during the normal school day at their
own school, (3) it must include ongoing follow-up (Abu-Tineh, 2015). These factors could
account for the gap between the design of traditional PD and the effective implementation of the
PD.
A dissertation on professional development would expound on these three areas
identified by Abu-Tineh (2015) more specifically, but in this dissertation the useful information
is on the collaborative nature of these characteristics of effective professional development. Abu-
Tineh’s three factors of effective PD support the notion that networking and collaborating
26
outside of a one day or even one-week professional development training is integral to effective
professional development. A professional development may provide practical strategies for
teachers to develop in content knowledge or pedagogical delivery, but translating the content of
the PD into practice is the desired end result of a PD. Furthermore, teachers need time within
their contract to collaborate about PD and follow-up with colleagues and instructors about their
use of PD content. A collaborative setting would allow for time to follow-up, receive ongoing
feedback, and continually try to improve transferring the training into practice. The research
supports the idea that PD can develop effective teachers if it is being used in the proper context
with the proper support. This literature review will further expound on the idea that the proper
context and support is within a “learning organization” (Senge, 1990) and with the appropriate
campus structure and administrator input.
Senge’s (1990) book The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization emphasized the importance of group problem solving to develop a learning
organization. A learning organization that revolves around the five disciplines addresses the
individual employee, through showing personal mastery and developing mental models, and
enhances the group dynamic, by developing a team vision and improving common
communication (Senge, 1990). This oft cited book in topics related to business, economics, and
professional collaboration defines the conceptual connection between the importance of the
individual and the communication and efficiency of the team. Although the book has a firm
foundation in the business world, this literature provides a theoretical foundation for effective
teacher collaboration as well. Teacher engagement in collaborative professional learning requires
a focus on the individual teacher needs as well as a collective vision for continual learning. To
remain competitive, or in this context of this dissertation to remain high achieving on academic
measures such as state standardized tests, organizations need to learn together in order to have
27
forward motion and evolve with the obstacles and changes that may arise (Senge, 1990). An
organization that has taken on the culture of a learning organization are dynamic organizations
who are proactive to anticipate changes and adaptable to make calculated changes (Luhn, 2016).
The organization’s ability to learn is essentially its potential as a successful organization (Unger,
2002). Administrators and teachers will benefit from understanding and engaging in a culture of
collaboration and learning.
Models for Collaboration
Models of collaboration were developed to remedy the lack of clarity and understanding
about what collaboration should look like within an organization. Collaboration models exist in
both education and business that may inform collaborative practices in K-12 education. The first
model analyzed in this section, Professional Learning Communities, is taken directly from the
education field. The second is predominantly known for its use in the business field. The
intersection of the two models provides a means that both accelerates improvement on
standardized test scores and the collaborative culture within the organization.
Professional Learning Communities
The Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) model grew in popularity in the early
2000’s to provide teachers with a structure of collaboration specifically to improved student
achievement on standardized tests. Dufour (2004) argued against the notion that PLCs can be
used to describe every kind of assembly of people who meet about an issue related to education.
Loosely using the term PLC to describe every congregation of educators dilutes the meaning of a
PLC. Dufour (2004) intended for collaboration to become a pervasive culture within a school,
but still wanted the term PLC to be used to indicate a specific model for a meeting. According to
the leader of the PLC movement, Dufour’s PLC model provides three guiding principles of
PLCs: (1) ensure that students learn, not just that they are taught, (2) a culture of collaboration
28
that is pervasive throughout the entire campus and reaches every student, (3) a focus on results in
student achievement (Dufour, 2004).
Riveros (2012) posits that Dufour’s PLC model had its insurgence into the education
world during the onset of high-stakes standardized testing; therefore, the model’s intent is
student achievement in standardized test scores. PLCs differ from other collaboration initiatives
because PLCs were conceived in the high accountability arena. The goal of PLCs is quantitative
results in student achievement, which means high test scores are the end goal. Riveros’ (2012)
article critiquing Dufour’s PLC model uses Merleau-Ponty (2002) as a theoretical basis to
emphasize the importance of collaboration as a tool for thinking collectively and taking on the
persona of an educator. This means that teachers’ actions in the classroom come from learning
from colleagues in a collaborative way that develops a culture persistent about learning. The
Dufour model for PLCs began the conversation about developing a culture of inquiry; however,
as Riveros (2012) suggests, there may be more to school reform than developing a culture of
inquiry that produces high test results. The culture of collaborative inquiry within the context of
a learning organization can lead to a loftier goal than simply high standardized testing results, but
instead a more innovative teaching strategies, greater job satisfaction and self-efficacy (European
Commission, 2013), and more effort from teachers (Cerit, 2013). While PLCs have grown in
popularity in this era of high accountability, school are demanding an embodiment of
collaborative professional practices rather than expecting professional growth from a once a
week PLC meeting. Many districts have implemented some form of the PLC model, however,
the Communities of Practice model for collaboration that was prevalent in the business
community is now making its way into the field of education. Considering the PLC meeting
methodology with the social learning theory of Communities of Practice may provide the
foundation for sound collaborative practices in K-12 education.
29
Communities of Practice
A popular model of collaboration is Wenger’s communities of practice model, which
attempts to build an entire community of learning within the organization. As opposed to a
model that provokes collaboration with a single meeting, like the PLC, a community of practice
is a social learning model, which develops a social system for continued learning (Wenger,
2010). This is a constructivist social structure where participants come together to negotiate
meaning. Despite the greatest attempts to impose structure and mandates on the community, the
ultimate product is the meaning that is derived by the participants at the end (Wenger, 2010).
Education organizations have adopted communities of practices; however, it is a
relatively new enterprise in schools compared to the dominance of Dufour’s PLC model.
Collaborative communities embed collaboration into the culture of the school by making it an
on-going process (Brouwer, Brekelmans, Nieuwenhuis, & Simons, 2012). Seven teacher teams at
a secondary school in the Netherlands who have adopted Communities of Practice were studied
to explore whether the Communities of Practice were occurring and to what degree teachers were
engaging in this practice. The findings revealed that teachers did not have clarity about what a
Community of Practice is and administrators do not have evidence about whether teachers are
even engaging in the communities (Brouwer, et al, 2012). Wenger’s Communities of Practice
model focuses on developing a pervasive culture of collaboration that extends beyond a single
meeting to also include the daily formal and informal opportunities to learn. This may account
for the researchers finding that it was not identifiable. Furthermore, it supports the notions that
were explored earlier about clear communication about the model and vision for collaboration
(Szczesiul and Huizenga, 2014). Despite the model chosen by leadership, developing teacher
capacity to implement any of the chosen models would be the next step in initiating a
collaborative learning culture.
30
Effective Qualities of Collaboration
Collaboration has been noted as a means for effective school reform (Levine & Marcus,
2007; Riveros, 2012). However, exactly on what teachers collaborate and how they do so has
been an elusive component of effective implementation of collaborative teams on campuses. The
following section will discuss the general characteristics of collaboration based on the research
of the existing models of collaboration in education and business (i.e., PLCs and Communities of
Practice). Then the research will explore the critical component of developing trust within the
collaborative teams. The final section will discuss the systems and structures for providing time
and space within the work day to facilitate collaboration among employees.
General Characteristics of a Collaborative Culture
Schneider, Brief, and Guzzo (1996) distinguished climate as the observable policies,
practices, and procedures of the organization; whereas culture is the beliefs and values held by
the members within the organization. To sustain collaboration as an organizational change, the
members of the organization have to value collaboration, especially the leaders, and the policies
and procedures have to align with collaboration as a core value. A collaborative culture has a
symbiotic connection with the daily policies and procedures (climate) that the employees are
subject to carry out and abide by daily. Culture can be a nebulous concept to identify because it
is the general “feel” of the organization. Therefore, identifying the organization’s value placed
on collaboration is evident in the daily policies and procedures. Policies and procedures that
foster collaboration are prevalent of a collaborative culture. This section of the dissertation will
focus on the practical and the more elusive characteristics of a collaborative culture.
In a study of managerial staff, 189 participants from 87 companies were asked to respond
to a likert-scale questionnaire about four dimensions of collaboration: teamwork, empowerment,
trust, and diversity (Ahmed, Shahzad, Aslam, Bajwa, & Bahoo, 2016). The hypothesis of this
31
study tested the interplay among (1) the dimensions of collaboration, (2) the willingness for
participants to share their knowledge by gathering or “donating” to the group’s knowledge bank,
and (3) the level of employee creativity that was elicited among these collaborative teams. The
first dimension, teamwork, increased the frequency of interaction and therefore a greater
willingness to contribute knowledge to achieve the common goal. The second dimension,
empowerment, increased the level of both sharing and gathering information. Empowered
employees utilized their authority, network, and resources to both gather and share resources.
The third dimension, trust, had a significant impact on knowledge sharing and also created an
interdependent dynamic among the team. Lastly, the fourth dimension, diversity, had little
significance on knowledge sharing and, therefore, creativity in the Ahmed et al (2016) study.
Researchers confirmed this conclusion in a laboratory experiment; however, their conclusion
further analyzed the level of engagement of those in the experiment to understand other’s
perspectives (Hoever, van Knippenberg, van Ginkel, and Barkema, 2012). Those groups that
engaged in understanding perspectives demonstrated greater creativity (Hoever, et al, 2012).
Creativity can be seen as a beneficial by product of collaboration, but also an essential indicator
of collaborative behavior. Teamwork, empowerment, and trust are just a few of the research-
based indicators of a collaborative culture. Implicit in the findings about the characteristics of
collaboration is also an unanswered question about how to implement, enforce and ensure
teachers are engaged in those practices.
Riveros (2012) directs his theoretical article to the audience of policymakers involved in
school reform. School reform necessitates a call to action, which he believes results in using
teacher collaboration to ultimately affect teaching practices. Riveros asserts that absent in
policymakers’ discourse in school reform is the question about what exactly constitutes a
teaching practice. He uses this question to show that teaching practices are not an isolated event
32
or a single characteristic, but encompasses the full breadth of what the professional embodies
when they are in their teaching role. Riveros (2012) uses the philosophy and model of Merleau-
Ponty (2002) to support his ideals of professional embodiment of teacher practices. Merleau-
Ponty (2002) uses a football analogy to demonstrate the kind of embodiment required of a
teacher in regards to collaborative practices. A football player enters a football field and
understands that a new set of rules and behaviors are expected in order to skillfully play the
game. There is an embodiment of the current role the player is undertaking. Similarly, in
education a teacher is immersed into a particular role within the school or classroom and
understands that he or she must embody the behaviors and be led by a different set of rules
(Riveros, 2012). Behaviors and the new rules create the culture of campus.
A simple behavior like having a conversation with another teacher, administrator, or
student can be an opportunity for learning and gathering information. Riveros (2012) posits that
school reform initiatives tend to place a large emphasis on the formal collaborative learning
opportunities, but little on the embodiment of the teacher to learn in informal contexts. The key
purpose of professional collaboration is to develop professional practice, professional knowledge
and professional identity. Professional growth in practices, knowledge and professional identity
requires collaborative and individual commitment to both formal and informal learning. A daily
climate that promotes empowerment, trust, and teamwork develops a strong pervasive culture
that will produce more effective professional practices, greater knowledge sharing and deeper
identity. Fundamental to a collaborative culture is a deeply-rooted sense of trust among the
stakeholders, which will be explored in the following section.
Developing Trust in Collaborative Teams
In collaborative teams, teachers share ideas and data that require a level of vulnerability
in order to be productive. Developing trust is integral to team effectiveness. Hallam, Smith, Hite,
33
Hite, and Wilcox (2015) explored questions about the development of trust within teams,
specifically the principal’s impact on trust and the relationship of trust to effective collaboration.
The study was a qualitative matched cases case study in which comparable student demographics
and grade-levels among four schools were separated into two case studies. The first case was
only comprised of one school that was identified as struggling with PLC implementation, a low-
performing PLC. The second case study was comprised of three schools that were successfully
implementing PLCs, a high-performing PLC. The researchers utilized 12 focus groups: six for
case one and six for case two. The guiding principles of Tschannen-Moran’s (2004) five facets of
trust within teams was the foundation of constructing Hallam, et al.’s (2015) instrumentation for
the focus groups. Tschannen-Moran (2004) identified benevolence, honesty, openness,
reliability, and competence as the five facets of building trust within a team. Hallam, et al (2015)
identified three themes among team members’ responses in both high-performing and low-
performing PLCs: (1) they expected team members to fulfill their responsibilities and
assignments, (2) they shared about their personal life, and (3) they were generally patient and
kind. The only difference between the high-performing and low-performing cases was that the
low-performing campus felt like the principal micromanaged the PLC and the team; whereas,
high-performing PLCs saw their principals as competent managers who trusted the team and
avoided micromanaging. Principals in high-performing teams were also flexible in who the team
members worked by allowing teachers to have input in team formation.
A literature review by Hakanen and Soudunsaari (2012) on the dynamic nature of trust
within teams reinforced the idea that openness builds trust and increases communication.
Openness had previously been identified by Tschannen-Moran (2004) as one of the five facets of
trust in collaboration. The openness within a team develops a deeper level of trust that in turn
promotes a higher level of engagement in the team’s interactions (Hakanen & Soudunsaari,
34
2012). Trust in collaboration also requires empathy and respect, which parallel Hallam, et al.’s
(2015) findings that high-performing teams were patient and kind towards one another (Hakanen
& Soudunsaari, 2012). Trust is integral to developing a high performing team, but it can be a
lengthy process that does not develop quickly. While the general attitudes within the team are
important for productivity, collaboration will not occur if the leadership does not provide
appropriate time and space for these interactions to happen.
Providing Time and Space for Collaborative Opportunities
An integral role of the leadership is structuring the time and the organizational space for
collaboration. Gates and Robinson (2009) study included interviews from 18 participants
(teachers, principals, assistant principals, academic coaches, and central office administration
that work with that campus) from 2 different but similar schools. One of the school districts had
a late start during the week to provide time for the teachers to collaborate, study curriculum
documents, and problem solve. This is just one model that allows teachers to have time for
collaborative discourse.
Gates and Robinson (2009) logged 70 observation hours of the weekly collaborative
sessions, monthly faculty meetings, administrative team meetings and monthly staff development
trainings. In their observations of collaboration time, teachers exchanged their collective
knowledge to problem solve and adapt current practices to fit the demands of school reform
agendas, including the areas of assessment, curriculum, and instructional practices. However,
when an administrator was present during these collaborative meetings, the team dynamic
adopted a different tenor. The discussions with an administrator present revolved around the
technical aspects of grading and participation in tutoring rather than any implications for
adaptive instruction or curriculum modifications. This shows that teachers utilize their time in
ways that are intended to make adaptive changes in their classroom. Providing space for
35
collaboration may also mean that administrators distance themselves slightly to allow the teams
to share their collective knowledge and experience. The findings of Gates and Robinson (2009)
confirm the findings of Hallam, et al. (2015) that teachers need a little autonomy and less
micromanaging to be a high-performing PLC.
Gajda and Koliba (2008) shared similar thoughts as Gates and Robinson (2009) that
providing time and space for collaboration is essential; however, Gajda and Koliba (2008) also
asserted that providing time and space is not nearly enough, but it needs to be complemented
with effective leadership assistance. In arranging teams, leaders may need to adjust schedules
and demonstrate that collaboration is a priority (Gaja & Koliba, 2008). When leaders are
arranging the teams, it is essential that teams are inventoried to create the highest level of
functionality. Further leadership involvement is that teachers need to be educated and become
literate about collaboration and the expectations of who is working with whom and for what
purpose. The research shows that leaders must allow the time and space for teachers to
collaborate; however, time and space is insufficient if leaders are not actively and appropriately
engaged in the collaborative practices of their teachers. Providing time and space allows for
teachers to know who they are collaborating with and in what areas they can collaborate, but the
essential component of collaboration boils down to what and how they are collaborating. This
can be informed by the collaborative model that is chosen by the district or campus.
Teacher and Leadership Involvement and Expectations
Each stakeholder in a school has a role to play in developing a collaborative campus
culture. While the exact expectations of each stakeholder may vary from campus to campus
(Levine & Marcus, 2007), the leadership of a campus plays a distinct role in modeling and
facilitating productive collaboration (Gates & Robinson, 2009; Hallam et al, 2015; Mayer,
Woulfin, and Warhol, 2015). This section starts with a focus on teacher involvement and the
36
support that they receive from the school administration to understand how to collaborate and
what is expected from collaboration. Then, this section moves into a focus on school leaders and
how they support and appropriately engage in teacher collaboration.
Teacher Involvement and Support
School district administrators determine the kinds and levels of training that are provided
to teachers so they understand the campus expectations and model for teacher collaboration that
is adopted by the campus. District approaches to collaboration can require different levels of
teacher involvement. Districts can provide scripted lessons and curricula that dictate minimal
collaboration or it can enable teachers to be more of a technician for planning and implementing
the curriculum (Levine & Marcus, 2007). The Communities of Practice (COP) approach in
school districts is intended to develop professional learning communities or teacher inquiry
committees as Levine and Marcus (2007) call it. The COP approach intends to build capacity
within a group of teachers not just so that teachers can be technicians of given scripted lessons,
but so that wisdom, knowledge and experience can be shared so learning can be transferred to
various contexts later. COPs allow for teachers to address the limitations of the prescribed
curriculum and personal attitudes towards students. The purpose of COPs is to develop openness
and dialogue among teacher colleagues. This openness allows for teachers to put their own
personal and professional limitations aside so that the team can collectively develop adaptive
responses to the individual needs of students (Levine & Marcus, 2007). The district-wide
approach to collaboration communicates the level and kinds of collaboration expected by their
teachers. Building teacher capacity begins with communicating the district or campus
leaderships’ expectations and cultivating teacher buy-in for those expectations as close as
possible to teachers’ on-boarding.

37
Leadership as a Model for Collaboration
School and district leadership communicate expectations explicitly; however, the most
effective way to communicate expectations is through modeling the protocols and behaviors that
are desired. Baer and Bandura’s (1963) seminal work constructed the foundation of social
learning theory. An important component of social learning theory was imitation of a mentor or
model for the learned practice. Within the social context, followers begin to approximate the
actions they believe are desired. Social learning theory is the premise of collaborative
professional learning among teachers. Among groups of teachers there are mentors that serve as
models for teaching practices; however, leaders can be a guiding force for directing the school
culture and expectations of collaboration by modeling collaborative behaviors.
Mayer, Woulfin, and Warhol (2015) conducted a qualitative case study of one coach who
serviced two schools involved in a school reform initiative called Together Initiative. In this
study, the leader had an external intermediary role, rather than the traditional leadership of a
principal or another internal campus or district leader. The unique role of the leader in this study
may have some limitations to generalizing to a broader population of campus leaders; however,
it provides insight into leadership qualities that help teachers understand the outcomes and
protocols of collaboration. While leading the campus through a school reform initiative, the
leader in the Mayer, et al. (2015) study was a model for collaborative techniques during PLC
meetings with teachers and principals. Through observation, the researchers say that the model
that teachers received during the PLC meetings was later implemented when the coach stepped
into the role as the observer and encourager, rather than the model. Modeling is an effective
means to communicate the expectations of teachers in a way that transfers easily into daily and
routine practice. Therefore, leaders must be cautious of the ways in which they conduct their
38
own teacher meetings and the ways in which they interact and promote collaboration in their
collaborative team meetings.
Leadership Involvement in Collaborative Teams
Whether the leadership of a collaborative team is a campus administrator, intermediary
agency, or a fellow colleague, the leadership can determine the intended outcomes of the
collaboration. In Mayer, et al. (2015), the ideals of the intermediary organization were
interpreted by the individual coach who was working with the team. She saw the group of
teachers as learners rather than engaging in shared governance. The research further reinforced
Bandura’s theory that leaders are models for collaborative techniques within the team.
Findings in the aforementioned study by Hallam, et al (2015) show that the principal
builds a collaborative team when he or she does not micromanage the team. Teachers wanted the
autonomy to develop their own goals and demonstrated frustration with this when they were
micromanaged by administrators. Furthermore, leadership involvement in PLCs promoted
technical problem solving rather than facilitating teacher dialogue about adaptive practices to
improve pedagogy (Gates & Robinson, 2009). Teachers in a collaborative meeting with their
peers had a higher focus on problem-solving. However, in an administrator’s presence, the team
often tried to come to quick solutions and focused on technical aspects of problem-solving
(Gates & Robinson, 2009).
A key function of school administrators is to provide the appropriate time for
collaboration; however, more important than developing the structure for collaboration is
engaging the teachers in continuous learning (Crow, 2015). The leaders must become great
facilitators to structure the use of teachers’ time. Equally important to engaging teachers in
appropriate activities is facilitating opportunities for practice. Stepping back to allow teachers
time to practice develops experience and efficacy to be more successful in the classroom (Crow,
39
2015). Teacher engagement in collaborative learning is more than developing a culture within
meetings that allows passive learning or extended lists of things to get done prior to the next
meeting. It engages teachers in meaningful work that can be transferred to classroom practices
that benefit students. Teacher engagement in collaborative professional learning provides a
catalyst for change; however, there are gaps that exist in fully engaging teachers that can be
discovered through the Clark and Estes gap analysis conceptual framework.
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) developed an analytic, conceptual framework conducive to
analyzing organizational effectiveness and accomplishment of an identified organization
performance goal. The organization initially identifies a specific performance goal and then
identifies the gap between the current performance and the desired performance specified in the
goal. Within this gap analysis framework, the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences are examined to determine the root causes creating the performance gap (Clark &
Estes, 2008). After the revision of the original 1956 Bloom’s Taxonomy, which is widely used to
classify types of knowledge, Krathwohl (2002) identifies four types of knowledge and skills that
will be addressed in the Clark and Estes (2008) framework: factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive. Motivation influences vary, but can be classified into goal setting, mental effort,
self-efficacy, and attribution (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011, Pekrun, 2008). Motivation
influences vary greatly in scope, but ultimately “drive” the individual within the organization to
engage in the process and work towards the organizational goal (Pekrun, 2008). The
organizational influences of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework are those system
problems that stem from a lack of processes and procedures that are in place and understood by
the employees, the resources available to adequately perform the job, or the pervasive culture
within the organization.
40
This dissertation will address the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences, as
identified by Clark and Estes (2008), that impact teacher engagement in collaborative
professional development. The first section will address the knowledge and skills that influence
the accomplishment of the stakeholder goal. The second section will examine how motivation
influences the stakeholder. Finally, the third section will discuss how the organizational
influences help or hinder the stakeholder from accomplishing the goal. Each of the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences will be examined in the methodology discussion in
Chapter 3.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
In accordance with the Clark and Estes (2008) framework, the research will develop the
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that may help or hinder goal attainment for
the teacher stakeholder. This section will begin with a discussion on knowledge and skill
influences, then move to a discussion on motivation influences. Finally, this researcher will
discuss organizational influences. Within each of the sections on knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences, a brief description of the literature is given as it relates to teacher
collaboration.
Knowledge and Skills
This literature review will focus on the knowledge that teachers must possess in order to
effectively participate in collaborative learning opportunities. The school district implemented
PLCs as a model to develop teachers’ instructional capacity, broaden their understanding of
curriculum, and collaborate with colleagues to generate ideas that will be effective in their own
teaching practice. The goal for the teachers at Leaping Forward Middle School in regards to
collaboration is that teachers will engage in collaborative practices that develop their content
knowledge and pedagogical delivery of instruction. It is important to examine the prerequisite
41
knowledge and skills necessary for teachers to effectively collaborate in order to bridge the gap
between the campus administrative team’s expectations for teacher collaboration and the actual
teachers’ collaborative practices. This gap between the expectation and knowledge of what needs
to be done and the stakeholder actually doing it is also known as the knowing-doing gap (Dumas,
2010; Knight, Cowling, Rouget, Balmford, Lombard, & Campbell, 2007). Research on the
knowing-doing gap provides evidence that the impediment for organizational performance could
be the absence of critical prerequisite knowledge and skills necessary for executing the job
performance tasks. Therefore, the organization must be a learning organization with an
infrastructure that supports learning and employs individuals who are invested in professional
growth and development (Dumas, 2010; Knight, Cowling, Rouget, Balmford, Lombard, &
Campbell, 2007). Ideally, the campus has systems and teams set up to encourage professional
growth; however, exactly what and how teachers learn within these collaborative teams is still a
mystery.
A quandary within the educational arena is the amount of control a district or campus
exerts over individual teacher practices. On the one hand, a district can prescribe curriculum and
instruction that leads a teacher step-by-step through a lesson. This takes the burden of real
teaching responsibility off of the teacher and puts it onto those who serve in the bureaucratic
rungs of the ladder all the way up to the superintendent and school board (Levine & Alan, 2007).
However, on the other hand, a district can allow teachers full autonomy to learn and engage with
the curriculum in the way they best see fit for their students. The disadvantage to this approach is
that autonomy can lead to isolation. No researcher has attempted to analyze in-depth either of the
two extremes, but the intermediate approach gives the teacher responsibility to be a learner
within the organization and join in the collaboration.
42
Alexander, Schallert, and Reynolds (2009) describe four dimensions of learning: who,
what, when, and where. Including these dimensions of learning into PLCs builds teacher
capacity. By addressing these multiple dimensions, teachers will acquire habits that promote
greater performance and personal investment into the collaboration (Alexander et al., 2009).
Ineffective practices or the absence of effective practices may be a lack of fundamental
declarative knowledge. Dumas (2010) discovered that principals lacked declarative knowledge
about collaboration that principal supervisors assumed principals already possessed. Dumas’s
research suggests that the gap in knowing and doing could be the result of supervisors’
unsupported assumptions that employees already possessed the prerequisite knowledge.
According to Elmore (2002), teacher supervisors have the same false assumptions of teachers
when they believe that teachers have learned what they need to meet students’ needs prior to
entering the classrooms through their pre-service training.
Knowledge influences. The literature in this review is relevant to the organizational goal
that teachers will engage in collaborative practices that develop their content knowledge and
pedagogical delivery of instruction. In order to achieve this goal, teachers must know the
expectations for collaborative practices on their campus and actively engage in collaboration in
order to improve their professional teaching practice. The following literature will be related to
achieving the organizational and stakeholder goals and categorized based on the knowledge
influences needed to achieve the goals.
Within this review, the knowledge influences will be categorized as declarative or
metacognitive. Declarative knowledge is an understanding of factual or conceptual information
(Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Declarative knowledge is a base understanding of certain facts.
Krischner, Krischner, and Paas (2006) suggest that declarative knowledge is necessary to decode
facts and concepts prior to engaging in a more difficult task. The learner does not experience
43
cognitive overload during the task if declarative knowledge is established first (Krischner,
Krischner, & Paas, 2006). This review will address the factual declarative knowledge that
teachers must know that collaboration with their colleagues can improve student performance.
This declarative fact is imperative to elicit engagement and participation in the collaborative
model of the district. An example of declarative knowledge is that teachers must know the
campus expectations for collaborative professional behaviors. These types of knowledge
influences will be addressed in following sections.
Another knowledge type is metacognition. Metacognition is attending to one’s thought
processes and garnering control over those processes (Mayer, 2011). As a learner, cognitive
processes, such as memory and recall, can be enhanced by employing certain strategies. The
more attuned a learner is to their thought processes the more effectively a learner can utilize
strategies to achieve optimal cognitive performance on a task (Baker, 2006). An example of
metacognition that teachers must reflect on their level of engagement in the collaborative
professional learning opportunities and decide what they would like to get out of each
opportunity.
Procedural knowledge is the final knowledge type explored in this dissertation. Mayer
(2011) identifies procedural knowledge as an understanding of the step-by-step processes or
procedures in place. In collaborative meetings, procedural knowledge may contribute to the
participant’s self-efficacy (which will be explained later) because there is a predictability and
anticipation about what is expected and how to contribute meaningfully to the collaborative
goals.
Teacher collaboration improves student performance. Teacher collaboration relies on
teacher professionalism in this process. Anrig (2013) described teacher collaboration as the hinge
for a sustainable professional culture. The professional learning community does not revolve
44
around developing a few good lessons, but a culture of collaboration that continuously provide
the adaptive instruction that meets students’ needs. Hinman (2006) found that teachers within
San Clemente High School identified several challenges with engagement in their collaborative
professional communities (PLCs): (1) credibility for PLCs, (2) teacher capacity to implement the
PLC information, and (3) the development of a sustainable PLC culture. A sustainable culture of
collaboration involves teacher support to give the community credibility that students will
benefit from teacher participation in the process.
There is a positive correlation between teacher engagement in collaboration and
enhanced student achievement (Gallimore, Ermeling, Sauders, & Goldenberg, 2009; Goddard,
Goddard, & Tschannen-Moran, 2007). Teachers who possess the declarative, factual knowledge
that collaboration can result in positive academic outcomes for their students may address the
challenge of establishing credibility for the effectiveness of collaboration (Anrig, 2013).
Establishing credibility will support the stakeholder goal for teachers to attend and participate in
regular PLC meetings.
Conceptual transfer to the classroom. Clear objectives about what needs to be
transferred into pedagogical practices is conceptual knowledge that teachers must have at the end
of a PLC. Establishing clear objectives, especially when coupled with the procedural knowledge
of the observable outcomes that are expected, increases transfer into the classroom. Grossman
and Salas (2011) emphasized the importance of coupling the support and training employees
receive with the opportunity to perform the task and receive follow-up feedback. A work
environment that emphasizes training and possesses a climate that encourages transfer of
knowledge into practice will have better success with training (Grossman & Salas, 2011). The
cycle of training and expectation for transfer will address one of Hinman’s (2006) critical
challenges in PLCs of building teacher capacity.
45
Reflection on participation in organizational change. Mohammad (2006) encouraged
teachers to continue developing in professionalism by keeping up with the advances of the field.
Through reflection, teachers can heighten metacognitive awareness of the gap between their
present practice and the most relevant and current advances in their practice. This is important to
note because the profession is constantly advancing, so teachers must make and active choice as
Clark and Estes (2008) would say to persist in the changes within the field and the organization.
Anrig (2013) stated that collaboration within schools must aim at meeting the needs of students
and not aiding in assuaging the needs of the adults. Teachers’ reflective processes on their
participation in organizational change must revolve around assisting student needs and doing
what is best for students. The organizational change process is not instantaneous, but, instead,
takes many years. Therefore, teachers must persist in changing their own cognitive processes in
order to continue evolving with the changing organization (Anrig, 2013). The purpose of this
metacognitive reflection on one’s participation in the change process aims at engaging all staff in
the process. This is crucial element of the stakeholder goal that all teachers are engaged in PLCs.
Table 2 below provides the organizational mission and goal, the stakeholder goal, and
specific knowledge influences and types. An assessment of these knowledge influences is also
identified. Table 2 identifies three knowledge influences that focus on declarative (factual and
conceptual) and metacognitive knowledge. These influences will be used to understand the
specific knowledge teachers need to attend and implement PLC discussions into their daily
classroom practices.
Table 2
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis
Organizational Mission
The mission of district is to develop students to their fullest potential so they may become
responsible, productive citizens in a rapidly changing multicultural society. Inherent within
this mission is the belief that all students will learn.
46

Motivation Influences
Motivation is the personal and relative state one develops that will enable a person to
persist towards a goal or actively choose to start something (Mayer, 2011; Clark & Estes, 2008).
Apart from knowledge and skills about a task, motivation is another factor that may contribute to
and organization’s success or failure. Bandura (2000) emphasized that collective motivation is
important; however, this review will mostly consider individual motivation. Clark and Estes
Organizational Global Goal
By Fall 2017, the campus will develop a systematic and sustainable plan for ongoing
collaborative professional development and implement this plan by developing the culture and
structures it requires within the organization.
Stakeholder Goal
By Spring 2017, 100% of teachers will engage in collaborative practices that develop their
content knowledge and pedagogical delivery of instruction.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
(i.e., declarative
(factual or
conceptual),
procedural, or
metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Teachers need to understand the
expectation for behaviors and
follow-through of collaborative
teacher practices.
Declarative
(conceptual)
In an interview, teachers were
asked what the campus
administrators’ expected teacher
collaboration to look like on their
campus and what collaborative
practices they engaged in
regularly.
Teachers must know that
collaboration can improve student
performance
Declarative (factual) Teachers were asked in a survey
if they believed teacher
collaboration can improve
student performance
Teachers must know the
procedures for effective
collaboration
Procedural In an interview, teachers were
asked to identify the rituals or
step-by-step procedures that they
can expect before, during and
after collaborative meetings.
Teachers must reflect on their
level of engagement in
collaborative professional
development opportunities.
Metacognitive Teachers will be asked in a
survey to rate their level of
engagement in several
collaborative opportunities on a
Likert scale.
47
(2008) specifically define the problems with motivation for individuals in an organization as
persistence in a task, active choice to start something, or lack of mental effort. Eccles (2006)
added to the list of motivational factors perceived cost of doing the task and the value of the task
to the individual. According to Clark and Estes (2008), these motivational components are
critical factors in achieving positive job performance and should be the first consideration in a
gap-analysis of organizational performance. For the purpose of this review, motivation will be
categorized into two theories: self-efficacy and utility value.
Utility Value. When a person assigns value to something, the research on motivation
shows that the question moves from speculating about whether the person is capable of doing
something into the realm of whether the person wants to do it (Eccles, 2006). Therefore, an
employee of a company may be capable of accomplishing a task but may not share in the
importance of accomplishing a task, or value. According to Clark and Estes (2008) framework,
the value placed on a task correlates to active choice, mental effort and persistence in completing
a task. Eccles (2006) divided value theory into attainment and utility value. Attainment value
relates the task at hand to the identity of the individual. The more the task aligns with existing
schema, such as interest, personality, and desired personal image, the more attainment value a
person will place on the task. In essence, attainment value is how much a person can relate to the
task at hand for personal reasons. On the other hand, utility value deals with whether a person
can use the success of accomplishing a task to motivate them towards other accomplishments. If
a task aligns with personal long-term goals, a person would place higher importance on the
accomplishment.
Utility Value in Professional Growth. The value teachers place on the collaborative
process will dictate teacher engagement in the process. There are numerous activities that take
place on a K-12 campus that can conflict with making collaboration a priority, for example
48
special education meetings, parents meetings, committee meetings, grading, and lesson planning.
Collaboration could be a simple matter of compliance with administrator directives where
teachers simply attend and check one more meeting off of their weekly agenda. However,
finding the utility value, as Eccles (2006) describes it, would require the teachers to see how the
collaborative practices are relevant and important to their long-term goals. Williams (2013)
found in a 19 week study of an urban school district that the primary difference between a high
performing school and a low performing school was the amount and quality of teacher
collaboration. The higher performing campus that had more teacher collaboration was more
successful on standardized academic tests (Williams, 2013). While Williams’ (2013) study lends
itself to declarative knowledge that PLCs produce successful pedagogical practices, it also gives
credence to the utility value that collaboration in PLCs can produce success in the long-term goal
of higher levels of student achievement.
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy comes from the landmark research by psychologist Albert
Bandura (Pajares, 2009). Bandura’s research is the cornerstone for motivation because it relies
on the self-perception of individuals that the outcomes of situations will be desirable (Pajares,
2009). Essentially, the belief that something is possible or could happen increases the motivation
for one to actually accomplish the task.
Teacher Self-efficacy. Bandura’s self-efficacy research offers an important framework
for teacher leadership and professional involvement within collaboration. Within the context of
the collaboration, teachers need the self-efficacy that they are a valuable asset to the community.
Effective collaboration hinges on each member’s contributions to the rich learning environment.
Without the self-efficacy that teacher contributions are valuable, motivation for collaboration is
diminished. Szczesiul and Huizenga (2014) described leadership as essential for fostering self-
efficacy in collaboration. Motivation and self-efficacy are socially influenced (Szczesiul &
49
Huizenga, 2014). Therefore, the professional community plays a critical role in promoting self-
efficacy and, reciprocally, self-efficacy promotes greater contribution to the professional
community.
Table 3 below provides the organizational mission and goal, the stakeholder goal, and
specific motivation influences and types. An assessment of these motivation influences is also
identified. Table 3 identifies two motivation influences that focus on utility value and self-
efficacy. These influences will be used to understand the specific motivation issues that teachers
may face in implementing PLC discussions into their daily classroom practices.
Table 3
Motivation Influences, Types, and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis

Organizational Mission
The mission of district is to develop students to their fullest potential so they may become
responsible, productive citizens in a rapidly changing multicultural society. Inherent within this
mission is the belief that all students will learn.

Organizational Global Goal
By Fall 2017, the campus will develop a systematic and sustainable plan for ongoing
collaborative professional development and implement this plan by developing the culture and
structures it requires within the organization.
Stakeholder Goal
By Spring 2017, teachers will engage in collaborative practices that develop their content
knowledge and pedagogical delivery of instruction.
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Utility Value—Teachers need to see the value in
engaging in professional growth through
collaboration with other teachers.
Teachers will be asked in a survey several
questions about their perception of the value
collaborative professional development
opportunities have on instructional delivery
and development of their depth of content
knowledge.
Likert scale survey question: “It is important
for me to work together with my team to
decide on the best instructional practices to
teach my students.” (0-not at all important to
5 extremely important)
Self-efficacy—Teachers need to believe that they
can make a valuable contribution in a
collaborative learning environment
Teachers will be asked in a survey several
questions about their perception of the value
50

Organizational Influences
This literature review will focus on the organizational influences that help of hinder
schools from effectively engaging teachers in collaborative professional learning opportunities.
According to Clark and Estes (2008) there are three influences that may create performance
gaps: a toxic culture, misalignment of the organizations goals and incentives to the performance
goal they are trying to achieve, and the ability of the organizational culture to adapt to change
and the frequency of change. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) note that educators have held a
serious misunderstanding that curriculum and instruction changes would substitute for changing
the entire culture of schools. Researchers have been increasingly studying the impact of culture
on school reform, rather than just educators’ practices. For practical research purposes, the idea
of an organizational culture can be broken down into two components: cultural models and
cultural settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Cultural Models. A cultural model within the organization is a norm that is generally
known and understood by the community that participates in that culture (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). A cultural model is the invisible component of a school culture that subtly
defines what activities occur and who participates in those activities. These invisible norms can
even be transferred from one generation of employees to another as they are transferred from
veteran teachers to novice teachers year after year (Erez & Gati, 2004). Essentially, the rules of
engagement are clearly defined by the acceptable norms and beliefs held by the people within the
organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). These rules of engagement become an essential
they contribute to the collaborative learning
environment.
Likert scale survey question: “I have the
knowledge and skills to make a valuable
contribution to my professional learning
community.” (0-I am not capable of making
a valuable contribution to 5-I am an
invaluable asset to my team. )
51
part of analysis in the study of teacher engagement in collaborative professional learning. The
cultural models within the organization will define whether there is resistance to the initiative or
even something like lacking trust in the team. Schneider, Brief, and Guzzo (1996) identified
culture as the beliefs and values deeply rooted into the essence of the organization. The beliefs
and values are adopted by an organization and passed on year after year, which can be a major
cause of organizational performance gaps. Since the infrastructure of a school campus relies
heavily on the support of the leadership, there will be a brief discussion of the leadership’s
influence on cultural models.
Leadership role. The term shared governance or distributive leadership to describe the
current cultural model that allows for the participation and joint management of a campus
between the administrative team (principal, assistant principals, dean of instruction, etc.) and the
professional staff (teachers, special education team, etc.). An essential ingredient to a
communities of practice model is allowing opportunities to share leadership and decision-making
(Mayer, Woulfin, Warhol, 2015). Therefore, a campus that desires all of the benefits of a
collaborative community must embed collaboration into the culture of the campus (Brouwer,
Brekelmans, Nieuwenhuis, & Simons, 2012). Brouwer, et al’s (2012) research demonstrates that
although the time and space for collaboration exists, the expectations for collaboration may not
be followed with the same intent if it is compulsory and anomalous to the typical functioning of
the school campus.
Apart from setting up the standards and expectations for collaboration, leader’s
participation in the collaboration determines the characteristics of collaboration. In a previous
study, Gates and Robinson (2009) found that leadership participation actually turned the focus of
a collaborative meeting into a meeting where teachers delegated tasks to each other and received
administrators’ directives about how things ought to be carried out. Gates and Robinson’s (2009)
52
research showed that and administrator’s presence actually prevented developing trust and
vulnerability within the team. Again, the research has reinforced the importance of teacher
autonomy in collaboration (Englert, Barley, & McRel, 2008; Gates & Robinson, 2009), but
balances autonomy with clear supervisor expectations. As Clark and Estes (2008) described in
the three main organizational influences of performance problems, this kind of involvement
creates a dependent culture among the employees to rely on administrative directives to perform
their job. Although the administrator may be well-intended, there is a misalignment between the
actual performance goal for teachers to be collaborative and the way the administrators may be
executing their steps to reach this goal.
Cultural Settings. The cultural settings of an organization is how the people within the
organization engage with each other and the structures that are already in place. Gallimore and
Goldenberg (2001) demonstrated how cultural settings influence an organization in their
example of collaborative planning. Although the benefits of collaborative planning may be
known by the constituents, conflicting teacher schedules, campus traditions, and the demands of
special education or parent meetings may take away from creating a setting where teachers can
actually benefit from the time they have to collaborate (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The
following section will provide a discussion about leaders modeling effective behaviors to
demonstrate collaborative practices and show that collaborative learning is a priority for the
campus.
Leadership Modeling. Teachers need leadership guidance about protocols and
expectations of the products that are desired for collaboration (Baer & Bandura, 1963; Brouwer,
Brekelmans, Nieuwenhuis, & Simons, 2012; Gates & Robinson, 2009; Hite, Hite, & Wilcox,
2015; Mayer, Woulfin, Warhol, 2015). Baer and Bandura (1963) explained that social learning
theory relies on a model to demonstrate for novices the way that is the most desirable to
53
accomplish a task. In education, the culture of the school is passed on through the model of
veteran teachers or the model of the leadership. The leadership of a campus can make the
expectations for collaborative professional learning clear by being an example of how to learn
collaboratively. Mayer, Woulfin, and Warhol’s (2015) study showed that their coach was
effective when she modeled exactly the behaviors that were expected, but also stepped back as a
guide when it came to decisions. Whereas, Gates and Robinson (2009) found leaders became
oriented towards issuing directives when they were in collaborative meetings with teachers.
Meetings that are directive oriented will model the behaviors of attending meetings solely to get
the directives for the week or month. However, the goal of collaborative communities is to
navigate individual understandings to collaboratively arrive at the best choices that make the
most sense for the students.
Apart from leadership modeling the behaviors, leaders need to effectively prioritize the
time allocated to teacher collaboration. Many successful organizations prioritize the time for
collaboration as valuable time that cannot be used for other purposes and develop a sacred space
on their campuses for this collaboration (Gajda & Koliba, 2008; Gates & Robinson, 2009).
Leadership has an integral role in preserving the time for collaboration since they are the
gatekeepers in orchestrating other activities like special education meetings and assemblies.
Table 4 below provides the organizational mission and goal, the stakeholder goal and
specific organizational influences. The organizational influences are identified as cultural
settings or cultural models. An assessment of these organizational influences are identified and
classified as cultural settings or cultural models. These influences will be used to understand the
specific organizational issues that teachers may face in developing a collaborative professional
learning culture on their campus.
Table 4
54
Organizational Influences, Types, and Assessments for Organization Gap Analysis

Organizational Mission
The mission of district is to develop students to their fullest potential so they may become
responsible, productive citizens in a rapidly changing multicultural society. Inherent within
this mission is the belief that all students will learn.
Organizational Global Goal
By Fall 2017, the campus will develop a systematic and sustainable plan for ongoing
collaborative professional development and implement this plan by developing the culture
and structures it requires within the organization.

Stakeholder Goal
By Fall 2017, 100% of teachers will engage in collaborative practices that develop their
content knowledge and pedagogical delivery of instruction.
Assumed Organizational Influences

Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1: There is a
general lack of initiative among teachers that
manifests as helplessness. Because teachers
do not see the individual value that each
member of the team brings to the table,
integral elements of collaboration are
replaced with a directive rather than
collaborative meeting style.

Survey or interview questions about
teachers’ abilities to meaningfully
collaborate with their team members and
questions to address teacher self-efficacy to
provide meaningful value to the team.
Cultural Model Influence 2: Teachers are
unclear about the campus administrators’
expectations and vision for their
collaborative teams. Therefore, school-wide
systems for collaborative engagement,
including maintaining and gaining trust
within their teams and proper decorum and
engagement, are replaced with relative norms
that vary by team and may not be effective.
Survey or interview questions, even Likert
scale items, to assess the level of
expectations for students’ level of
achievement. Survey or interview questions
around teachers’ professional ethics.
Cultural Setting Influence 1: Teachers were
overwhelmed by the amount of time given
because there was limited guidance about
protocols and expectations of the products
that were desired.
Survey or interview questions around the
adequacy of guidelines and materials (charts,
organizers, protocols) for facilitating
collaborative meetings.
Cultural Setting Influence 2: Teachers often
encounter conflicts with collaborative
professional development opportunities (i.e.,
no substitutes for full-day opportunities,
special education meetings, etc.)
Survey or interview questions to address the
perceived priority of collaborative
professional development in relation to other
campus activities (special education
meetings, field trips, parent conferences, etc.)
55
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
A conceptual framework, also called a theoretical framework, addresses the theoretical
underpinnings of the research topic as well as the researcher’s beliefs or orientation towards
those theories (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2006). The conceptual framework uses the
empirical literature to establish the foundation and purpose for the research. The researcher’s
experiential knowledge is articulated to highlight the possible limitations of the research and to
explain possible reasons for interpretive results. Essentially, the purpose of the conceptual
framework is to provide the reader with insight into the researcher’s background and experiences
in the field in order to determine why certain questions were asked and why the data were
interpreted in the given manner (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2006).
Each of the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences were presented in the
above table. These influencers will be reviewed to delineate the relationship that the influencers
have towards each other. In this conceptual framework, the reader will understand the way this
researcher views the problem and the influencers’ relationships toward one another.
This dissertation focuses on the professional learning of teachers within a collaborative
campus culture. Albert Bandura’s seminal work in 1962 addressed the importance of social
learning theory (Bandura, 1962) in an educational context. Within Bandura’s social learning
framework, the teacher or expert modeled actions that were imitated by the learner or novice.
Similar to Bandura’s work with children and adults, the same model of mimicry exists within a
K-12 campus when the veteran teachers acculturate novice first year teachers into the community
and culture of the campus. Norms and values, whether spoken or unspoken, quickly are known
and adopted by novice teachers. Later, these same pervasive cultural norms are passed down to
the next generation of novices.
56
Another researcher in the 1970’s wrote prolifically about a concept of andragogy that set
adult learning apart from the adult-child learning relationship that Bandura described. Knowles
(1977) used the term androgogy to describe the distinct approach to teaching adult learners.
Knowles study makes the distinction between those who teach using pedagogy to address child
learner needs and adapts the pedagogy to make androgogy. According to Knowles (1977), those
who teach children rely on a more dependent personality to transfer learning; however, this is a
contrast to those who practice andragogy and desire students to be self-directed and independent
learners. Knowles study is important to demonstrate the distinction between the social learning
variables described by Bandura and the needs of adult learners who may possess more
independent personalities that are provoked by curiosity rather than mimicry.
Although this research is conducted in a K-12 setting, the theoretical foundation borrows
from a concept often used in the business world called Communities of Practice. Wenger’s
Communities in Practice model shifts the focus from facilitating a perfect single meet to
developing a corporate culture of collaboration and learning (Wenger, 2010). Communities of
Practice develop a social system of collaborative learning, support, and accountability. Within
the K-12 arena, the collaboration popular model pioneered by the DuFour’s is called Professional
Learning Communities (DuFour, 2004). Riveros (2012) critiques the popular K-12 model of
collaboration on the merits that it was conceived out of the high accountability era and focuses
strictly on student achievement. The PLC model was designed to guide teachers in data analysis
and improve instruction for the purpose of improving standardized test scores. Riveros (2012)
posits that the model was designed to create a culture of collaborative inquiry, but often falls
short of developing the embodiment of the PLC values in teachers.
Mayer, Woulfin, Warhol (2015) studied a K-12 context that merged the ideals of
communities of practice and professional learning communities to achieve urban school reform.
57
In this study, PLCs were a single meeting with a specific agenda, but the social learning culture
of Wenger’s communities of practice was a shared vision among the school’s stakeholders. No
matter how school leaders navigate the challenge of promoting the principles of collaboration in
a single PLC to become a pervasive school culture, there is value in delving into the
Communities of Practice principles that help many organizations in the business world become
successful at collaboration. Research demonstrates that working in a close knit community
engages employees in greater loyalty to the organization (Hjerto, Paulsen, Tihverainen, 2014)
and reforms school practices (Mayer, Woulfin & Warhol, 2015; Levine & Marcus, 2007).
Research shows that leaders have an indirect relationship to student achievement
(Gumus, Bulut, Bellibas, 2013), but a direct relationship towards the school environment
(McRel, 2005) and collaborative teacher behaviors (Miller, Goddard, Goddard, Larsen, & Jacob,
2010). One way that the leader has a profound impact on teacher collaboration is by providing a
clear vision and expectations for teacher collaboration (Crow, 2015; Ketterlin-Geller, Baumer,
Lichon,2015). Clarity of vision and providing norms for collaborative behaviors allows the team
to use the time more effectively (Ketterlin-Geller, Baumer, Lichon, 2015). Leaders who are
unclear about the expectations of collaborative behaviors hinder collaborative efforts because the
teachers lack prerequisite knowledge to appropriately utilize the time provided to them for the
explicit purpose of collaboration. Without this critical knowledge of expectations for
collaboration, teachers will interpret the directives as they see fit. This provides teachers with
autonomy, but too much autonomy may not amount to accomplishing the collective goals of the
organization.
Figure 1 shows the connection between the organization, stakeholder, and the stakeholder
goal. The teacher stakeholders in this dissertation are situated in the context of the organization
as a whole. Therefore, those key knowledge and motivation influences of the stakeholder are
58
directly related to the organization accomplishing the broader goals of providing the structure
and culture conducive to collaborative learning.
The goal for the teacher stakeholder is for teachers to engage in collaborative practices
that develop their content knowledge and pedagogical delivery of instruction by December 2017.
Integral to this stakeholder goal is the organization, including district and campus leaders,
providing the structure to allow for time and space for teachers to collaborate. Also, the
expectations for collaborative behaviors are essentially established by the leadership. As the
popular K-12 PLC model shows, teachers need the expectations and time to collaborate.
However, the communities of practice model demonstrates that adult learners need a culture that
promotes collaboration but allows adult learners to develop self-directed goals for collaborative
professional learning. The conceptual framework model in Figure A shows the relationship
between the stakeholders’ knowledge and motivation influences and the organization’s
knowledge and motivation influences. The knowledge and motivation influencers of these two
stakeholders contribute to helping or hindering the accomplishment of the stakeholder goal.
The leaders within the organization and stakeholders each have knowledge influencers that will
determine what the constituents in the organization need to know in order to achieve the goal.
There are also motivation influences that determine what gets constituents to utilize the
knowledge and skills they possess and persist when organizational barriers may present
challenges (Clark & Estes, 2008). Since motivation is what gets the constituents moving towards
the goal, this research will analyze the interaction between the organization and the stakeholder
first.
Teachers need to see that there is a usefulness to collaboration (Ahmed, Shahzad, Aslam,
Bajwa, & Bahoo, 2016; Levine & Marcus, 2007, Riveros, 2012). This utility value may transpire
after experiencing success with collaboration and student achievement. However, there are
59
numerous studies that indicate a correlation between student achievement and teacher
collaboration (DuFour, 2004; Riveros, 2012). This motivating factor that teachers will be more
successful with students if they collaborate correlates with a similar motivating influence that
teachers have something valuable to contribute to the collaborative experience (Levine &
Marcus, 2007; Arnell, 2014). The stakeholder derives these motivations from the successful
structures to allow for teachers to be successful in collaboration. By leaders modeling
collaborative behaviors, teachers gain knowledge about the expectations for collaboration as
Baer and Bandura (1963) suggest in social learning theory; however, teachers also gain a
confidence in collaboration by seeing a model of what it should look like rather than
approximating the behavior without a model.
Leadership modeling promotes collaborative professional learning because key
knowledge that teachers need is that the expectation for collaboration that is clearly defined.
Apart from modeling, leaders can communicate a vision for communities of practice very clearly
and provide leadership for their teams to accomplish their goals of promoting an environment
conducive to collaborative professional learning.

60

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework Model

Organization
Knowledge: understanding of clear expectations
Motivation: Value teachers have of their ability to
contribute
Organization: leadership guidance and modeling
of collaborative expectations; systems in place to
preserve and prioritize collaborative time
Stakeholder
Knowledge: understanding
importance of collaboration;
understanding of expectations;
Motivation: engagement in
collaboration utility value for
collaborative professional growth;
self-efficacy about making
valuable contributions
Stakeholder Goal
By Spring 2017, teachers will
engage in collaborative practices
that develop their content
knowledge and pedagogical
delivery of instruction.
61
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Professional collaboration between teachers is essential to develop a culture of
collaboration on the campus. Successful organizations are learning organizations, which requires
the human capital in the organization to engage in collaborative professional learning to
capitalize on the strengths of the entire team. The purpose of this study is to explore the
effectiveness of collaborative professional development on a middle school campus. The
following questions will guide the overall project:
1. To what extent is Leaping Forward Middle School meeting its goal of 100% of teachers
engaging in collaborative professional learning?
2. What are teachers’ knowledge and motivational influences that relate to the organization
meeting its goal?
The project questions will be used as part of the discussion in presentation of the findings. The
research questions that will guide the data collection and analysis are:
1. 1.What are the teachers’ perspectives about the organizational influences that relate to the
organization meeting its goal?
2. What is the interaction between the culture of the organization and teachers’ knowledge
and motivation?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
In the remainder of the chapter, the researcher will describe the selection of participating
stakeholders in the research, the research methodology and instrumentation for gathering the
data, the credibility and trustworthiness of the qualitative portion of the research design, and the
validity and reliability of the quantitative portion of the design.

62
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population of focus for this study is teachers on a fifth through eighth
grade middle school campus. On this campus, a teacher participant may be a full-time teacher
who teaches at least one class of students. This sample population will be inclusive of all content
areas and departments, including special education teachers who co-teach or provide push-in
student support in one or more classes.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. There is a subset of staff who hold a type of seasonal employment on the
campus and teach several small groups of students. They will not be considered part of the
participating sample. Therefore, a criterion is that the survey will be administered to staff on a
full-year contract part-time or full-time. The only exclusion is teachers on this seasonal contract.
The rationale for this criteria is that short-term, sporadic periods of employment my hinder group
identification and therefore the collaborative experience may be different for those who are not
employed all year. Ahmed, Shahzad, Aslam, Bajwa, and Bahoo (2016) describe the necessity of
developing teamwork and trust within a collaborative team, which cannot be easily established in
short term situations. Staff hired for short-term employment are typically hired as master
teachers on an hourly pay. The organization typically does not invest additional time and
resources into educating and including them in staff learning opportunities. Therefore, seasonal
staff and staff on short-term contracts will not be included.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The researcher surveyed 22 of the 37 eligible staff on the fifth through eighth grade
campus. This provided a 59% confidence that the data represents the stakeholders in the
organization.
63
The researcher has an affiliation with the district and campus leadership. The district and
campus leadership assisted in recruitment of participants in the survey by giving the researcher
district email addresses of full-time teachers at Leaping Forward Middle School. The email
addresses were used to send out electronic surveys. The participants received an email with an
introduction to the researcher and explanation of the research. The participants were also
informed that they had the chance to enter their name into a drawing for a gift card at the
completion of the survey. In first drawing, which occurred within one week of the email
distribution of the surveys, the winner will receive a $50 gift card. After the first drawing,
participants were emailed again with the link and offered the incentive that upon completion of
the survey they could enter their names into a drawing for a $10 gift card.
Using the explanatory sequential research model, the survey was administered at the
beginning of the data collection process. Creswell (2014) describes this model as starting with
quantitative data collection and then moving towards qualitative data collection to explain the
results of the survey data. Survey data was analyzed prior to moving into the qualitative data
collection method to ensure the information in the survey is explained by the participants in the
interview protocol.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. In the past year there has been significant staff turnover on the middle
school campus. Staff members chosen for an interview were members of the organization since
the beginning of the year. This ensured that staff chosen for the interview did not have a partial
experience of the collaborative learning model that the campus is trying to achieve. Gajda and
Koliba (2008) define the responsibility of campus administration to include developing literacy
about the collaborative initiative so that all staff understand the process and norms. However, as
groups grow and evolve with new participants, group norms must be learned in a type of new
64
teacher orientation. New employees to the campus are unfamiliar with group norms, which may
affect their perception of the collaborative professional learning model utilized by the campus.
However, those who have experienced the entire model can speak to the process of new member
orientation as a challenge or benefit of the system if it is indeed a significant factor in achieving
the organizational performance goal. In order to seek out what the organization is doing as a
whole to orient new members and ease the transition to group culture, the researcher interviewed
participants who were familiar with the collaborative professional development model to
eliminate outliers and ensure each participant in the sample had familiarity with the present
culture and model of collaboration.
Criterion 2. Many teachers on the staff have zero to three years of experience in the
classroom. The teacher with the most experience has 20 years of experience. The staff as a whole
is generally comprised of new teachers. Some staff interviewed were new teachers, having less
than three years of experience, but it was important to interview at least one teacher with more
than three years of experience.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The interview sample was purposefully determined using campus-provided demographic
information (i.e., years of teaching experience, education and certification background, and
longevity in the position). Seven interviews were conducted, which included participants in the
sample that represented different grade levels and different departments. There was at least one
representative from each grade-level (grades 5-8) and one representative from each department
(math, science, social studies, and English). All interviews were conducted with participants who
have experienced the collaborative professional development model since the beginning of the
year.
65
After filtering the participants through the matrix, the teachers will be chosen randomly
for the interviews. An email was sent to the teachers chosen to invite them to the interview and
request a convenient time to speak to them. Again, the email introduced the researcher and gave
an overview of the study. The participants were not given any monetary compensation. If the
chosen participant declined the invitation, then another participant was selected randomly.
Document Analysis Strategy and Rationale
Document analysis was used by collecting meeting agendas and/or meeting minutes from
school administrators (principals, assistant principals, and instructional specialists), grade-level
team leaders and department heads. The agendas provided information about topics discussed
and frequency of meetings. To ascertain the agendas and/or meeting minutes for meetings, the
researcher will email the constituents involved in facilitating meetings to email documents
directly.
Explanation for Choices
The choices for sampling and recruitment were determined by following the explanatory
sequential model given by Creswell (2016). The qualitative data was gathered using a survey
method. A survey was chosen for the qualitative method rather than observation because issues
with knowledge, motivation, and organizational structures may not be directly observed in a
professional setting. Also, collaborative professional development occurs both formally and
informally in structured and unstructured settings (Wenger, 2010). A simple observation may not
be sufficient to grasp the totality of collaborative learning, especially in informal settings.
The interview method was chosen to explain the data from the survey. Fink (2013)
explains that surveys need to be designed to answer the research question. The first research
question around knowledge, motivation and organizational influences is easy to answer using
surveys. However, it is difficult to answer the second research question around how members
66
understand norms using a survey alone. A simple likert scale response to how well staff
understands the expectations of the administrative team will not reveal how or why they do or do
not understand the expectations of a collaborative professional environment.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
For the purpose of data collection in this study, the researcher used an explanatory
sequential research design as described by Creswell (2014). This design begins with a
quantitative method for data collection. The instrumentation for this first phase of data collection
was in the form of closed-ended survey questions. Close-ended, multiple choice survey questions
are an efficient and reliable method for data collection because of the uniformity in how the
question is asked to each participant and the ease in using and scoring the data (Fink, 2013).
Surveys provide quantitative, numeric results to describe trends in participant responses about
their attitudes or opinions on the topic of study (Creswell, 2014). The first research question
explores the knowledge and skills, motivation, and resources available for collaborative
professional learning. The survey method allows the researcher to gather self-reported
information about the participants’ perceptions of their knowledge about expectations for
collaboration and skills in facilitating and participating in collaboration. The survey gathered
data about attitudes and motivations that can later be explored in the interviews. The survey
provided a means to quantify the amount of time given to collaboration and the teachers’
perceived beliefs about the appropriateness of these accommodations.
The second phase of the explanatory sequential data collection design is the qualitative
component. For the purpose of this study, the researcher used interviews for the qualitative
section of the research. The conversation and relationship between the interviewee and
interviewer allowed the researcher to gather information that explains the results of the survey.
Weiss (1994) describes the relationship between the interviewer and interviewee as a
67
collaboration between the two parties to answer questions about a defined research topic. This
means that the researcher asked questions directed toward answering the research questions, not
just probe the participant to satisfy the researcher’s curiosities. Patton (2015) outlines six types
of questions that are appropriate for an interview (1) experience and behavior questions, (2)
opinion and values questions, (3) feeling questions, (4) knowledge questions, (5) sensory
questions, and (6) background/demographic questions. Patton’s six types of questions were the
focus of the interview protocol questions. The primary purpose of interviewing in this study was
to explain the data gathered in the survey, so the survey probes may be used to derive specific
explanations for trends seen in the survey. Since the interviews are intended to explain data from
the survey, the interview probes were determined by how the participant answered the initial
questions. The benefit of interviews is that the researcher could make adjustments throughout the
interview to get targeted answers that provide valuable information about the research questions
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) further explain that interview probes can
utilize the participants’ answers to determine the path of the conversation so that the participant
will provide clarity, details, or examples that will help answer the research questions more
thoroughly. This flexibility in interviewing allows for individualization of the interview, which
will result in seeing more clearly the participant’s perspective in greater detail (Patton, 2015).
Weiss (1994) states that one of the seven reasons to choose the interview method is to
identify variables and frame hypotheses for quantitative research, which is one of the primary
reasons for the qualitative component of the research design in this dissertation. Interviews
explained the variations in the survey data that may have come from variables that were not
identified at the outset of the study. The interviews also allowed the researcher to triangulate the
data from the surveys to confirm and explain the trends identified in the analysis of survey data.
The survey method gathered self-reported data about teachers’ knowledge of expectations for
68
collaboration and skills in facilitating and participating in collaborative opportunities; however,
the interview process explores the participants’ knowledge and skills in greater depth. A
participant may easily rate themselves as an expert in a particular area on a self-report survey
question, but the interview explores how the participant can demonstrate expert knowledge and
skills in a more detailed conversation and by using examples or scenarios. The interview
conversation presents the opportunity for dialogue with the participant that explained the trends
in the likert-scale ratings.
The interviews also specifically gathered data about the vision for collaboration. Fink
(2013) emphasizes the importance for definition of terms that the participants may misconstrue
or that have multiple meanings. The term “vision” can be one of those terms that has multiple
meanings because the participant has constructed meaning using the his or her background
experiences. When the researcher asks questions about vision, it is important to provide pertinent
definitions in order to frame the questions to get relevant answers that will answer the research
questions. The language used by the participant to discuss their vision for collaboration can
reveal whether the vision is derived from the individual or from the organizations expectations.
Interviewing gives the researcher the opportunity to probe participants for clarity in their
responses around a topic that can be misconstrued or misinterpreted in a survey question.
Surveys
Surveys were provided to all full-time teaching staff. While census is desired, a
representative sample of 22 of the 37 eligible teachers was gathered. Since all 37 teachers on the
campus are given the survey, the data represented a random sample.
The survey questions addressed parts of each research questions that were followed up
with interview questions later. Demographic data was collected at the beginning of the survey to
help the researcher draw conclusions about participants’ length of time in the organizational
69
culture and length of time in the profession. Following the demographic questions, several
ordinal questions were asked using a likert-scale response to gather data about teachers’
knowledge, motivation and perception of organizational influences on developing a collaborative
professional learning culture. The questions specifically addressed formal meetings as PLCs and
staff meetings and informal meetings as grade-level meetings and informal interactions with
colleagues on a professional and personal level. The first section of likert-scale questions acquire
information about knowledge of PLC expectations and motivation for participating in PLCs. The
likert-scale questions are broken up by a ratio question that determines how often collaborative
opportunities are missed due to organizational barriers (I have been unable to attend or late to a
staff meeting, PLC, or grade-level meeting _____ times because of work-related scheduling
conflicts). Appendix A shows the survey instrument used for this study.
Interviews
Weiss (1994) explains that it is almost always preferred to interview participants more
than one time if time allows; however, due to the dissertation timeline and the time it takes to
conduct two types of data collection methods (surveys and interviews), it was not feasible to
conduct multiple interviews with each interviewee. Therefore, interview participants were only
interviewed once in an informal setting that was comfortable for the researcher and participant.
Considering that the context of the research is in the researcher’s workplace, participants may be
comfortable with the convenience of interviewing before or after work. However, interviews
may be conducted in another informal setting, such as at their homes or other mutually agreed
upon location.
The interview protocol was semi-structured to gather the most detailed information about
the varying experiences of collaborative learning by each participant. The interview protocol was
guided by a list of interview questions and have a particular suggested order to asking the
70
question; however, the researcher had the flexibility to rearrange the order and wording of the
questions in order to allow the researcher to respond to the worldview that emerges throughout
the conversation with the participant (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This ensured that the
respondents’ answers will contain similar content, but allowed for the respondent to speak freely
enough for the researcher to collect information about their opinion (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
Open-ended questions were used to allow the respondents the opportunity to provide their insight
about what they believe to be true of their experiences about the topic (Fink, 2013). The semi-
structured interview protocol gave the participant the opportunity to express their perspective,
but kept the interviews focused on getting only the information that answered the research
questions.
Appendix B shows the interview protocol that will be used for the interviews. These
questions were asked to seven participants. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggest that interview
questions should use language that is familiar to the interviewee, so the researcher will ask about
what collaboration looks like on campus by using the word “interaction” rather than
collaboration. This approach avoided buzz words and jargon that may have misled participants
to give an answer they think they should have given rather than an answer that reflects their
perspective. The interview questions sought to gather information about how leaders in the
school facilitate the collaborative learning community by asking questions regarding leader
expectations and individual participation in the collaborative conversation. Information about
knowledge and motivation were asked by discussing how much of the learning in formal settings
is transferred and about their positive or negative experiences with professional development in
general. Each of the questions sought to discover the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that affect the time, quality, and effectiveness of collaboration on the school campus.

71
Data Analysis
The conceptual framework will be utilized throughout the data analysis to identify the
significant information to identify in the surveys and to draw out the themes in the interview
coding. The connections that will be made throughout the data analysis will be related to the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that were presented as the foundational
platform for this dissertation study. Frequencies of the likert-scale responses were calculated.
The percentage of stakeholders who strongly agreed or agreed were presented in relation to those
who strongly disagreed or disagreed. For ratio questions, means and standards deviation will be
presented to identify average levels of responses.
Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted once all survey results were submitted. For
interviews, data analysis began during data collection. The researcher wrote analytic memos after
each interview. The researcher documented her thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions about
the data in relation to my conceptual framework and research questions. Once the researcher left
the field, interviews were transcribed and coded. In the first phase of analysis, the researcher
used open coding, looking for empirical codes and applying a priori codes from the conceptual
framework. A second phase of analysis was conducted where empirical and a prior codes are
aggregated into analytic/axial codes. In the third phase of data analysis, the researcher identified
pattern codes and themes that emerged in relation to the conceptual framework and study
questions. The researcher analyzed documents and artifacts for evidence consistent with the
concepts in the conceptual framework.
Credibility and Trustworthiness

Internal validity is the extent to which the data speak to the reality that exists among the
participants in the research site and the researcher’s ability to most accurately measure and
interpret this reality (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interviews captured the reality of the
72
participants by using the open-ended, semi-structured method of interviewing, which allows the
participant to more freely express their perspective. The benefit of this data collection method is
that it limits the involvement and participation of the researcher; however, this method relies
solely on the participants’ self-reported answers to the interview questions. Although self-report
may be unreliable, the researcher used member checking for the interview to increase the clarity
and accuracy of their intended responses to the questions. The member checking process for this
research first allowed interviewees to check that the transcripts of their interviews accurately
reflected their perspectives. After reading the transcripts, the participants were given an
opportunity to clarify their responses.
Triangulation will be used to increase the validity and credibility of the data collection
methods (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher did not achieve saturation of the field with
only seven interviews; however, if participants provide similar examples or details in their
answers the researcher can show limited triangulation of the data gathered in the interviews. By
using a semi-structured interview method, the researcher was more likely to gather data around
similar topics with similar information. The interview data was intended to triangulate the
findings in the surveys because the interviews specifically probed for clarity and definition of the
survey findings.
Validity and Reliability
Salkind (2017) defines reliability as the degree to which a data gathering tool consistently
measures something. Participants responded to questions about similar constructs in a few
different questions throughout the survey instrument. For example, as the researcher evaluates
whether the respondent believes that they are able to make valuable contributions to the
conversation, the researcher asks a question in two different ways:
• “I believe my voice is heard by grade-level meeting facilitators.”
73
• “In my PLC, one person dominates the conversation.”
The two questions can collect data about the respondents perceived participation and value in the
conversation by responding to a question about whether they feel heard and whether they feel
like only one person is heard in the conversation. Presumably, a person who responds high on the
likert-scale that they believe their voice is heard will also respond low on the second question
about whether only one person dominates the conversation. The instrument becomes more
reliable because there is internal consistency.
Validity is when the instrument measures what it intends to measure. Content validity, as
described by Salkind (2017), was checked by piloting the survey with a group of participants,
who did not take the survey for actual data collection purposes, prior to administering the survey.
Cognitive interviews (Irwin & Stafford, 2016) were utilized with two of those who participated
in the pilot survey. Soliciting feedback in this step allowed stakeholders within the field to make
additions or deletions to the survey to clarify content. Additionally, cognitive interviewing
allowed the researcher to see that the questions were communicated in the survey in a way that
allows the respondent to understand and respond to the particular construct that the researcher
wanted to measure.
Ethics
This researcher used a mixed methods research design to gather data quantitative and
qualitative data. Quantitative data was gathered through a survey instrument, and qualitative data
allowed participants the opportunity to provide insights and explanations for results of the
survey. Although the quantitative (survey) data collection component of the research provided
insight into the follow-up questions in the qualitative (interview) component, important ethical
decisions were considered prior to the commencement of the research. In order to ensure an
ethically sound plan was in place to protect the safety and well-being of the participants, the
74
researcher submitted the dissertation study to the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB).
Informed consent is necessary to ensure that participants are aware that participation is
voluntary and that each participant may withdraw at any time during the survey or interview
without penalty (Glesne, 2011). Participants in the survey received a written informed consent
form at the beginning of the survey; whereas the researcher obtained verbal informed consent of
the participants at the beginning of the interview. Teachers were asked about their perceptions of
campus leaders’ roles and participation in collaborative professional learning, which is intended
to collect evaluative data and provide feedback about areas identified in the research that
promote and impede a collaborative culture on the campus. Due to my participants’ position
under the evaluative authority of the campus leaders, confidentiality of their responses and
participation in the study was extremely important. The researcher respected the participants’
wishes to withdraw from the study at any time if they do not feel comfortable or wish to continue
or their desire to decline to answer a question that they did not feel comfortable answering. All
survey participant data was secured in a password protected database that did not contain
participants’ names.
Prior to the interviews, the researcher got permission to record the interviews from the
participants. The interview recordings remained on password protected devices and were
transcribed on a password protected computer. Each participant received a transcript of his or her
interview to allow them the opportunity to ensure the researcher had not modified the
participant’s words and that the researcher had captured their thoughts accurately. Participation
in the survey and interview was completely voluntary. Participants were not monetarily
compensated; however, in an attempt to improve the response rate, survey participants will be
75
told that they may choose to enter their name into a raffle for a $50 gift card for participation in
the surveys.
Limitations and Delimitations
While all aspects of the study had been carefully considered, there are still limitations
that cannot be controlled in a real-world environment. Surveys and interviews both rely on self-
reported data from the participants/respondents. The researcher gathered data that is dependent
on the respondents’ truthfulness. There can also be situations where the perception of the
participants/respondents may not match their actions in a real-world situation. This is not a
matter of the participants/respondents not being truthful but them not being as self-aware of their
actual responses in the situations.
76
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to explore the effectiveness of collaborative professional
development on a middle school campus. The researcher sought to determine the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that impact Leaping Forward Middle School’s
stakeholder goal. When the study began, the stakeholder goal was that by December 2017, 100%
of the teaching staff will be engaging in collaborative practices that develop their content
knowledge and pedagogical delivery of instruction. Collaborative practices include the following
teacher behaviors and campus structures:
1. Allocating time within the day for teachers to attend Professional Learning Communities
(PLCs)
1. Teachers understanding the campus structure and expected outcomes of PLCs
2. Informal professional discussion among colleagues to improve classroom
experiences (i.e., conversations about classroom management and instructional
delivery)
3. Campus leadership giving constructive input and feedback about instruction
4. Teacher input into collaborative meeting agendas
The following questions guided the overall project:
1. To what extent is Leaping Forward Middle School meeting its goal of 100% of
teachers engaging in collaborative professional learning?
2. What are teachers’ knowledge and motivational influences that relate to the
organization meeting its goal?
The project questions will be used as part of the discussion in presentation of the findings. The
research questions that guided the data collection and analysis are below:
77
1. What are the teachers’ perspectives about the organizational influences that relate to the
organization meeting its goal?
2. What is the interaction between the culture of the organization and teachers’ knowledge
and motivation?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Data collection for this dissertation occurred in two phases using the explanatory-sequential
data collection model. First, thirty-seven full-time teachers were given the opportunity to respond
to a survey. The survey yielded a 62% response rate with twenty-two of the thirty-seven teachers
responding. After analyzing the survey data, seven interviews were conducted to probe deeper
into the trends of the survey data.
Participating Stakeholders
Survey Participants
In the survey portion of the data collection, all full-time teachers at Leaping Forward
Middle School (LFMS) were asked to respond to the survey. The only stipulation to participation
was that the teachers must have begun the 2017-2018 school year at Leaping Forward Middle
School and still maintain their full-time employment at the time of the study. The range of
teaching experience of the survey participants spanned from zero to 13+ years. Only two
participants (9%) had 0-1 year of experience in education. Over a fourth of the participants
(27%) have 8-12 years of experience. Table 5 shows the distribution of teaching experience of
the survey participants.
Table 5
Years of Teaching Experience
Years of Experience Number of Respondents Percent of Respondents
78
0-1 2 9%
2-4 5 23%
5-7 5 23%
8-12 6 27%
13+ 4 18%

While the years of experience of the survey respondents varied, the number of years each
teacher has been affiliated with the school is limited. The school joined the district organization
in 2016 with almost an entirely new staff; however, a few staff members remained employed at
the school when the campus joined a new district. Two of the survey respondents indicated that
they were a teacher at the school prior to the annexation. Seven respondents (32%) said they had
zero years of experience, meaning that they were brand new to the district. Five respondents
(23%) had one year of experience at the current campus. The largest percentage of participants
(36%) in the survey had been at the campus for both years; this was a total of eight respondents.
The survey respondents represented five different subjects on campus: nine respondents from
English Language Arts (40%), five respondents from Math (23%), four respondents from
Science (18%), two respondents from Social Studies (9%), and two respondents from Special
Education (9%). Table 6 shows the number and percentage of survey respondents who taught in
a particular content area.
Table 6
Content Area Taught at the Campus
Content Area Number of Respondents Percent of Respondents
English Language Arts 9 40%
Math 5 23%
79
Science 4 18%
Social Studies 2 9%
Special Education 2 9%

Interview Participants
The interview participants were selected through a matrix to vary the representation of
the subject taught, years of experience in education, and length of time affiliated with LFMS
campus. The teachers’ experience in education spanned from first year teachers to teachers with
20 years of experience: 2 first year teachers, 2 teachers with 1 year of experience, 1 with five
years of experience, 2 teachers with 13 or more years of experience. All the teachers interviewed
have only been affiliated with the school since the annexation. Four of the seven interviewees
have been affiliated with the school since the annexation and three of the seven interviewees are
in their first year of teaching in this organization. The subjects that the teachers taught was
distributed evenly among four of the five subjects: two Math teachers, two Science teachers, two
English Language Arts teachers, one Social Studies teacher. Table 7 below represents the
background information for each participant in the interview.
Table 7
Interview Participant Background Information
Pseudonym S1 ELA1 ELA2 SS1 M1 M2 M3
Experience
Teaching
8 years 1 year 20 years 2 years 1 year
18
years
2 years
Time
Affiliated
with
Campus
6
months
6
months
2 years
18
months
6 months 2 years 2 years
Subject
Taught Science
English
Languag
e Arts
English
Language
Arts
Social
Studies
Math Math Math

80
Results and Findings
The following section will present the results of the quantitative data and the findings in
the qualitative data. The results and findings are organized by knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influence that were addressed in the surveys and interviews. This study followed
an explanatory sequential research model, so the quantitative survey data is presented first and
then the qualitative survey data is presented to expound upon the findings and explain possible
reasons why participants responded in a particular way to the initial survey.
Knowledge Results and Findings
In the conceptual framework, there are two branches of declarative knowledge that
teachers must understand about collaborative professional learning. The first is teacher
understanding that collaboration is important (DuFour, 2004; Riveros, 2012) and the second is
understanding the expectations for collaboration (Ketterlin-Geller, Baumer, & Lichon, 2015).
Due to the limitations of survey responses, the first branch regarding the understanding of the
importance of collaboration was explored more in the interviews, rather than the survey
instrument. This information is also reported in the motivation section because of the connection
between knowing that it is important and valuing collaboration. There were parallels between the
survey questions that were administered and the interview questions because the interview
questions were striving to explain the results of the survey data. In the following section, the
results of the survey questions that address the knowledge influences are presented and the
findings of the interview data are used to explore possible explanations for the participants’
responses to the knowledge influences.
There were six likert-scale survey questions that specifically addressed teachers’
knowledge influences. The likert-scale questions were given to gauge the degree of teachers’
confidence for each question. These survey questions were divided into three primary themes.
81
First, the survey asked whether administrators expectations for collaborating with their
colleagues was known; whereas, the surveys probed what was known about administrators’
expectations and how it was communicated. The second theme explored in the survey was
whether teachers had knowledge of the outcomes of collaborative meetings. The interviews
probed more deeply into what teachers believed were the expected outcomes for formal and
informal collaboration. Third, a major theme that arose in the interviews was the varying
understanding of the norms that teachers adhered to during their formal and informal
collaborative meetings.
Understanding campus administrators’ expectations for collaboration. The first
question on the survey broadly stated “I know that I am expected to collaborate with colleagues.”
This question had the strongest confidence rating of the entire survey. All 22 teachers either
strongly agreed (82%) or agreed (18%) with this statement. None of the teachers responded with
disagree or strongly disagree. Table 8 shows the responses to this survey question.
Table 8
Survey Responses for Expectations to Collaborate
Survey Item
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
I know that I am expected to
collaborate with colleagues.
82% 18% 0% 0%

In the interviews three of the seven participants spoke directly to the campus
administrators’ expectations for collaborating with colleagues. When interview participant M1
was asked about the expectations for interacting with colleagues on campus she stated, “It’s
pushed a lot here. Our assistant principal is always saying ‘get with your co-teacher and see what
works for her and collaborate so that we can be on the same page.’” However, when interview
participant M3 was asked about whether his campus administrators gave expectations for
82
collaboration, he stated, “You know, I know that they went over all of that stuff in the beginning
of the year and we had that stuff in a binder, but after the hurricane, I have no idea what
happened to that binder. Some of it was given electronically though, but you know they give us
everything. I just honestly couldn’t tell you where most of it is right now.” For this teacher,
expectations were given formally and explicitly for collaboration in a binder. Unlike the
understanding of M1, the expectations are not revisited and the participant could not locate the
information.
Interview participant M2 gave a little more clarity to the dissonance between the
responses of M1 and M3. When participant M2 was asked if campus administrators had
explicitly given expectations for collaboration, she provided the following response,
They have [given expectations] but I feel like it could go deeper. […]
Essentially [they just told us] that we have to meet in PLCs. That’s it.
The interview participant later went on to explain that meetings were “calendarized” at the
beginning of the year. She describes the preliminary beginning of the year overview of PLCs as a
list of dates, times and locations that PLCs would occur and who would be facilitating. This
interview participant explains that administrators gave the directive to attend PLC, but what
would be discussed and norms to regulate discussions were not addressed by the campus
administrators. It is a known campus expectation for teachers to collaborate with their colleagues
at a certain time and place each week. This confirms what the survey data showed that
collaboration with colleagues is a priority to teachers. However, some participants in the
interviews discussed that what occurs during those meetings and how teachers are expected to
engage with one another during those meetings seems to be less explicit and perhaps not
addressed at all with the clarity that they would like. The lack of communication about the
expectations for how to interact may explain why teachers, when asked about expectations of
83
collaboration within different contexts (i.e., PLCs, staff meetings, and team meetings), the
confidence rating on the likert-scale showed less confidence in their knowledge rating than the
previous questions that simply asked whether collaboration was a campus expectation.
Understanding the expected outcomes of formal and informal meetings. Teachers
were asked a series of two questions sequentially to address their level of understanding of the
expectations within different contexts. The questions were stated in the following manner:
1. I know the expectations for PLCs.
2. I know the expectations for grade-level meetings
When comparing the respondents’ knowledge of both grade-level meetings and PLC meetings,
most responses for these two questions were consistently answered across both questions.
Eighty-six percent of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that they know the
expectations for both PLCs and grade-level meetings. However, there were nine participants
(41%) who strongly agreed and ten participants (46%) who said they agreed that they understood
the expectations of PLCs; whereas, there was one participant who had more confidence in
understanding grade-level meetings because ten participants (46%) strongly agreed and nine
participants (41%) agreed that they understood the expectations of grade-level meetings.
Although there are some inconsistencies in teachers’ opinions about understanding the
expectations of PLCs and grade-level meetings, there was even more of a discrepancy in
teachers’ understanding of the outcomes of the time given for collaboration, the outcomes
expected in PLCs for both administrators and their colleagues, and the outcomes expected in
grade-level meetings for both groups.
Three questions were given in the survey to address the outcomes of collaboration. The
first question of this series was broadly stated “I know what outcomes are expected when time
for collaboration is given during my work day.” When the question was broadly stated early on
84
in the survey (question 5), the respondents overwhelmingly (91%) either strongly agreed (50%)
or agreed (41%) that they understood the outcomes for time was given to collaborate. The second
and third questions to explore the participants understanding of the outcomes of collaboration
were specific to the roles and outcomes of particular meetings. The second question stated,
“Certain outcomes are expected by colleagues and administrators after PLCs.” This question
targets a more formal collaborative meeting. The third question stated, “Certain outcomes are
expected by colleagues and administrators after grade-level meetings.” This question targets the
informal collaborative meetings.
When the questions were stated specific to the context of either PLC or grade-level
meetings the confidence declined. Ten respondents (45%) gave a consistent response across all
three questions. Five respondents (23%) showed a decline in confidence when the questions were
stated to be context specific; however, their responses in both contexts (PLCs and grade-level
meetings) were the same. Three respondents (14%) showed a decline in confidence about
outcomes expected for different roles in just grade-level meeting. Of the three respondents two
of them were new to the school this year. One respondent (5%) showed a decline in confidence
about outcomes expected for different roles in just PLC meetings. Table 9 shows how the survey
respondents answered questions related to their understanding of the outcomes of collaborative
meetings.
Table 9
Survey Responses for Outcomes of Collaborative Meetings
Survey Item
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
I know the expectations for PLCs.
41% 46% 14% 0%
I know the expectations for grade-level
meetings.
46% 41% 14% 0%
85
I know what outcomes are expected
when time for collaboration is given
during my work day.
50% 41% 18% 0%
Certain outcomes are expected by
colleagues and administrators after
PLCs.
32% 50% 14% 5%
Certain outcomes are expected by
colleagues and administrators after
grade-level meetings.
23% 59% 14% 5%

Grade-level team meetings. In the interview data, there was greater consistency in the
participants’ responses to the purpose of a grade-level meeting. There is a census that the
purpose of grade-level meetings is to discuss student concerns (i.e., academic progress,
discipline, parent communication). Interview participant ELA2 stated,
“We really don’t do that very often, but when we do our main goal is to discuss a parent,
a child or grades. We have parent teacher meetings. We haven’t had that many this year
though. The meetings are called for a purpose. They’re student driven. Trying to find out
why this student is messing up or academically failing or some issue with discipline.”
Although this participant describes the grade-level meetings as inconsistent, they are also very
purposeful and typically with one objective. Participant M1 said that she did not even know what
the interviewer meant by a grade-level team meeting. When the interviewer clarified the role and
function of the grade-level team meeting, she stated that she never had grade-level team
meetings, but students were discussed regularly but during PLCs with other math teachers.
Participant SS1 stated that “we never have team meetings, only once and it was because I asked
for it because I was a team lead last year. I knew we should be having meetings.” This confirms
that grade-level meetings do not take place regularly and are inconsistent from one team to
another.
PLC Meetings. Unlike grade-level team meetings, every interview participant had a
different answer for the goals and purposes of meeting for PLCs. The purposes of PLCs ranged
86
from simply ensuring teachers were complying with the district curriculum to in-depth lesson
planning and reviewing data. It was clear in the inconsistency of responses that teachers did not
have any explicit communication about the goals and purposes of PLCs. Each teacher explained
either what his or her PLC group did or what he or she thought the group should be doing.
Two of the seven interview participants stated something about the goal of PLC being to
measure compliance. Interview participant S1 simply stated that PLCs were “to make sure that
we have and are following the books and curriculum.” Interview participant M3 stated that the
goal of PLC was monitoring compliance specifically in the pacing of the teacher’s instruction:
“Our main goal, at least this year, is to go in and make sure we’re on pacing calendar,
make sure we’re not mixing anything up, make sure we’re on pacing calendar. If we need
to switch days around, we’ll talk about that. Otherwise, making sure we’re on the right
schedule.”
To these two teachers, making sure they were teaching the right thing and that they had the right
materials was the focus of PLC meetings.
In stark contrast to the goal of making sure teachers were compliant, two teachers also
stated a broader overarching goal of making students successful and prepared for state
standardized testing. Interview participant ELA2 stated,
“You know, we’re collaborating together to bring together what we have and
academically have kids succeed. [My facilitator] also brings us all this stuff. [She’s] been
helpful, truly helpful. Well, our goal is to have these kids master the [state] test.”
ELA2 was very insistent that the goal of PLC was to collectively bring together resources and
find what would be best to help students pass the state test. Participant M2 expressed that she had
very specific goals for PLCs, but mentioned the overarching goal of making progress with
students when she was asked to state the goal of PLCs.
87
“Definitely stick to the agenda and stick to what is our goal and really highlight the goal.
And, if it’s to make progress for our students, then we need to stick to that and have
concrete things we can stick on and say this is what we’re going to do. This is what we
have done to show the progress and now where do we go from here.”
Her mention of “sticking to an agenda” is more of a norm that she would like to see in PLCs,
which will be discussed in a later section. In her statement, she is not talking about what is
happening in PLC, but rather what she believes should be happening in PLCs. For this
participant, it is not necessarily about making students successful on the state test, but to see
progress with students. Again, she has an overarching goal that revolves around student success.
Four teachers mentioned that the goal of PLCs was to plan instruction. This goal is not a
broad goal, like the previously mentioned goal of making students successful, but it’s also not a
goal that is strictly about monitoring that teachers are on the right pacing calendar and complying
with the district curriculum. Planning instruction should directly transfer into useful teacher
practice. This goal helps teachers to figure out what is working with students. Of the four of the
teachers who mention this as a goal, three states that it is happening in PLCs and one states that
it’s what she would like to see happen in PLCs.
Reviewing data was a fourth purpose mentioned by three interview participants.
Participant M3 stated, “We sit and go over data and we work on what lesson we’re doing and we
see what works for you and what works for me and we come together to decide what we’re going
to do for the week.” In this statement, reviewing data goes hand-in-hand with planning. The term
“data,” as she is using it, does not seem to solely consist of hard numbers on tests and quizzes,
but also observational data from teachers’ perspectives about “what works.” By the way this
participant described the meetings, data is woven into the meeting for the sake of driving the
88
conversation. In contrast, participant M2, stated that she expected the team to look at data in
PLC, but that was not what they did.
“Data is not looked at, and I think that’s vital. Where we are, PLC should have a data
piece every single time. And when I say data, I say look at the scores for each of the
classes and how do you have this higher and what are you doing? Bring this to the team
type of deal. And then ‘can you come in and model?’ or ‘I’m going to come in and
model. I’m going to take your class and I would like you to show your colleague’
because that’s peer coaching, and I just don’t see that.”
Although M2 says that data is not being used during PLC, the idea of how data should be used is
similar to what M3 stated. Data is a catalyst for a bigger discussion and not just an isolated
component of the PLC. Teachers seem to grasp this knowledge that data should be used in PLC
and how data should be used in PLC, although there is a disconnect in the consistency of using
data in PLC.
Ultimately, there is confusion about what is the purpose of PLCs. For every interview
participant that stated one purpose of PLC, another participant said that was not happening in
PLC. One teacher said planning was the purpose; another teacher said planning should be the
purpose but does not happen. One teacher said student progress and performance should be a
purpose; another teacher said that was not happening because norms were not being followed,
like sticking to the agenda. One teacher said reviewing data collectively was the purpose of PLC;
another teacher said that should be the purpose of PLC every time, but it was not happening. In a
document analysis of the information in the binder that was given at the beginning of the year,
the purposes that participants mentioned in the interviews were items that were in print in the
binder as important components of PLCs. Table 10 gives a summary list of the responses that the
participants gave about the goals of PLC meetings.
89
Table 10
Goals of PLC
S1 ELA1 ELA2 SS1 M1 M2 M3
Monitor
Compliance
X X
Plan
Instruction
X X X X
Review
Data
X X X
Student
Progress/
Performance
X X

Norms relative to teachers’ experiences. The topic of norms was not directly addressed
in the survey instrument, but became a knowledge finding during the interviews that influenced
teachers understanding of how they should engage in collaboration during PLCs. The knowledge
that teachers had about collaborative norms was relative to their experience and differed between
the two different PLC facilitators. Just as the purposes identified by the participants were
different for every participant, the norms that each participant emphasized was different for each
one.
M3 compared the two PLC facilitators that he had worked with in the past,
“I know more last year the first time we had our PLC last year, we sat down and set
ground rules like this is what we do during PLC and this is what we don’t do during PLC.
Whereas, this year I don’t think we did that as much. Both [my partner teacher] and I
came back this year so we’re both working with the same person, so we continued on the
same way we did last year. However, this year, I don’t know if that guideline has been as
explicit as they were last year, but I could’ve also missed the memo on that.”

For this teacher, the PLC facilitator set the tone and determined whether the structure was
followed during PLC and the appropriate expectations for PLC are identified for the participants.
90
The relationship between this teacher and his partner teacher appears to be the reason that
explicitly stating norms was not a problem for him. These norms were previously established for
this team and they continued to operate that way despite the leadership of the PLC facilitator.
The norms, or “guidelines,” that were previously established gave the two teachers in this PLC a
structure to follow.
Interview participant M2 also focused on structure as something that PLCs were lacking
in the campus as a whole as well as PLCs.
“As far as the experience here, it’s been very different from what I’ve been used to. I was
at my previous district for 16 years of my career, so it was very rote and routine and
structured. I haven’t felt that here as much as I would like. […] It’s, again, what’s the
term? Norms. How can I voice this? There’s one voice that pretty much takes up the
whole time, so for me to try to interject when the conversation is not even on the agenda
or the topic of conversation, and for me to start, like “oh, I have this…” It doesn’t lend
itself, so I’m limited or restricted and again reserved, so it’s the dynamics of the team
itself is not establish so that we all know the norms…that we all share and that we all stay
on topic, stay on track.”
In this statement, the teacher states a few standard norms that are violated during PLC, namely,
staying on topic and sharing the conversation by listening to others’ ideas. She has background
knowledge about how a team should function when norms are followed from her 16 years of
experience in her previous district. The lack of norms affects her ability to participate because
she does not have something to offer that is on the topic of discussion and the “dynamics of the
team” do not allow for her to have a voice in PLC. Norms appear to give the groups more
structure and guidelines for how teachers should engage in collaborative dialogue.
91
Other participants mentioned a myriad of norms and expectations of their colleagues,
including “agree to disagree” (participant S1), “go with the flow, be open, help each other”
(participant ELA1), “share resources with each other” (participant ELA2), and be professional
(participant S1, ELA1, and SS1). Each participant was asked where those expectations came
from, and each participant stated that those are expectations they would have of themselves and
anyone else with whom they worked. Interview participant ELA1 answered by saying,
“I have a bad habit of expecting people to be just like me and when I say that I mean, I
can roll with the flow, I’m very open, I’m going to help out whoever I think needs it or
asks for it.”
Each interview participant had norms that were relative to what they think they are expected to
do or how they would expect other to act toward them. Table 11 gives a list of the range of
expected norms that were discovered in the interviews.
Table 11
Range of Expected Norms
Range of Expected Norms
• do not dominate the conversation
• stick to the agenda
• follow a routine and structure
• set ground rules
• agree to disagree
• go with the flow
• be open
• help each other
92
• share resources
• be professional

The knowledge results from the quantitative survey data was sometimes clarified and
sometimes muddled in the findings from the qualitative interview data. In the teachers’
knowledge of administrators’ expectations, the confidence of the teachers that they were
expected to collaborate was explained by the explicit direction from administrators to collaborate
at one point in time, but it was revealed that although the staff was told to do this it was revisited
by some administrators and not by others. In understanding the expected outcomes of formal and
informal collaborative meetings, teachers were clear about informal grade-level meetings
because they had a single purpose to discuss students; whereas the breadth and depth of PLC
meetings was varied from team to team and the expectations of what outcomes should be
accomplished were not always met. In understanding the norms of collaboration, teachers also
varied in their understanding of the norms. Teachers generally had an understanding among their
colleagues, but it was not explicit and therefore sometimes norms that teachers expected were
violated in their meetings (i.e., sticking to the agenda and staying on task). In the following
section, the motivation findings and results will be discussed in the same manner as the
knowledge results.
Motivation Results and Findings
As stated in the conceptual framework, the organization is primarily responsible for
motivating teachers by creating a culture that places a value on what teachers have to contribute
to the organization. By the organization demonstrating this value, teachers will likely be more
engaged in the organization and feel as though they are also contributing to the organization.
Motivational influences for teachers are seeing the usefulness and value of collaboration and
93
having the self-efficacy that they can make valuable contributions to the team and organization.
The following will discuss survey items that were related to teachers’ motivational influences,
specifically the value that they place on collaboration, their engagement in collaboration, self-
efficacy to make valuable contributions, and the teachers’ perception about how much the
organization places value on their contributions.
Value in collaboration. The first series of questions addressed the value teachers place
on collaboration. Each of the three questions were worded slightly different to address teachers
theoretical value that they place on collaboration, the value of the opportunities that are given at
LFMS, and the overall value teachers see in collaboration to become a more effective teacher.
Theoretically, teachers placed a high value on collaboration. The likert-scale survey question
stated, “It is important for me to work together with my team to decide on the best instructional
practices to teach my students.” In this question, the word “team” was used to broadly apply
collaboration and decontextualize collaboration so teachers didn’t respond specifically with
PLCs, staff meetings, or grade-level meetings in mind. All teachers strongly agreed (59%) or
agreed (41%). None of the teachers disagreed. Theoretically, teachers see value in collaborating
with their colleagues.
Later in the survey, two follow up questions were asked about teachers’ value of
collaboration. These questions were less theoretically and more specific to their current context
(PLCs, grade-level meetings, and staff meetings) and the organization. Question 16C stated,
“Opportunities to collaborate make me a better teacher.” The “opportunities” that teacher may be
thinking of would most likely be formal and informal meetings, (i.e., PLCs, grade-level
meetings, and staff meetings). Unlike the theoretical question at the beginning of the survey,
fewer respondents strongly agreed (36%) and agreed (59%) that the opportunities for
collaboration made them a better teacher; one respondent (5%) said that they disagreed. The
94
follow-up question further contradicted what teachers theoretically believed at the beginning of
the survey. Question 16D stated “I believe that I can be just as effective with or without
collaboration with my colleagues.” This question is very contextually specific to the participants’
colleagues. Given the value that the teachers placed on collaboration earlier in the survey, it
would be expected that most teachers would disagree with this statement. However, only half of
the respondents disagreed with this statement. Therefore, the other 50% of teachers believe that
they can be just as effective with or without collaboration with their current colleagues. Table 12
shows a summary of the motivation survey results.
Table 12
Motivation Survey Results
Item
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
It is important for me to work together
with my team to decide on the best
instructional practices to teach my
students.
59% 41% 0% 0%
Opportunities to collaborate make me a
better teacher.
36% 59% 5% 0%
I believe that I can be just as effective
with or without collaboration with my
colleagues
5% 45% 41% 9%

In the interviews, teachers discussed percentage of PLC conversation that was actually
useful to them in the classroom, why they believed collaboration is important, and what their
professional practice would look like if they did not have time for collaboration. PLCs are just
one formal venue for collaboration. It has already been identified that collaboration during PLCs
is an expectation of the campus. Within PLCs there are two different facilitators for PLCs. When
the interview participants quantified the amount of information in PLCs that became useful and
transferred into their classroom practices, the percentage range varied drastically between the
two facilitators. Three participants were with facilitator A and four participants were with
95
facilitator B. Those under facilitator A said that they used 90-100% of what they talked about in
PLC. Those under facilitator B said that they used 5-50% of what they talked about in PLC.
Participant M3 was under facilitator B and stated that the group focused on the topic that was
being taught, not the actual standards that are being taught. Most of the planning occurred
outside of PLC between just him and his partner teacher. Participant S1 was also under
facilitator B and stated, “I get the information at PLCs, we discuss it, and then class comes and
the dynamics of class, you know, changes it, so you just can’t do it the way you discussed doing
it.” Therefore, in some cases the groups were not planning lesson at all and in others they were
not planning it the way that it needed to be planned for the group of students that the teacher had.
Participant ELA1 had facilitator A and stated, “[PLCs] are very specific to what I do. I can go in
with questions and get the answer I need. I can also follow up by texting or calling any colleague
or my facilitator before, during or after school.” Participant ELA2, who was also under facilitator
A, stated, “I use every single thing that my facilitator or partner teacher gives me in PLC. We
talk about what we’re using. We agree on it and we use everything.” As far as transfer into the
classroom, participants who have facilitator A seem to discuss and collaborate on things that are
directly relevant to the classroom. Those with facilitator B seem to discuss theoretical
components of planning instead of the actual lessons. Therefore, teachers can see greater value in
discussing plans that work in their classrooms during PLCs.
Although teachers with different facilitators said they valued PLCs differently as far as
what they transferred into the classroom. All teachers interviewed felt as though there was some
value in PLCs. When asked what their professional practice would look like if they did not have
time to collaborate, teachers made statements such as “I would be everywhere, especially as a
first-year science teacher. I would just be winging it” (participant S1), “I would be a hot mess.
PLCs keep me organized and on track: (participant ELA1), “I’d be a chicken with its head cut
96
off” (participant E), “I would definitely be all on my own” (participant M2). Collaborating
during PLCs appears to keep teachers on track, focused, and organized.
Why there is value in collaboration. The survey probed to discover what kind of value
they placed on collaboration. Research in the literature review and problem of practice suggested
that collaboration promoted more innovative teaching strategies (European Commission, 2013)
and increased problem solving (McRel, 2005). Two survey items probed to see if teachers saw
creativity as a value of collaboration. The questions below were posed in similar ways in two
different parts of the survey to establish internal validity of the instrument:
• Interacting with colleagues allows me to develop more creative teaching ideas.
• Interacting with colleagues makes me feel more creative.
For both questions, participants responded in the same way; nine respondents (41%) stated that
they strongly agree and 13 respondents (59%) stated that they agreed. Follow up questions were
given in the interviews to determine the reason participants placed a value on collaboration. This
will be discussed further through the interview responses.
Four questions in the survey addressed employees’ engagement and beliefs that they can
contribute to the formal and informal collaborative meetings. The first two questions asked if
participants believed their voices were heard in meetings:
• I believe my voice is heard by my PLC facilitator.
• I believe my voice is heard by grade-level meeting facilitators.
Three participants (13%) responded that they did not feel heard by their PLC facilitator. Six
participants (27%) responded that they did not feel heard by their grade-level facilitator. Follow-
up questions about the culture of PLCs and grade-level meetings were asked:
• In grade-level meetings one person dominates the conversation.
• In PLC meetings one person dominates the conversation.
97
In regards to PLCs, the participants were split in half; 11 respondents agreed and 11 respondents
disagreed. Although four of the 11 respondents strongly agreed that one person does dominate
the conversation. For these two questions, it is important to note that it is not asking whether the
facilitator dominates the conversation, just one person within the group. In regards to grade-level
meetings, participants responded in a very similar manner; ten respondents agreed and 12
respondents disagreed. In a side-by-side comparison of the two statements, 82% responded the
same way for both questions. Three respondents had lowered their score on the likert-scale for
the statement regarding grade-level meetings; one respondent lowered their score on the likert-
scale for the statement regarding PLCs. Table 13 shows a summary of the motivation results
regarding the value of interacting with their colleagues.
Table 13
Motivation Results for the Value of Collaboration
Item
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Interacting with colleagues allows me
to develop more creative teaching
ideas.
41% 59% 0% 0%
Interacting with colleagues makes me
feel more creative
41% 59% 0% 0%
I believe my voice is heard by my PLC
facilitator.
32% 55% 14% 0%
I believe my voice is heard by grade-
level meeting facilitators.
32% 41% 27% 0%
In grade-level meetings one person
dominates the conversation.
9% 36% 55% 0%
In PLC meetings one person dominates
the conversation.
18% 32% 50% 0%

In the interviews, teachers specified why they believed that collaboration with their
colleagues was important. Participant ELA1 said that it kept her organized and on track.
Participant SS1 echoed the same thoughts and said, “It helps me center my thoughts, because I
can teach my subject for days, but PLCs help to keep me centered on what needs to be taught.”
98
These teachers find PLCs valuable for informing what they teach and at what pace they teach it.
Participant M3 added clarity about how informal collaboration was valuable to him. When asked
how interacting with other teachers impacts student performance, he stated,
“I would say quite a bit. I’m always talking to [my counterparts], my partner math
teacher and the English teacher for our team, always constantly seeing how students are
doing in her class versus in my class. I’m also seeing how students are doing on the other
team, what I can do to better improve myself, so there’s a lot of collaboration just to see
what’s the best possible way to get to these students. It’s not going to be the same for
every single one, so [the English teacher] has maybe found a way to get to a certain
student then I’ll ask her and see what she does and try to do something similar. I think
that collaborative part is extremely important to what we do.”

This teacher highlights collaboration with his colleagues across disciplines informally. In another
interview with participant SS1, she stated that she would like to see more interdisciplinary
collaboration among her colleagues, but there was a lack of opportunity and time. Ideally, team
meetings could be one place for interdisciplinary collaboration; however, two things have
already been established about grade-level team meetings: (1) the purpose of team meetings at
LFMS is to discuss individual students, not how curriculum is relevant or interdisciplinary, and
(2) some teams meet more frequently than others and some teams do not meet at all.
Formal meetings. For the purpose of this study, formal meetings are identified as
meetings lead by a facilitator who is not a peer. At LFMS, the meetings identified as formal
meetings were PLCs and staff meetings. All interview participants were asked about who created
the agenda for staff meetings and all interview participants gave the same answer that the
principal created the agenda and then distributed the agenda at the beginning of the meeting.
Participant ELA2 said that the principal “always stays on topic and does not deviate from the
99
agenda.” Interview participants were directly asked about whether they had input into the topics
discussed during staff meetings. Participant M1 stated, “I’m guessing if I have an issue that I
want to share with the whole staff, I’m quite sure I can talk to the principal and she’ll be willing
to put it on [the agenda], but I haven’t had that experience yet.” This teacher has the belief that
she could potentially have input, but has not yet had the desire or reason to try to give input.
In PLC meetings all teacher said the facilitators created the agenda, but the agenda was
similar each meeting. When asked about giving input into the meting participant M2 stated,
“There is a spot where if you have any questions or anything to share, but it’s so broad. Even if I
emailed and communicated ahead of time about something I would like to discuss it wouldn’t be
brought up.” M2 demonstrates a frustration with the way the PLC facilitator elicits and receives
input. The participant does not feel like what she has to say would even be brought into the PLC
conversation even if she discussed it with the facilitator beforehand. Another participant who has
the same facilitator stated,
“Last year for sure with [the old facilitator] I would always go to her with ideas and she
would receive them well. She would share ideas too. Definitely any kind of input was
well received. This year, like I said, we don’t necessarily run it the same way that we did
last year, and that’s fine. We just really don’t go over that kind of stuff this year. You
know we bring forth ideas, but it’s really more of a conversation between me and my
counterpart rather than the person heading our PLC.”
This participant contrasts two different facilitators that they have experienced working with in
this organization. One of the facilitators was extremely welcoming of ideas and input. The
second facilitator let the teachers facilitate their own conversations in PLCs. These three
participants were the exception to the overall opinion that the facilitators “always listened to
100
them,” “would help us with whatever we needed,” and “tried to bring out of us what our ideas
were and what we were thinking.”
Teachers’ contributions to changing the organization. One of the primary functions of
this dissertation was to gauge the teachers’ perspective on how much influence they believe they
have in changing the organization. In the conceptual framework, the organization had one
primary role to ensure that employees felt as though their voices were heard and their opinions
were valued. It is important to note that in the survey most of the participants (91%) stated that
they strongly agreed or agreed that they contribute to changing the organization. Exactly how the
employees believe they make contributions to the organization was probed in the interviews. One
hundred percent of respondents believe that they make valuable contributions in PLCs and in
grade-level meetings. Table 14 shows how teachers’ confidence that they contribute to changing
the organization was assessed and responded to by the participants in the survey.
Table 14
Teachers ’ Confidence to Change the Organization
Item
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
I contribute to changing my
organization.
32% 59% 5% 5%

In the interviews, teachers expressed that they had control over changing the organization
in two distinct ways: their own attitudes and within their classrooms. In the organizational results
section, the teachers expressed that outside of their sphere of influence (their attitudes and
classrooms) they did not feel as though they could effectively make changes to organizational
structures. Participant M2 succinctly stated that her classroom is the only place she can have
control: “I can control what I have them do in my class. At least I feel that. Outside of that, it’s
lost, and I know I’m not the only one who feels this way.” Participant M3 stated that there are
101
opportunities outside the classroom to change the school, but not everyone is given those
opportunities:
“I mean in the most literal sense coming in every day, having a positive attitude, trying to
get these kids to see what the future is for and that they can have a positive future. You
know that starts in the classroom. That starts with my attitude, so at the most basic level
I’m here trying to give these kids a better future. On more of like a school-wide level, I
can’t say that I’ve done a whole lot. You know, I know there’s some people who go
above and beyond, like Ms. G does a whole bunch of different things. I don’t necessarily
do stuff like that, but I would love to be more involved. I just don’t feel like everyone is
given the same opportunity to participate in stuff. Some of it is just decided, someone
tells you you’re going to do this and it’s not really ever put up for discussion. I guess
that’s not really answering the question you asked me, but in the classroom that’s how I
make change, but I don’t say that I can do a whole lot to make change.”
He went on to say, “I’m here trying to give these kids a better future.” Participant
M3 expresses a desire to make more of an impact in changing the campus by participating in
more things and being more involved. However, he expresses that assignments like that are
sometimes already decided and someone tells the teacher that they are going to do it rather than
putting the assignment up for discussion. These participants clarify why a large percentage of the
staff may have responded that they believe they do contribute to changing the organization,
because personal attitude and classroom management are areas that teachers expressed were
important for making change on the campus.
Organizational Results and Findings
Organizational influences on collaboration can greatly affect the knowledge and
motivation influences. The following results will explain the data on how school structure
102
supports collaborative professional learning by allowing teachers the necessary time to
collaborate and the appropriate amount of professional development to promote a culture of
learning. Then the data will be presented specific to teacher relationships and teacher help-
seeking behaviors. Lastly, data regarding the level of trust among the teacher stakeholders
between their colleagues, administrators, and within the context of collaborative meetings is
discussed.
In the literature review, Crow (2015) showed that administrators served a key function in
allocating the appropriate amount of time for collaboration and prioritizing time for collaboration
by protecting that time from interferences. Two items from the survey addressed. One statements
used a likert-scale response to a given statement and the second statement was a fill-in-the-blank
statement where teachers responded with a number. The two items are stated below the way they
were stated in the survey:
1. An appropriate amount of time is allocated during the school day for me to interact
with my colleagues about my practice.
2. I have been unable to attend or late to a staff meeting, PLC, or grade-level meeting
______ times because of a work-related scheduling conflict.
When broadly asked to reflect on whether an appropriate amount of time was given to interact
with colleagues, most teachers (82%) either strongly agreed (41%) or agreed (41%). Fewer
teachers (18%) either disagreed (14%) or strongly disagreed (5%). When asked for numerical
values to represent the amount of time they had scheduling conflicts with the allocated time the
responses ranged from 0-13 times. On average teachers said 2.6 times they had scheduling
conflicts. The most frequent responses were one conflict (27%) and no conflicts (23%). Three
participants (14%) said they missed two meetings and four participants (18%) said they missed
four meetings. Three participants (14%) stated that they missed meetings six or more meetings
103
because of other work-related scheduling conflicts. Table shows the responses from the
participants about the amount of time that is allocated for collaboration.
Table 15
Time Allocated for Collaboration
Item
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
An appropriate amount of
time is allocated during
the school day for me to
interact with my
colleagues about my
practice
41% 41% 18% 5%
Range Average
Frequencies
(# of meetings missed)
0 1 2 4 6+
I have been unable to
attend or late to a staff
meeting, PLC, or grade-
level meeting _______
times because of a work-
related scheduling
conflict.
0-13
times
2.6 23% 27% 14% 18% 14%

In a collaborative learning organization, it would be important for teachers to not only
meet, but to have professional development (PD) that would add to the conversations about
curriculum and instruction. The stakeholder goal for this dissertation is that 100% of teachers
would engage in collaborative professional learning the improves content knowledge
pedagogical delivery of instruction. PDs would be integral to facilitating and contributing to the
collaborative conversations. Four items on the survey addressed this construct:
1. I have attended ___________ professional developments this year.
2. If you have attended a PD this year, how many of them took place for more than a
day?
104
3. After learning a new teaching strategy, I have received follow up coaching from a
colleague to help me implement the new strategy.
4. After a training, I received feedback about how I am using that training in my class
from an administrator or peer.
Overall, the initial professional developments that teachers stated they were involved in ranged
from zero to 16. The average PDs that the respondents attended was 3.4. Twenty teachers (91%)
stated that they had attended at least one training this year. Interestingly, eight respondents (36%)
stated that they had attended three or more professional developments this year. All eight of
these respondents who attended the most professional development had two to 13+ years of
experience in education. During interviews, most participants stated that they did not attend a
professional development this year. Some interviewees asked if events like PLCs counted for
professional development, but others did not count PLCs at PD. Also, it’s interesting that newer
teachers did not say they attended more professional developments because in the interviews the
new teacher participants all mentioned the new teacher academy that the district put on as
professional development. In the survey, the new teachers typically responded with zero or one.
Twenty teachers stated that they attended a professional development, but eleven of them
stated that they attended a PD that lasted more than one day. Two of the respondents who
previously stated that they attended more than three PDs did not attend a PD that occurred for
more than one day. Nine of the respondents who attended more than three professional
developments attended PDs that occurred for more than one day. All but one respondent who
only attended one PD this year stated that the one PD the respondent attended occurred for more
than one day.
When asked about follow-up from PDs, participants more frequently agreed that they
received follow-up coaching from a colleague rather than receiving feedback from an
105
administrator or peer. The last two statements for this construct were initially intended to test
internal validity. However, the last statement replaced “coaching” with “feedback” and added in
the word “administrator” rather than just peers or colleagues. Those two changes may have
indicated that the feedback on instruction was more from an administrator rather than just a peer.
Table 16 shows the participant responses to follow-up feedback and coaching from professional
development opportunities offered by the district or campus.
Table 16
Responses About Follow-up Feedback and Coaching After Professional Development
Item
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
After learning a new
teaching strategy, I have
received follow up
coaching from a
colleague to help me
implement the new
strategy.
32% 55% 14% 0%
After a training, I
received feedback about
how I am using that
training in my class from
an administrator or peer.
9% 27% 32% 32%
Range Average
Frequencies
(# of sessions)
0 1 3 4 5 10 16
I have attended
______ professional
developments this
year.
0-16
sessions
3.4 9% 27% 18% 18% 18% 5% 5%
If you have attended
a professional
development this
year, how many of
them took place for
more than a day?
0-2
sessions
0.6
0 1 2
47% 42% 11%

Peers, rather than administrators, appeared to be integral to the collaborative culture of
the campus. This will be discussed further with interview data. However, when it related to help
106
seeking behaviors to learn more about lesson planning or classroom management, teachers felt
very comfortable that they could turn to another teacher for help. Teachers were asked four items
on the survey to address openness towards their colleagues and help-seeking behaviors:
1. I can talk to another teacher on my campus to help improve my lesson plan.
2. I can talk to another teacher on my campus to help improve my classroom
management.
3. I talk to my colleagues about professional topics during or after the school day.
4. I talk to my colleagues about personal topics during or after the school day.
With the first and second question in this series, 100% of the participants said that they agreed
that they could talk to another teacher on campus about classroom management. Regarding
lesson planning, one participant disagreed. The last two statements were to gauge the level of
relationship among teachers on campus. All teachers agreed that they could talk to colleagues
about professional topics; ten participants strongly agreed and twelve participants agreed. Most
participants (95%) agreed that they talk to colleagues about personal topics; five participants
strongly agreed and 15 participants agreed. The level of confidence in agreeing with this
statement declined when the topics were personal instead of professional. One person (4%)
disagreed that they do not talk about personal topics. These dynamics lead into the culture of
trust on campus. Table 17 shows the survey responses to the likert-scale questions related to the
teachers attitudes about their openness towards colleagues and help-seeking behaviors.
Table 17
Openness Towards Colleagues and Help-Seeking Behavior
Item
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
I can talk to another teacher on my
campus to help improve my lesson
plans.
55% 41% 5% 0%
107
I can talk to another teacher on my
campus to help improve my classroom
management.
50% 50% 0% 0%
I talk to my colleagues about
professional topics during or after the
school day.
45% 55% 0% 0%
I talk to my colleagues about personal
topics during or after the school day.
27% 68% 5% 0%

Trust is an essential part of a healthy campus culture (Hakan, Soudunsaari, 2012; Hallam,
Smith, Hite, Hite, & Wilcox, 2015). In the survey, trust is measured by explicitly asking about
the level of trust, but also looking at whether teachers feel micromanaged and if they feel as
though they are given autonomy. Six items were used to measure this construct in the survey:
1. I trust my colleagues.
2. I believe my principal trusts me.
3. I feel micromanaged in staff meetings.
4. I feel micromanaged in PLCs.
5. I feel as though I have autonomy in staff meetings.
6. I feel as though I have autonomy in PLC meetings.
Given the answers in the previous section regarding help-seeking behaviors, it was slightly
surprising that five participants (23%) responded that they did not trust their colleagues. In the
previous section, the statements about help-seeking behaviors were asking more if there was a
person on campus who they could talk to about lesson planning and classroom management. The
statement about trusting their colleagues is much broader context. However, 77% still agreed that
they either strongly agreed (9%) or agreed (68%) that they did trust their colleagues. The second
question in this construct addressed the relationship between teachers and an administrator. Most
teachers (68%) either strongly agreed (32%) or agreed (36%) that they believed the principal
108
trusts them. Thirty-two percent disagreed showing that they don’t believe that the principal trusts
them.
Trust from an administrator can manifest in how the leader manages the employees and
teams that he or she supervises. Hallam, et al (2015) showed that micromanaging teams could be
a destructive leadership behavior that impacts the level of trust and prevents teacher autonomy.
The third and fourth items in this construct were asked to gauge whether they felt micromanaged
within the context of collaborative meetings. Teachers responded similarly for both PLCs and
staff meetings. In staff meetings, 54% of participants either strongly agreed (32%) or agreed
(23%) that they felt micromanaged in staff meetings. Forty-one percent of participants either
strongly disagreed (5%) or disagreed (36%) that they felt micromanaged in staff meetings. The
responses were similar regarding PLCs. Eleven participants (50%) either strongly agreed (14%)
or agreed (36%) that they felt micromanaged in PLCs. Eleven participants (50%) also said that
they did not feel micromanaged in PLCs; 45% disagreed and 5% strongly disagreed. Table 18
shows the survey responses for questions regarding the teachers beliefs about trust.
Table 18
Survey Responses Regarding Level of Trust
Item
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
I trust my colleagues. 9% 68% 23% 0%
I believe my principal trusts me. 32% 37% 32% 0%
I feel micromanaged in staff meetings. 32% 23% 37% 5%
I feel micromanaged in PLCs. 14% 36% 45% 5%
I feel as though I have autonomy in
staff meetings.
14% 27% 41% 18%
I feel as though I have autonomy in
PLC meetings.
23% 41% 27% 9%

Input with colleagues. The culture among teachers on the campus was generally very
accepting of the contributions of their teammates. Participant M3 says,
109
“I think for the most part, depending on the peer obviously, well the ones I collaborate
with the most typically, I’ll present an idea, if we like it, we implement it, if we don’t, we
talk about why it may not be as good of an idea. I really don’t have any complaints about
colleagues shooting down ideas without really thinking about it. You know, it’s that we
talk about it reasonably and we decide what’s best for the students.”
M3 explains the process of both accepting a colleagues’ idea and rejecting a colleagues idea. The
teachers seem to engage in a dialogue about ideas in a manner that is understood and acceptable
to the other colleagues. When the participant says that “we decide what’s best for the students,”
it comes across as though the conversations are professional and focused on students. Participant
ELA1 similarly stated an example of a time that she offered a suggestion to her colleague about a
learning strategy. She said that the partner teacher made encouraging remarks like “You know
what, that may work! That’s great input!” ELA1 further states that her idea was affirmed when
the other teacher used it in her classroom and said that it works. These examples show that
teachers engage in professional conversations with their colleagues in a manner that would
encourage collaboration. Teachers do not appear to be dismissive of other teachers input.
However, Participant M1, a new teacher, stated,
“Like I said, this is my first year, so I don’t really give out input. I’m really just sitting,
listening and getting information. I usually just sit back and take notes and try to get all
the information I can about things that I could implement. I try to implement those tips
they give me.”
As a new teacher, she expresses reluctance to jump into the conversation and takes a passive role
to collaboration. Although some teachers said that they don’t have issues with expressing ideas
and conversations are very collegial, M1 calls into question whether there are multiple
110
participants taking a passive role in collaboration like participant M1, or if she is more of the
exception to the collaborative culture among teachers.
Input with campus administration. Teachers did not appear to have issues with
offering suggestions to colleagues, even though they may take a passive role in making
suggestions; however, collaborating with campus administrators, who are not their equals, posed
a bit more difficulty for teachers. Teachers stated that they “tread lightly” with administrators or
that they believe administrators “have their own agenda” rather than are willing to accept
suggestions from teachers. Participant ELA1 stated,
“I had a meeting with administrators that I felt like was a complete fiasco. I felt like it
didn’t really matter what I said or how positive I said it, they had an agenda and it didn’t
really matter what my feedback was. I picked up on that within the first two minutes, so
instead of responding with negativity, I simply listened to what they had to say and ended
with a positive note and left it at that.”
In this “complete fiasco,” the teacher describes the meeting as one where she just simply had to
listen to whatever the administrators were saying. There was no collaboration among teacher and
administrators. It does not sound as though they were seeking greater understanding of a
situation, but instead had made their judgments about whatever this situation was and wanted to
just tell the teacher what their judgments were. This may contribute to performance gaps in
collaboration on campus if administrators are viewed as judge and jury for teachers rather than
collaborative problem-solving partners.
Participant M2 had a similar observation about administrators when she was asked what
may make employees more willing to share ideas:
“Every meeting is just an agenda and it’s one-sided for the most part. Tell me when
we’ve had a staff meeting where there was collaboration. Tell me when there was a
111
leadership or team lead meeting that there’s been collaboration? You allotting a little 5
minute ‘Oh, any input?’ …and when we do have concerns they’re looked at as venting,
so practice what you preach. If you expect collaboration, then you do it too.”
This participant spoke about administrators modeling collaboration for teachers, which is
expressed when she says, “If you expect collaboration, then you do it too.” She also shared that
administrators have a strict agenda in their communication with teachers.
Input about campus changes. When asked if teachers felt comfortable approaching
administrators to make recommendations for campus changes, it was clear that they were much
more willing to approach certain administrators and not others. A theme that came out in the
interviews was a lack of vision among the administrative team to communicate in a unified voice
about acceptable changes for the campus. Three participants mentioned similar events where
they had mentioned something to one administrator and got a different response from another
administrator. Participant M2 says,
“I feel like every administrator has their own agenda. I go with the same question, same
wording, I haven’t changed the wording in the question and I get different responses from
every single administrator. So I’m like why aren’t we on the same page. And then we get
dinged from another administrator because we did what the other one said, so you model
from the top down what you expect your teacher to do, how to collaborate.”
Participant M2 notes that she receives different responses from each administrator and therefore
she believes this reflects that administrators are not collaborating with each other. She sees the
multiple responses as though they are not on the same page and therefore cannot communicate a
unified response. The effect of this is frustration because she says teachers will “get dinged from
another administrator” when they do what one of the other administrators said to do.
112
When it comes to making campus changes, the teachers noted the same lack of unity is
again revealed. Participant M3 states,
“You know I can’t necessarily say that there was ever a time when my input was ignored,
but I can think of last year, you know, I was talking to Administrator A and we were
talking about how 70 minute classes just weren’t working well for 8
th
grade and I felt like
she responded really well to it, but when things came down to it and we tried presenting
moving to more than a five period day it just kind of got shot down. I know thee were
other forces at work and it is what it is, but you know I think definitely at the end of last
year when we were asked to come up with ideas and stuff then they kind of just got shot
down. I don’t necessarily feel like they really received what we were saying even a little
bit.”
M3 shows that one administrator had a certain acceptance of the idea whereas others did not.
Participant ELA2 spoke of the same incident with assisting to build a master schedule. He states,
“I did research on it and I worked on it to figure it out. […] The principal said ‘hey why
don’t you give me that, but she didn’t follow through with it, so I guess I felt bad about
that. I thought ‘Wow, I thought you wanted my input.’ But then it was like she already
had something else in mind. It was like it was just forgotten about. I never heard from
her, like ‘We aren’t going to go with that and here’s why…’ It just wasn’t talked about.”
This participant expresses that he put time and effort into pitching an idea to an administrator and
then it was not received well. These participants mention that participation in the organization
may be limited to a few participants who are selected and that input is elicited but lacked follow-
up communication about why it may not have been used in the final decision.
Systematic ways to communicate. A common theme that emerged among interview
participants when they were asked about what they needed from administration to better support
113
collaboration on campus was communication. Interview participant M1 answered the interview
question about what support she believes that she needs from her campus administrators to better
facilitate collaboration by responding,
“Maybe more communication. Honestly, I don’t believe as a campus we just
communicate. Like if we had any issues, it’s me going to reach out to another teachers.
It’s just—communication—just more communication. And if it is communication just not
that last minute kind of communication. I know that things happen and things happen last
minute, but everything can’t always happen last minute.”

M1 makes an assertion at communication happens last minute. Previously, a teacher discussed
that administrators needed to collaborate more with teachers. This connection leads into the
communication component of collaboration. Participants across the campus communicate with
other teachers, but systemic communication to the whole campus between teachers and
administrators is not viewed as timely.
Participant M2 expounded upon the observations of M1 by discussing the lack of school-
wide structures for communication.
“Communicate at least 24 hours before something has to be changed. Give us that. I think
teachers here have been…it can be seen as a good thing or a bad thing, I don’t know if
it’s a forced flexibility, but we have been very flexible and very patient with things not
communicated and things kind of left for us to fill in the gaps. […] The collaboration
again has to come from the top down. First administrators collaborate, then
administrators collaborate with the instructional specialists, team leads. It needs to have a
structure and it needs to be more organized. I think just because you say it’s happening
doesn’t mean it’s happening. Just because you think you put it in an email you’ve done
your job. You have to go in between that email and hold each other accountable.”
114
In addition to emphasizing the timeliness of communication from administrators, participant M2
specifies the structure that she believes is absent from the organization. From her point of view,
campus administrators need to collaborate, then collaborate with instructional specialists and
team leads who appear to be the liaisons between the teachers. Further in the interview with M2,
she shared that the she would expect the facilitators of PLCs communicate after PLCs with
administrators, which further emphasized the current structure of the campus that uses
facilitators as the middle man for communication with teachers.
Availability of professional development. An integral part of developing a culture of
collaborative professional learning is the availability and type of learning that is being introduced
into the organization. Although participant S1 stated that she did not receive any professional
development during the current school year other than her orientation, she stated, “I know that
there is professional development that I would like to attend and [the principal] would let me go,
but the district doesn’t really offer a lot of things.” S1 is hopeful that the principal would let her
attend and encourage her professional learning; however, she had not taken advantage of those
opportunities this year, so this data is hypothetical rather than reflective of a teacher’s actual
experience. Also, she explained that the school district does not offer a lot of professional
development. Participant ELA2 confirmed the lack of district professional development
opportunities when she said,
“I don’t really think this district does a lot of [professional development]. I just see that
this is just not very structured, maybe. We had that day, Thursday, maybe, but other
campuses that I had been in say this day is dedicated to this or this day is dedicated to
that. I just don’t see that kind of structure here.”

ELA2 mentions the lack of structure in professional development. This also connects to the
availability of professional development opportunities. The time for professional development
115
seems to be available for teachers when ELA2 mentions that there was a Thursday for
professional development, but how the time is utilized for professional learning does not seem to
meet the teacher’s expectations. Participant M3 mentioned that when the district changed the
calendar after an unforeseen natural disaster, “the professional development days were taken
away in the calendar, which to me shows that professional development is the first thing on the
chopping block.” This teacher sees that professional development is not a priority of the district.
When teachers were asked where they received most of their professional development,
several teachers shared that they received professional development in PLCs from the curriculum
specialists. Participant M1 said, “I guess I took to the math specialist, so if I have any questions
or anything, I would go to her and ask her. I don’t know if that would technically be considered
professional development, but she clears things up.” The participant informally approaches the
math specialist for answers to questions; however, the teachers mentioned that the specialists
provided professional development in a more formal setting in PLCs. Participant ELA1 states, “I
learn the most when I meet with PLCs. When I meet with the curriculum specialist or with my
team, that’s when I learn the most. We’re all teaching the same thing and the specialist always
teaches me something.” ELA1 also explains that the reason PLCs are effective for professional
development for her is because it is a small group and she can get all of her questions answered.
These participants show that specialists are instrumental in the district for providing professional
learning to the teachers.
Two participants were new to the teaching profession and mentioned the new teacher
academy that is provided by the district. Participant ELA2 states,
“I do have to do this whole new teacher academy thing, which in my opinion, is not the
least bit successful. To be quite honest, I dread going. Do I feel like I take anything away
from it? Not a whole lot, because it’s an hour of them making suggestions, which is great,
116
don’t get me wrong. I like the suggestions, but to me it’s done after school when you’re
exhausted mentally, so I don’t feel like it’s something that’s beneficial to me.”
This participant does not feel like she gets much out of the new teacher academy because the
timing of it being after school is when she is exhausted. She doesn’t feel like she takes a lot away
from it but finds the suggestions helpful. On the contrary, another teacher, participant ELA2,
finds that the new teacher academy is “motivating” and helps teachers “collaborate on teaching
techniques, behavior, and class expectations.” Participants in the new teacher academy have
mixed feelings about the professional development that is provided by the new teacher academy
and its effectiveness.
Conclusion
The results and findings presented the quantitative results of the survey instrument and
the qualitative findings that elaborated on the survey findings about the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences that help or hinder collaborative professional learning at LFMS.
The knowledge results and findings explained the teachers’ understanding of campus
administrators’ expectations for collaboration, the expected outcomes of formal and informal
meetings (i.e., grade-level meetings, PLC meetings, and staff meetings), and the norms that
teachers either expect from their colleagues or that facilitate their collaborative interactions. The
motivation results and findings explored the value that teachers find in collaborating with their
colleagues, the kind of value that is placed on collaboration from teachers, and the motivation
teachers have to contribute to making changes in the organization. An essential component of the
dissertation was exploring the organizational influences that provide the opportunities and
structures for teachers to contribute to making changes in the organization. In this section,
teachers spoke about the culture among teachers and between teachers and administrators on
campus to accept and value their input. Teachers explained what they saw as their capacity to
117
make changes on campus and emphasized the importance of focusing on their sphere of
influence. The teachers spoke about the campus’ lack of systematic ways to communicate and
availability of professional development opportunities to facilitate their collaborative learning.
These knowledge, motivation, and organizational findings and results will be discussed further in
chapter 5 in a discussion and implementation and evaluation plan to improve upon the results
and findings in this dissertation.

118
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study had several key results and findings that lend themselves to further discussion.
In the first part of this chapter, there will be a discussion about the implications of the result and
findings. Next, there will be recommendations about the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that created performance gaps in developing a culture of collaborative
professional learning at Leaping Forward Middle School (LFMS). To address these
recommendations, an integrated implementation and evaluation plan will be proposed that can
set into motion the appropriate changes to address the problems with teacher collaboration.
Following this will be a short conclusion for the dissertation to summarize this study.
Discussion
In this study, teachers had knowledge of the expectations and outcomes of formal
collaborative meetings (PLCs and staff meetings) and informal collaborative meetings (grade-
level team meetings) from the information that was given to the participants in the beginning of
the year in a binder. However, for some there was no more guidance about the expectations and
outcomes except the cursory mention of them in a handout or binder that was distributed to
teachers in the beginning of the year. The purpose and norms of collaboration fell to the wayside
to accommodate a busy agenda and the distribution of information rather than collaboration. In
some teams, teachers naturally shared the purpose and norms of collaboration, so they had a
more favorable opinion of collaboration. However, those who did not naturally meld together as
a cohesive team ended up feeling as though they were in silos doing the work of a team.
Essentially, developing a cohesive team and collaborative culture was something that
happened to occur by chance and was not something intentionally planned for and cultivated.
Teachers who got along well with each other thrived and teachers who did not get along with
each other just focused on their sphere of influence, which is the students. Schools are places
119
where students are the focus, but they are also places of learning with a group of employees who
should be dedicated to finding the best way to reach students even if the best way may not be the
way they have done it for the past ten years or the way the district curriculum documents have it
planned out. This kind of environment is fostered by collaboration among colleagues. This
occurs when learning among colleagues does not happen by chance, but is planned for and
cultivated by facilitators for teachers in the same way that teachers plan for and cultivate learning
for their students.
Any good teacher would employ modeling as one of their teaching strategies to
encourage learning. In an environment where administrators are trying to teach teachers to
collaborate, modeling what behaviors they would like to see would communicate to teachers
what the expectations are. Expectations to collaborate were established in the beginning of the
year with all of the best intentions to make it a priority, but as the hustle and bustle of
schoolhouse demands may overwhelm the already cluttered agenda, modeling provides a
consistent opportunity to remind teachers of the culture that administrators expect them to adhere
to in their day-to-day job. As it was mentioned several times throughout the interviews,
communication from campus leadership would demonstrate this collaboration. Administrators
collaborating on a vision for where the campus is moving and how the campus is planning to get
there would provide a unified voice for teachers that demonstrates their leadership team is
collaborating. Collaboration with leaders on campus enables to them to collaborate with teachers
on the campus to receive their input.
Furthermore, teachers appear to have frequent and effective communication with their
counterparts. However, the topic of the dissertation is collaborative professional learning.
Teachers generally know how to interact, but collaboration is purposeful and intentional. In
PLCs, the teams tried to accomplish several different tasks in each meeting, including but not
120
limited to ensuring compliance with district pacing, planning for the coming week,
disaggregating data, sharing teaching strategies, coaching, and professional development. Since
every participant in the interviews shared a different purpose for PLCs, whether it was actually
being done in PLCs or just a personal expectation, it is likely that the broader the interview
sample, the broader the number of responses would have been. PLCs have become a catch all for
any topic with an instructional focus that does not fit into other meetings. PLCs became the place
for a multitude of topics to be discussed, but team meetings were infrequently conducted, if at all
in some cases, and only had one purpose. If collaboration is purposeful and intentional, how can
collaboration be effective when a single meeting time serves so many functions and other
meeting times are meaningless to teachers? Time is a precious commodity with any employee in
any organization, so setting aside time where meetings can be purposeful and meaningful can
produce the desired outcome of more effective collaboration.
The goal of this study was to evaluate how close the organization is getting to meeting
the goal of teachers engaging in a collaborative professional learning culture. This implies that
teachers would have knowledge about collaboration and the function of collaborative meetings
with colleagues and administrators, but the real tension in this study was in collaborating to
learn. There was a clear performance gap in the availability of professional learning
opportunities that are afforded to teachers and the effectiveness of current professional
development opportunities. Teachers were able to collaborate with their colleagues when they
were able to draw knowledge from their experiences. For example, lesson planning, which was
dominated by veteran teachers and often excluded novices, was seen as beneficial, but it was
difficult for all participants to engage in collaboration because some lacked the prerequisite
knowledge to engage in that conversation.
121
Teachers’ salaries are typically one of the largest expenditures in K-12 education.
Therefore, districts need to invest in their most valuable asset in order to accomplish the broader
goal of developing students to be productive adults. This investment comes, not just by putting
more money towards the latest and greatest workshop or professional development consultant,
but by seeing the insurmountable value of the individuals within the organization and providing
them with the environment and opportunities to engage in conversations. While teachers can be
inclined to naturally engage in professional conversation, a robust understanding of their content
knowledge and their greater capacity to differentiate how curriculum is delivered is derived from
the organization placing a value on becoming a learning organization for every person in the
organization, not just the students. It is a strange disconnect when organizations that are places
for learning do not promote extensive learning environment for their employees.
New teachers can be a risk and/or an asset for the organization; however, new teachers
especially noted that they did not feel comfortable sharing in collaborative meetings because
they lacked the self-efficacy to make a meaningful contribution. Effective structures to support
new teachers and to mentor them as they adjust into this new career are lacking for them. If a
new teacher did not find a fellow colleague they were comfortable with who could help them
with all of the duties and tasks of being a teacher, they could flounder. However, more
meaningful is the asset that new teachers can be to helping veteran teachers who have taught the
same curriculum the same way for years to try to teach it a different way that may relate better to
the students. There is a great value in varying perspectives of those involved in the organization,
so to believe that any voice within the organization should be silenced because they do not feel
as though they have something to contribute serves a great disadvantage to the district.
Although this study gathered information from one district to inform the results, the
results provide implications for other districts. One implication is how the term PLC has evolved
122
from the DuFour’s original intent. Originally, the DuFour’s intended for PLCs to be specific
types of meetings that include reviewing data and incorporating the data into the plans. As this
research showed, PLC participants have a more diverse understanding of the function of what a
PLC is because the term “PLC” has become a catch-all term for any interaction between
members of the education community. The evolution of this term has created a confusion about
the purpose of the meetings.
Another further implication of this study for other school districts revolves around
professional development. Certain trainings, like CPR and first aid, are one and done types of
trainings; however, they require certification renewals. Administrators need to identify the
purpose of the trainings to identify if a simple, yearly one-time training will suffice to meet the
needs of teachers transferring the learning into the classroom. Many trainings that require
teachers to modify and adjust their instruction will not sufficiently address the teachers’ needs in
a one-time training outside of the context in which they are supposed to perform the task. A one-
time training may seem sufficient to address the basic knowledge needs of the teachers but
transferring the instructional strategies into the classroom will take more than just hearing
someone tell them what to do. Ultimately, this follows the major principle that was revealed in
this study. Education is a student-centered profession, always looking out for the best interests of
the students; however, in order to maximize what is delivered to students, administrators and
those in a position to make decisions need to remember to constantly invest in their teachers who
are on the frontlines reaching students every day.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
This section is intended to identify research-based recommendations to improve the
performance gaps that were identified in the data. The recommendations are organized by
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on the performance goal. Each section
123
contains a summary table with the influence, recommendation, and research behind the
recommendation.
Knowledge Recommendations
Chapter 4 extensively discussed this study’s data about knowledge influences that help or
hinder the development of a collaborative professional learning culture. This section will
consider the performance gaps that were found in teachers’ knowledge, specifically their
declarative knowledge, of collaborative professional learning that would hinder the campus’s
growth in this area.
Introduction. The knowledge influences in Table 19 represent the complete list of
assumed knowledge influences used in this study as they were presented in Chapter 1. These are
the most frequently mentioned knowledge influences to achieving the stakeholders’ goal during
this study’s surveys and interviews and supported by the literature review, including Clark and
Estes (2008), who suggest that declarative knowledge about something is often necessary to
know before applying it to classify or identify, as in the case of evaluating teacher collaborative
professional learning. As indicated in Table 19, these influences have a high priority for
achieving the stakeholders’ goal. Table 19 also shows the recommendations for mending the
performance gaps for these influences based on theoretical principles.
Table 19
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence: Cause, Need, or
Asset*

Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers need to understand
the expectations for
collaborative behavior and
expected follow-through. (D)
Y Create an environment that fosters
desirable behaviors. (Tuckman, 2009)

Provide immediate feedback and
reinforcement. (Tuckman, 2009)
Provide a job aid
within the PLC
context that outlines
the expectations.
Teachers must know that
collaboration can improve
student performance. (D)
Y Teach learners strategies to manage
their motivation, time, learning
strategies, control their physical and
Provide
an informational
pamphlet that presents
124
social environment, and monitor their
performance (Dembo & Eaton, 2000).
data about the impact
of good teaching
strategies on high risk
students.

Declarative knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Declarative
knowledge is an understanding of factual or conceptual information (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009).
Understanding facts or concepts is an integral foundation to employees engaging in more
difficult tasks (Krischner, Krischner, & Paas, 2006). The data showed that Leaping Forward
Middle School teachers lacked knowledge about the expectations for collaborative behavior and
expected follow-through. Performance gaps will likely continue until teachers understand
appropriate behaviors for collaboration and the expectations for follow-through after
collaboration. Utilizing a job aid and side-by-side training would be beneficial for teaching and
reinforcing the behavior expectations and expected follow-through.
Behavioral expectations are established when an environment is created that fosters those
desirable behaviors (Tuckman, 2009). In this case, behavioral expectations are learned within the
environment. To establish declarative knowledge of behaviors, explicit teaching alone is not
sufficient. A job aid, like a poster of the meeting norms would serve as a discussion and a
reminder of the expectations; however, this needs to be supplemented with coaching within the
Professional Learning Community (PLC) environment to ensure participants manifest the
behaviors appropriately. Therefore, providing immediate feedback and reinforcement (Tuckman,
2009) within the PLC context would make the transfer of suitable behaviors more efficacious.
Levine and Marcus (2007) identified that expectations about collaborative behaviors differ from
campus to campus and district to district; therefore, it would be imperative that each campus
identifies and communicates the explicit collaborative behaviors that are expected. In a way,
teachers should be indoctrinated into this culture of collaboration when they join the campus.
125
A second declarative knowledge influence for developing a collaborative culture is that
teachers must know that collaboration can improve student performance. Dembo and Eaton
(2000) explain that learners must know strategies to manage their motivation, time, learning
strategies, control their physical and social environment, and monitor their performance. In order
to promote a culture of learning, teachers must see that social learning among teachers will yield
results in the classroom. If teachers do not see the need to collaborate in order to improve student
performance, it will have an impact on the collaborative culture of the school. Lacking the input
of all participants could lower moral of the collective group.
The recommendation to impact teacher knowledge about the classroom benefits of
collaboration is to provide an informational pamphlet that presents data about the impact of good
teaching strategies on high risk students. There are more extensive trainings that would provide
more information about the specific strategies that teachers can use, but the most important part
of this recommendation is laying a foundation of knowledge that the collective group possesses
is greater than the knowledge of just the individual working in isolation. Possessing this
knowledge base will flow into the PLC participants willingness to “donate” to the group’s
knowledge base (Ahmed et al, 2016). Collective knowledge would make individual teachers on
the campus better equipped to meet the needs of learners.
Motivation Recommendations
Chapter 4 discussed this study’s data about motivation influences that help or hinder the
development of a collaborative professional learning culture. This section will consider the
performance gaps that were found in teachers’ motivation to participate and engage in
collaborative professional learning. Specifically, teachers motivation was derived from the value
they found in collaboration, the self-efficacy they felt to contribute meaningfully, and the mood
that was created toward collaboration.
126
Introduction. The motivation influences in Table 20 represent the complete list of
assumed motivation influences that may affect the achievement of the stakeholders’ goal based
on surveys and interviews and supported by the literature review and the review of motivation
theory. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that there are three indicators of motivation in task
performance – choice, persistence and mental effort. Choice is going beyond intention to start
something. Persistence is continuing to pursue a goal in the face of distractions, and mental
effort is seeking and applying new knowledge to solve a novel program or perform a new task.
Choice, persistence, and mental effort all have a great effect on the teachers’ abilities to
effectively collaborate. Although, LFMS does not give teachers a choice about attending certain
collaborative meetings, the mental effort expended in the meetings is correlated to the value
teachers perceive of meeting with their counterparts and the self-efficacy they have about
making valuable contribution. Table B also shows the recommendations for these influences
based on theoretical principles.
Table 20
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence: Cause, Need, or
Asset*

Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation
Teachers need to see the
benefit of engaging in
professional growth through
collaboration with other
teachers. (Utility Value)
Y Be explicit about value
and relevance of the
learning task for the
learner (Schraw &
Lehman, 2009).

Individuals are more
likely to engage in an
activity when it
provides value to them.
(Eccles, 2009).
Provide explicit outcomes at the
beginning a collaborative meeting and
evaluate the level to which those goals
were met at the end.
Have participants reflect at the
beginning of each meeting how they
used the information or strategies from
the previous meeting.
Teachers, especially new
teachers, do not have the
confidence that they can make
a valuable contribution in a
Y High self-efficacy can
positively influence
motivation (Pajares,
2006).

Provide teachers with responsibilities
and pieces of the work to do prior to
PLC, so new teachers have the
opportunity to research the part they are
127
collaborative learning
environment (Self-efficacy)
Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when learners
have positive
expectancies for success
(Pajares, 2006).
responsible for and still feel like they
can contribute.
Teachers who are in teams that
are not well functioning feel
alone and in silos and do not
look forward to coming to
work. (Mood)
Y Individuals who do not
perceive any support in
their environment “tend
to be hopeless”
(Ambrose, 2010).
Provide a structure to collaboration that
involves all participants bringing
something to contribute to the meeting.
Develop team culture.

Self-Efficacy. Self-efficacy is the ability for the individual to perceive success or failure
at a task based on their own self-perceptions, previous experiences, or the experiences of others
(Pajares, 2009). This perception feeds their confidence in their abilities. The data showed that
Leaping Forward Middle School teachers, especially new teachers, lacked confidence in their
ability to make valuable contributions in a collaborative setting. High self-efficacy can positively
influence motivation (Pajares, 2006), so teachers must develop this self-efficacy in order to
affect their motivation within the group. Performance gaps will likely continue until teachers all
have a common understanding of PLC processes and have a role that they can own that provides
value to the team.
According to Ahmed, Shahzad, Aslam, Bajwa, and Bahoo (2016) employee
empowerment increases the willingness of employees to both share and gather knowledge
resources from the group. By assigning teachers who participate in collaboration with a specific
role in the collaborative meeting, teachers are empowered to share their knowledge resources.
The added benefit, according to Ahmed, et al. (2016), is that teachers will also have an increased
willingness to learn from others. Assigning a role would also benefit new teachers, so that they
can engage in prior investigation about their role in order to have confidence in what they are
contributing at the meetings. Pajares (2006) states that learning and motivation are enhanced
when learners have positive expectancies for success. By allowing teachers, especially new
teachers, to have time to process the information for their role, they will have a greater
128
expectancy that they can contribute meaningfully in collaboration. Gratton and Erickson (2007)
in Harvard Business Review (HBR) debunks the common myth among organizational leaders
that the leader must carefully spell out the approach, but leave the roles of the individuals vague
in order to promote collaboration. Instead, the research in HBR shows that opposite.
Collaboration improves when the roles of individuals are clearly defined instead of ambiguous.
This allows the team members to put their energy into completing their individual portion of the
work rather than negotiating roles and responsibilities among the team.
Value. Utility Value is when an individual finds importance in a task (Eccles, 2006). The
value given to the task plays an integral role in individuals choice to begin or complete the task,
the mental effort they put towards it, and persistence in completing the task. (Clark & Estes,
2008). The data showed that only some of the teachers at Leaping Forward Middle School see
the benefit of engaging in professional growth through collaboration. Therefore, it is important to
be explicit about the value and relevance of learning task for the learner, in this case PLCs
(Schraw & Lehman, 2009). Being explicit can illicit engagement in PLCs, because it will
provide value to what the teachers are doing in the collaborative meetings. Performance gaps
will likely continue until teachers see a value in the engaging in the the PLC and other
collaborative learning opportunities.
Eccles (2009) states that individuals are more likely to engage in an activity when it
provides value to them. Using the learning principle of Schraw ad Lehman (2009), the
recommendation is to explicitly state the outcomes at the beginning of collaborative meetings
and evaluate the level to which these goals are being met at the end of each PLC. In this way,
each meeting will have an identified purpose and a relevant outcome for the
participants. Furthermore, participants can reflect at the beginning of each meeting how they
129
used the information or strategies from the previous meeting. This kind of reflection establishes
how the objectives of the previous meeting became meaningful to their professional practice.
Mood. The engagement among the colleagues within a group directly affects the mood of
the meetings and the overall feel of the organization. An article in Harvard Business Review,
emphasized the importance of developing strong social relationships as a key to building
effective collaborative teams (Gratton & Erickson, 2007). The data showed that teachers who are
in teams that are not well functioning feel alone and in silos; because of this, they do not look
forward to coming to work. Therefore, improving the overall environment of the school culture
will start with developing relationships among staff.
According to Ambrose (2010), individuals who do not perceive any support in their
environment tend to feel hopeless. To improve the overall mood of the team, it is recommended
that leaders develop a team culture starting in the collaborative meetings. This can be done by
providing a structure to collaboration that involves all participants bringing something to
contribute to the meeting. If all participants are contributing something, teachers will not feel as
though they are in silos doing all of the work by themselves. A simple task like bringing
something to the meeting to share allows them to work together as a team and develop the
feeling of togetherness.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. Table 21 represent the complete list of assumed organization influences
and the priority they have to achieving the stakeholders’ goal. These influences were derived
from surveys and interviews and supported by the literature review and the review of
organization and culture theory. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that organization and
stakeholder goals are often not achieved due to a lack of resources, most often time and money,
and stakeholder goals that are not aligned with the organization’s mission and goals. Gallimore
130
and Goldenberg (2001) propose two constructs about culture – cultural models or the observable
beliefs and values shared by individuals in groups, and cultural models, or the settings and
activities in which performance occurs. Thus, resources, processes, cultural models, and settings
must align throughout the organization’s structure to achieve the mission and goals. Table 21
also shows the recommendations for these influences based on theoretical principles.
Table 21
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation

Context-Specific Recommendation
Cultural Model
Influence 1: Teachers
do not see the
individual value that
each member of the
team brings to the
table.
Y Create an environment that fosters
desirable behaviors. (Tuckman,
2009)

Break down complex tasks and
encourage individuals to think
about content in strategic ways
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).

Expectancy/value: the more a
person values a task and the more
they think they are likely to
succeed at it, the greater their
motivation to do it (Wigfield &
Eccles 2000).

Creating positive relationships
with one’s staff is correlated with
gains in student learning outcomes
in schools (Waters, Marzano &
McNulty, 2003).
Provide each team member with a role
prior to meetings, so that teachers have
time to research, learn and seek
resources that they can contribute at
the next meeting. Provide
accountability that individuals are
coming prepared for meetings by
completing a pre-planning template.

Cultural Setting
Influence 1: The
organization provides
limited support,
guidance, and
expectations of
outcomes for teachers.
Y Learning, motivation and
performance will be enhanced if
participants have clear, current
and challenging goals. For
feedback to be effective, it should
be timely, concrete (task focused)
and goal-focused (Kluger &
DeNisi, 1996).

Focusing the work on the school’s
vision was correlated with
improvements in student learning
Set school-wide standards among all
leadership team members
(administrators, instructional
specialists, team leads, and department
heads) about the protocols for
meetings and vision for their
leadership. Provide accountability that
meetings are occurring and being
facilitated effectively.
131
outcomes (Waters, Marzano &
McNulty, 2003)

School leadership is an important
factor in building capacity and
student achievement (Waters,
Marzano & McNulty, 2003).

Cultural models. A cultural model within the organization is a norm that is generally
known and understood by the community that participates in that culture (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). A cultural model is the invisible component of a school culture that subtly
defines what activities occur and who participates in those activities. Therefore, the cultural
models that may influence an organization's success are implicit and may only be observed as
undertones or through the feelings of those in the organization. At Leaping Forward Middle
School participants identified that they do not feel as though other individuals within their team
will value what they bring to the table during collaboration. Some teachers also believe that they
cannot bring anything of importance to the meeting. Much of collaboration takes place in a
particular setting. This environment needs to be created so that desirable behaviors are fostered
within that community (Tuckman, 2009). This kind of environment can be created by creating
positive relationships among one’s staff. Walters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) found that
positive relationships among staff is correlated with gains in student learning, which is an
obvious benefit to an educational organization. Therefore, it is beneficial for meeting multiple
organizational goals to develop an environment for staff in which they enjoy participating. To
address this particular need for LFMS to see value among colleagues in their teams, it requires
something greater than just a team building activity to make them have more positive feelings
about each other. Addressing this need requires staff to develop a value and dependence upon
their colleagues to contribute meaningfully to their professional learning. This organizational
influence requires staff to have knowledge to contribute, motivation to share their understanding,
and the safety within the team that it will be valued by the other participants. The experience and
132
background of the members may require particular teams to focus on one of these areas more
than others. For example, a new teacher may need to study or seek professional development on
something in order to be prepared to share during PLC.
One recommendation to promote a collaborative environment that values each member is
to assign roles to each member, so that each member is prepared for the meeting to contribute in
the role that they were given. This would allow the leader of the collaborative meetings to break
down the meeting information into more manageable pieces. Schraw and McCrudden (2006)
suggest that leaders should break down complex tasks to encourage individuals to think about
content in strategic ways. By allowing the members of the team to present the information to the
team, the leader is engaging in shared leadership rather than a dictatorial meeting style. This also
averts the more vocal team member from dominating the conversation in the meeting. By
allowing each member of the team to have ownership of a piece of the content that will be
discussed at the meeting, each member makes a valuable contribution to the team.
Cultural settings. The cultural settings of an organization is how the people within the
organization engage with each other and the structures that are already in place. Currently,
LFMS provides limited guidance about protocols and expectations of the outcomes for each type
of collaborative meeting. PLC meetings have several outcomes that cannot all be achieved in the
amount of time given to PLC meetings; whereas, grade-level meetings, when they are occurring,
have a single objective. With the lack of guidance by administrators, teams operate in very
different manners. One grade-level team may meet weekly, while other teams may meet monthly
or every semester. Teams that meet regularly meet out of compliance or just to check in;
whereas, other less frequent teams meet just when it is absolutely necessary. The learning,
motivation and performance of teams will be enhanced if participants have clear, current, and
challenging goals (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Leaders are responsible to provide this clarity and
133
appoint leaders who share the same vision. Focusing the work on the school’s vision was
correlated with improvements in student learning outcomes (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty,
2003). Again, improving student learning outcomes is a positive goal for an educational
organization and a necessity. However, this requires that administrators instill this vision and
build capacity within their appointed leaders to project this vision among the teams they lead.
School leadership is integral to building capacity and student achievement.
A recommendation is to improve the systematic structure and protocols of meetings. This
includes all delegated team members receiving directives about how often to meet and
establishing a purpose to meet. School leaders have an integral role to establish a vision for their
subordinates (Cosner & Jones, 2016; Crow, 2015; Gajda & Koliba, 2008; Ketterlin-Geller,
Baumer, Lichon, 2015). Part of the responsibility of establishing a vision is to ensure others
share and carry out that vision. Establishing protocols and standards for the various meetings
(i.e., team meetings, planning meetings, data meetings, leadership meetings) will eliminate
redundancy and establish a structure for disseminating information and channels for decision-
making. However, these structures will only be as efficacious as the accountability that is
established for these structures. Leaders should understand to whom they are accountable and
with whom they share information from the group. This will further the level of communication
by establishing appropriate channels for communication.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The following section is an implementation and evaluation plan to address the
performance gaps regarding collaboration within the organization. The plan is intended to focus
on the organizational goal that was stated at the beginning of this dissertation study, utilize the
data from the study to identify the gaps, and devise this plan to address those gaps. An integral
part of this plan is the evaluation of how effectively the plan is being implemented within the
134
organization. Therefore, a plan to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of working
towards the goal of developing a collaborative professional learning culture is also provided.
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The model that informed this implementation and evaluation plan is the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), based on the original Kirkpatrick Four
Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). This model suggests that
evaluation plans start with the goals of the organization and work backwards and that, by doing
so, the “leading indicators” that bridge recommended solutions to the organization’s goals are
both easier to identify and more closely aligned with organizational goals. Further, this “reverse
order” of the New World Kirkpatrick Model allows for a sequence of three other actions: a) first,
the development of solution outcomes that focus on assessing work behaviors, b) next, the
identification of indicators that learning occurred during implementation, and c) finally, the
emergence of indicators that organizational members are satisfied with implementation
strategies. Designing the implementation and evaluation plan in this manner forces connections
between the immediate solutions and the larger goal and solicits proximal “buy in” to ensure
success (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
The mission of the district is to develop students to their fullest potentials so that that they
may become responsible, productive citizens. Inherent in this mission is that all students will
learn. The purpose of the school developing a systematic and sustainable plan for ongoing
collaborative professional development and developing the culture and structure for
collaboration is to promote greater student learning. How quickly and effectively teachers can
move students to understand content is connected to teachers utilizing the best resources
available to them in order to deliver the most effective instruction possible. This project
135
examined the knowledge and skills, motivational, and organizational barriers that prevent
teachers from engaging in collaboration with their colleagues. The proposed solution, a
systematic way to facilitate meetings and report information, opportunities for teachers to learn,
and related on-the-job supports for teacher collaboration, should produce the desired outcome –
an increased culture of collaborative learning that will improve instructional delivery and content
knowledge.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 22 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics and methods for both external and internal outcomes for LFMS. If the
internal outcomes are met as expected as a result of the training and organizational support for
teacher collaboration, then the external outcomes should also be realized.
Table 22
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Fewer parent complaints with
teacher satisfaction and
curriculum
1. Number of students
switching between different
teachers of the same subject.
1. Counselor reports on parent complaints
and reasons for switching student
schedules.
2. Student performance that is
comparable from one teacher to
another on Curriculum-Based
Assessments (CBAs) and state
standardized tests.
2. Comparable percentages of
students in different classes
passing each CBA and state
assessment in each grade-level
2. Reports given to principal after test
administrations.
3. Improved student performance
on report cards
3. Comparable percentage of
students passing in each class
on report cards
3. Students demonstrate a higher level of
mastery in a subject based on the
collaborative efforts of the teachers to
meet their needs.
4. Higher teacher satisfaction
with culture and lower teacher
turnover rate from one year to
the next
4. Number of teachers who are
resigning throughout the year
or at the end of the year
4. Principal report on the number of
teachers resigning and the given reasons
for resignation.
Internal Outcomes
5. Lesson plans that are
comparable in content and
activities between teachers of the
same subject and grade
5a. Number of teacher’s lesson
plans that are similar.
5a. Facilitator audit of lesson plans in
electronic lesson planner.
136

5b. Number of teachers who
have similar lesson plan
implementation and agendas in
classes during class
observations.
5b. Administrative classroom walk-
through documentation given to principal.
6. Shared structure for
collaborative meetings
6. Percentage of meeting
agendas and follow-up meeting
notes that follow a shared
structure
6. Calculate frequencies of the use of the
shared structure among facilitators.
7. Teachers arrive at
collaborative meetings prepared
7. Frequency in which all
teachers complete pre-planning
templates
7. Observation within the first ten to 15
minutes of the meeting will show evidence
of teacher preparedness. Templates can be
emailed by a certain date or brought
directly to the meetings.
8. Increased attendance and
participation in collaborative
meetings.
8a. Number of teachers absent
over a 6-week period of time
from collaborative meetings
8a. Attendance reports given to principal
by secretary and meeting facilitators

8b. Frequency of individual
teacher’s input in meeting
notes about employee
contributions
8b. Make annotations in meeting notes of
employee responsibilities and participant
contributions.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus are the teachers who are expected to
collaborate with colleagues to implement instruction for students in grades five through eight.
There are four critical behaviors that must be shown to move teachers towards to stakeholder
goal. The first critical behavior is that teachers must regularly attend and participate in
collaborative meetings. Attending the meeting is a basic need to support the overall goal of
collaboration, but participation is essential for the meeting to become more productive. The
second critical behavior is that teachers must complete pre-planning template prior to the
regularly scheduled meeting. This pre-planning template will show that teachers are prepared to
make appropriate contributions to the meeting. The third critical behavior is that they must
document the content, strategies, and materials used for each lesson. This will identify whether
teachers are collaboratively planning the lessons and discussing the most effective strategies to
teach content. The fourth critical behavior is that teachers are attending professional
137
developments within the district to support the development of their craft. The specific metrics,
methods, and timing for each of these outcome behaviors appears in Table 23.
Table 23

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing
Critical
Behavior
Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Attend and
participate in all
collaborative
meetings
1. Attendance
records for PLCs,
grade level meetings,
and staff meetings
1a. The team leads, department
heads, and specialists shall
provide a sign in sheet for
teachers who are attending and
report attendance to the
principal.
1a. Every meeting will have a
sign in sheet and a copy
should be turned into the
principal by the next day.

1b. Principal will spot check
attendance records prior to
evaluation conferences.
1b. Once a quarter
2. Complete pre-
planning template
prior to regularly
scheduled meetings
2. Meeting Minutes 2. Meeting facilitators should
record which participants are
sharing information from the
pre-planning templates in the
meeting minutes
2. Meeting minutes should be
reported weekly to the
principal and checked by the
principal monthly and prior
to evaluation conferences.
3.Document the
content, strategies,
and materials used
for each lesson
3. Online lesson
planner

3. The teacher’s appraiser
should monitor the lesson
planner and conference with
teachers about missing
components.
3. During first 90 days of the
school year - weekly.

Thereafter – monthly, so
long as previously
successful.
4. Attend
professional
development
opportunities
provided by the
district
4. Professional
development sign in
sheets
4. The teacher’s appraiser
should monitor the teacher’s
attendance at professional
development opportunities
during evaluation meetings
4. Once a quarter at
evaluation meetings

Required drivers. Teachers require the support of their principals and the organization’s
support staff to reinforce what they learn in the collaborative meetings and to encourage them to
apply what they have learned in the classroom. Rewards should be established for achievement
of performance goals to enhance the organizational support of teachers. Table 24 shows the
recommended drivers to support critical behaviors of teachers.
Table 24
138
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing

Job Aid including the instructions for how to
complete the pre-planning template
Ongoing 2
Job Aid including list of agreed upon norms for
collaborative meetings
Ongoing 1
Weekly automatic reminders to attend weekly
meetings.
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Encouraging

Peer and facilitator modeling of norms during team
meetings.
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Feedback and coaching from team lead, specialist, or
campus administrator
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
Monthly opportunities for teachers to present in staff
meetings, PLCs, or department meetings what they
have been learning in professional development
Monthly 4
Rewarding

Performance incentive when teachers classes reach
highest improvement and performance standards on
Curriculum-Based Assessments (CBAs)
Every 9 weeks 3
Public acknowledgement, such as a “team builder”
award for attending and contributing to collaborative
meetings
Quarterly 1, 2

Monitoring

Campus administrator can create opportunities at
staff meetings to share teachers’ success stories
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Facilitators can ask teachers to self-report their
confidence and self-efficacy in completing the pre-
planning template
Every week for the
first month;
thereafter, monthly
2

Organizational support. The organization requires the support of the campus
administrators as well as all that of the chosen leaders on their campus in order to create a culture
of collaborative professional learning. First and foremost, the campus leaders need to decide on a
calendar of events for meetings throughout the year and reserve these dates solely for teacher
collaboration. The organization must allow teachers to have the time to meet for collaborative
meetings without restricting teachers access to these meetings. Teachers’ access is restricted
139
when the campus plans for other meetings during the time of the collaborative meeting. By
calendarizing meetings and sticking to the calendar, teachers develop routine and other meetings
can be scheduled around the important collaborative times. This also allows for greater
productivity in the meetings because each meeting has a purpose that can be accomplished in the
given time frame for the meeting.
Teachers must know how to complete the pre-planning template for sharing the content
that they are responsible to learn prior to collaboration. Additionally, they must know how to
access resources that will help them fill out the pre-planning template. The organization must
allocate time during the teacher’s contract to train them on accessing and utilizing the resources
available to the district to complete the pre-planning template.
All leaders and facilitators must be trained on the ways the district and campus
administrators would like meeting documentation reported. Documentation should include a
standard format for conducting the meeting that is appropriate to each meeting’s purpose. A job
aid may be provided to leaders that they must follow for reporting each meeting.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following completion of the recommended solutions the stakeholders
will be able to:
1. Understand the norms for collaboration, (D)
3. Transfer collaborative learning into professional practice, (P)
2. Reflect on their level of engagement in collaborative professional development
opportunities, (M)
3. Understand how to complete the pre-planning template for PLC, (P)
4. Apply what is learned in collaborative meetings to their lesson plans, (P)
140
5. Value the contributions of their colleagues to improve their professional practice,
(Value)
6. Implement suggestions that other colleagues regarding teaching strategies and lessons,
(Confidence)
Program. The learning goals listed in the previous section will be achieved with a
training program that is a combination of job-embedded trainings with support and mentoring
along with one-time trainings on procedures and strategies. Due to the nature of collaboration, it
would be difficult to isolate the training to a single event; instead, training would be a
combination of modeled behavior from the leadership, mentoring between colleagues and
leaders, and coaching on how to be as well-prepared as possible to contribute meaningfully to the
collaborative processes established by the school. The trainings explore the attitudes, beliefs and
norms of collaborative professional learning communities, including how to appropriately
prepare for and engage in professional learning communities.
At least one training on how to complete pre-planning templates will occur. This practice
will require modeling and mentoring by the meeting facilitators after the training to ensure
teachers understand how to adapt the templates to their specific content area materials and utilize
them appropriately. Ongoing training will occur in the form of job-embedded practice and job
aids will be given to reinforce the expected behaviors.
Establishing cultural norms for collaboration will be explicitly taught to teachers;
however, ongoing reinforcement of the norms will be embedded into typical routines and
meetings related to the job. An essential part of the program is creating a pervasive culture that
embraces collaboration. Job aids will be displayed to provide reminders, as well as modeling
from campus administrators, team leads, and other facilitators.
141
Components of learning. Demonstrating declarative knowledge is often necessary as a
precursor to applying the knowledge to solve problems. Thus, it is important to evaluate
learning for both declarative and procedural knowledge being taught. It is also important that
learners value the training as a prerequisite to using their newly learned knowledge and skills on
the job. However, they must also be confident that they can succeed in applying their knowledge
and skills and be committed to using them on the job. As such, Table 25 lists the evaluation
methods and timing for these components of learning.
Table 25
Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Knowledge checks during collaborative meetings. During the weekly meetings
Observe participant behaviors during meetings and
review/reteach the behaviors necessary.
During weekly meetings and
documented weekly in
observation notes
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Quality feedback from peers of lesson plans During weekly meetings
Demonstration in meetings of effective use of the lesson
planning template to successfully perform the skills.
During weekly meetings
Quality of the feedback from peers during group sharing During weekly meetings.
Individual use of the lesson planning format In weekly online lesson planner
Ability to participate in the weekly meetings based on
completion of the pre-planning template
During weekly meetings
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

Instructor’s observation of participants’ statements and
actions demonstrating that they see the benefit of what
they are being asked to do on the job.
During the meetings and class
observations.
Discussions of the value of what they are being asked to do
on the job.
During weekly meetings.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”

Survey items using scaled items Quarterly to adjust training and
instruction.
Discussions following practice and feedback.

During weekly meetings.
Reflection on confidence to complete the pre-planning
template, lesson plan, and transfer into classroom
Ongoing during weekly
meetings.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

142
One-on-one discussions about observation feedback. Ongoing-weekly for the first 3
months; bi-weekly thereafter
Create an individual action plan.

During the workshop.

Level 1: Reaction
Teachers’ reactions to the initial training is an important catalyst for how teachers will
respond in Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s Levels 2 through 4. Table 26 identifies the components
to measure the program either immediately after the initial training on lesson planning and
completing the pre-planning templates. The table is divided into three sections: engagement,
relevance, and customer satisfactions. The methods or tools for each of these three components
are given a timeline in which they will be completed.
Table 26
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement

Completion of lessons after the training The week after the
initial training
Observation by facilitator During the training
Attendance During the workshop
Teacher evaluation of the training Within one week after
the training
Relevance

Brief pulse-check with participants via survey (online) and discussion
(ongoing)
After the training

Anonymous evaluations of individual and team participation in
meetings that reflects the values in the chosen norms.
Ongoing monthly
Customer Satisfaction

Brief pulse-check with participants via survey (online) and discussion
(ongoing)
After every
collaborative meeting

Anonymous questionnaires in meetings that ask whether facilitator
was able to adequately meet the needs of the participants in this
meeting
Ongoing

Evaluation Tools
143
Immediately following the program implementation. During the training on lesson
planning and completing the PLC pre-planning template, the trainer will use a brief survey to
collect data about the effectiveness of the training. This data point will show the teachers’ Level
1 reaction to the initial trainings. This will gauge whether participants understood the content and
felt like it could be relevant and useful to them in their job performance while they are lesson
planning and collaborating.
In addition to the survey to gauge Level 1 reactions, the trainer for the lesson planning
and the planning template will conduct periodic pulse-checks by asking the participants about the
relevance of the content to their work and the organization, delivery, and learning environment.
Level 2 evaluation will include checks for understanding using games or competition among
groups to evaluate how participants are able to use the skills that are being taught. Participants
will also be asked to apply the content to next week’s lesson planning and pre-planning, so the
instructor can gauge participants’ ability to apply the content. In a survey following the training,
questions will be asked regarding the participants’ knowledge, attitude, confidence and
commitment to apply the training to their practice.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately six weeks
after the trainings have been rolled out for the pre-planning template and lesson planning, the
leadership will administer a survey open-ended and likert-scale items using the Blended
Evaluation approach to measure, from the participant’s perspective, satisfaction and relevance of
the training (Level 1), confidence and value of applying their training (Level 2), application of
the training and support from the leadership and peers that they are receiving (Level 3), and the
extent to which their collaboration among their peers is transferring into relevant teaching
practices and improved pedagogical delivery of instruction (Level 4).
Data Analysis and Reporting
144
The Level 4 goal of measured by teachers’ engagement in collaboration among their
colleagues that improves their content knowledge and pedagogical delivery of instruction.
Therefore, there will be evidence that teachers are more comfortable with the content they are
teaching and their ability to present the content in their classrooms. Information will be recorded
weekly on how confident they feel about the content that they delivered and the instructional
approaches that they used. Throughout the year, this data will be recorded on a pictograph (i.e.,
one star for low confidence, five stars for high confidence). This information will be maintained
throughout the year and shared with teachers and curriculum specialists. It will be used as a
reflection piece for the end of year review and for planning the professional development for the
following year. The professional development will be designed to target specifically the content
that teachers did not feel confident in teaching.
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the
training interventions that will be put in place to improve teachers’ content knowledge and
pedagogical delivery of instruction through collaboration. Using this as a Level 4 goal the
organization can drill down to devise the most effective training plan for the participants. The
training will begin with understanding the knowledge, skills and organizational influences that
contribute to the performance gaps. After identifying what the root causes are for teachers not
applying the knowledge and skills that they collaborate on, the program will focus on what
critical behaviors need to be transferred in order to improve collaboration on content knowledge
and pedagogy. These critical behaviors will be broken down into the essential learning that must
take place in order for the behaviors to be done. This will focus the training on the procedural
knowledge and declarative knowledge that the participants must learn to fill in the performance
gaps. After planning the focus of the trainings, the New World Kirkpatrick Model looks at the
145
participants’ reactions to the initial trainings by gauging their knowledge, satisfaction, and
perceived relevance of what the participants are learning.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that helped or hindered a collaborative professional learning environment in a 5
th

through 8
th
grade middle school campus. Although the results are specific to one school site,
there are implications for other school sites that may assist in schools developing robust teacher
development programs that improve teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical delivery of
instruction. This study employed an explanatory sequential research method gathering both
quantitative survey data and qualitative interview data. The data from this study found that
teachers generally employed common norms for interacting with their colleagues; however,
systemic structures and expectations were known but not explicit. While teachers were given
time to collaborate with their colleagues, the meetings either had too many objectives or lacked a
purpose altogether. Teachers shared that professional development opportunities were limited or
ineffective because it lacked much substance beyond a single day of training and feedback about
how it was implemented in their classrooms. The final section of this study was an
implementation and evaluation plan to address the performance gaps that were identified in the
data.

146
REFERENCES
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474.
Ahmed, F., Shahzad, K., Aslam, H., Bajwa, S. U., & Bahoo, R. (2016). The role of
collaborative culture in knowledge sharing and creativity among employees. Pakistan
Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 10(2), 335-358. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1
833035414?accountid=14749.
Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A
topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 176–192.
Anrig, Greg (2013). Cultivating collaboration: The science behind thriving labor-management
Relationships.
Arnell, R (2014). Teachers beliefs on personal learning, collaboration, and participation in virtual
communities of practice. Dissertation: 3666822
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Baer, P. E., & Bandura, A. (1963). Social reinforcement and behavior change—Symposium,
1962: 1. behavior theory and identificatory learning. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 33(4), 591-601.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1963.tb01007.x
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
147
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (2nd
ed., Chapters 1, 2, 3). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brouwer, P. Brekelmans, M., Nieuwenhuis, L., & Simons, R. J. (2012). Communities of practice
in the school workplace. Journal of Educational Administration, (50)3, 346-364.
Cerit, Y. (2013). Trust and extra effort implementing curriculum reform: The mediating effects
of collaboration. The Asia - Pacific Education Researcher, 22(3), 247-255.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1007/s40299-012-0018-0.
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Cook ISD (2014) LISD annexed to CISD. Cook Independent School District. Retrieved from
http://www.cisd.org/.
Cosner, S., & Jones, M. F. (2016). Leading school-wide improvement in low-performing schools
facing conditions of accountability. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(1), 41-57.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Crow, T. (2015). Keys to collaboration: What it takes to move toward collective
responsbility. Journal of Staff Development, 36(3), 10-12. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1720058857?accountid=14749.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). The color line in American education: Race, resources, and
student achievement. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 1(2), 213-246.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1017/S1742058X0404202X
Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining "highly qualified teachers": What does
"scientifically-based research" actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13.
Retrieved from
148
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/2
16900762?accountid=14749
DuFour, R. (2004). "What is a professional learning community?" Educational
Leadership, 61(8), 6-11. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/2
24847145?accountid=14749
Dumas, C. (2010). Building leadership: The knowledge of principals in creating collaborative
communities of professional learning (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://www.allthingsplc.info/articles-research/page,2/filtered,0/categories
Economides, A. A. (2008). Culture-aware collaborative learning. Multicultural Education &
Technology Journal, 2(4), 243-267.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1108/17504970810911052.
Egodawatte, G., Mcdougall, D., & Stoilescu, D. (2011). The effects of teacher collaboration in
grade 9 applied mathematics. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 10(3), 189-
209. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1007/s10671-011-9104-y.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved
from http://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/bridging-gap-between-standards-and-
achievement
Englert, K., & Barley, Z. A. (2008). Identifying differences between two groups of high-needs
high schools. Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL).
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1509084217?accountid=14749.
Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro level of
149
the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 53(4), 583–598.
European Commission (2014) Teaching and learning international survey (TALIS) 2013: Main
findings from the survey and implications for education and training policies in Europe.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. (5th ed.). Thousand
Oaks: SAGE.
Gajda, R., & Koliba, C. J. (2008). Evaluating and improving the quality of teacher collaboration:
A field-tested framework for secondary school leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 92(2), 133-153.
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/61980919?accountid=14749.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56.
Gallimore, R., Ermeling, B. A., Saunders, W. M., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). Moving the learning
of teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry
teams. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 537-553.
Gates, G., & Robinson, S. (2009). Delving into teacher collaboration: Untangling problems and
solutions for leadership. NASSP Bulletin, 93(3), 145-165. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/61810996?accountid=14749.
Goddard, Y., Goddard, R., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical
investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in
public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877-896.
Goldhaber, D. (2016). In schools, teacher quality matters most. Education Next, 16(2) Retrieved
150
from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1790921094?accountid=14749
Grossman, R. & Salas, E. (2011) The transfer of training: what really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103-120.
Gumus, S., Bulut, O., & Bellibas, M. S. (2013). The relationship between principal leadership
and teacher collaboration in Turkish primary schools: A multilevel analysis. Education
Research and Perspectives, 40(1), 1-29. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1413417061?accountid=14749.
Hakanen, M., & Soudunsaari, A. (2012). Building trust in high-performing teams. Technology
Innovation Management Review, 2(6), 38-41. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1
614473230?accountid=14749.
Hallam, P. R., Smith, H. R., Hite, J. M., Hite, S. J., & Wilcox, B. R. (2015). Trust and
collaboration in PLC teams: Teacher relationships, principal support, and collaborative
benefits. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 99(3),
193-216.
Hanushek, E. A., Rivkin, S. G. (2010) Generalizations about using value-added measures of
teacher quality. American Economic Review, 100(2), 267-271.
Hinman, C. (2006) Developing a substantive professional learning community. National Forum
of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal 24(1), 29-35.
Hjerto, K. B., Paulsen, J. M., Tihverainen, S. P. (2014). Social-cognitive outcomes of teachers’
engagement in learning communities. Journal of Educational Administration, (52)6, 775-
791.
Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012). Fostering team
151
creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity's potential. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97(5), 982-996. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1037/a0029159.
Jessie, L. G. (2007) The elements of a professional learning community: Professional learning
communities will change how you and your staff view learning. Leadership Compass,
(5)2.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed approaches. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Baumer, P., & Lichon, K. (2015). Administrators as advocates for
teacher collaboration. Intervention in School and Clinic, 51(1), 51-57.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved
from http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/.
Knight, A. T., Cowling, R. M., Rouget, M., Balmford, A., Lombard, A. T., & Campbell, B. M.
(2007). Knowing but not doing: Selecting priority conservation areas and the research-
implementation gap. Conservation Biology, 22(3), 610–617.
Knowles, M. S. (1977). Adult learning processes: Pedagogy and andragogy. Religious
Education, 72(2), 202. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1
296891711?accountid=14749
Levine, T. H., & Marcus, A. S. (2007). Closing the achievement gap through teacher
collaboration: Facilitating multiple trajectories of teacher learning. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 19(1), 116-138,147. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/2
22734437?accountid=14749.
Lomos, C., Hofman, R. H., Bosker, R.J. (2011). Professional communities and student
152
achievement—A meta-analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement (22)2,
121-148.
Luhn, A. (2016). The learning organization. Creative and Knowledge Society, 6(1), 1-13.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1515/cks-2016-0005
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Mayer, A., Woulfin, S., & Warhol, L. (2015) Moving the center of expertise: Applying a
communities of practice framework to understand coaching in urban school reform.
Educational Change, (16) 101-123.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning (2005). Final Report: High-needs
schools-what does it take to beat the odds. Regional Education Laboratory. Retrieved
from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/62145936?accountid=14749.
Miller, R. J., Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R., Larsen, R., & Jacob, R. (2010). Instructional
Leadership: A Pathway to Teacher Collaboration and Student Achievement.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved
from http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Riveros, A. (2012). Beyond collaboration: Embodied teacher learning and the discourse of
153
collaboration in education reform. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 31(6), 603-612.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1007/s11217-012-9323-6.
Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S. O., McQueen, K., Grissom, J. A.(2015). Teacher collaboration in
instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal
(52)3, 475-514.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 6. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/210585998?accountid=14749.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. Century Business.
Styron, R. A., & Nyman, T. R. (2008). Key characteristics of middle school performance. RMLE
Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 31(5), 1-17. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/61967327?accountid=14749.
Szczesiul, S., & Huizenga, J. (2014). The burden of leadership: Exploring the principal's role in
teacher collaboration. Improving Schools, 17(2), 176-191. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1651862989?accountid=14749.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Texas Education Agency (2015). Leak ISD to be annexed into Cook ISD. Texas
Education Agency News. Austin, TX.
Unger, Helga (2002): Organisationales Lernen durch Teams, 2., verbesserte Auflage, Mering:
Rainer Hampp Verlag.
Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic
154
review. Educational Research Review, 15(2), 17-40.
Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of practice and social learning systems: the career of a concept.
In Social learning systems and communities of practice (pp. 179-198). Springer London.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Chapter 3: Preparation for interviewing, Chapter 4: Interviewing, and
Chapter 5: Issues in interviewing. In Learning from strangers: The art and method of
qualitative interview studies (pp. 51-59, 61-81, and 141-150). New York, NY: The Free
Press.
White, G. W., Stepney, C. T., Hatchimonji, D. R., Moceri, D. C., Linsky, A. V., Reyes-Portillo,
J., & Elias, M. J. (2016). The increasing impact of socioeconomics and race on
standardized academic test scores across elementary, middle, and high school. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 86(1), 10-23.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1037/ort0000122
Williams, D. J. (2013). Urban education and professional learning communities.Delta Kappa
Gamma Bulletin, 79(2), 31-39.

155
APPENDIX A: QUANTITATIVE SURVEY INSTRUMENT

How many years have you been a teacher?
0-1
2-4
5-7
8-12
13+

I have worked for this school for ____ years. (Please enter a whole number. If this is your first
year, enter “0”.)

I have been unable to attend or late to a staff meeting, PLC, or grade-level meeting _____ times
because of a work-related scheduling conflict (i.e., ARD meeting, meeting with a campus
administrator, or other campus obligation) (Please enter a whole number. If this is your first year,
enter “0”.)

I have attended _____ professional developments this year. (Please enter a whole number. If
none, enter “0”.)

If you have attended a professional development in the past year, how many of them took place
for more than one day? (Please enter a whole number. If none, enter “0”.)
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
Disagree
I know that I am expected to collaborate
with colleagues.

It is important for me to work together
with my team to decide on the best
instructional practices to teach my
students.

An appropriate amount of time is
allocated during the school day for me
to interact with my colleagues about my
practice.

I know what outcomes are expected
when time for collaboration is given
during my work day.

I know the expectations for PLCs.
I know the expectations for grade-level
meetings.

I believe my participation in PLCs is
valuable.

I believe I can contribute meaningfully
in my grade-level team meetings.

I contribute to changing my
organization.

156

After learning a new teaching strategy, have you received follow up coaching from the instructor
to help you implement the material the strategy? (Please select Yes or No. If you have not
learned a new strategy, select None.)

After learning a new teaching strategy, have you received follow up coaching from a colleague
to help you implement the new strategy? (Please select Yes or No. If you have not learned a new
strategy, select None.)

Please read the statement below and identify the answer that most represents your personal
beliefs (Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree).

Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
Disagree
I believe my voice is heard by PLC
facilitators.

I believe my voice is heard by grade-
level meeting facilitators.

In my PLC, one person dominates the
conversation.

In grade-level meetings, one person
dominates the conversation.

I have input on the agendas of formal
meetings, like PLCs and staff meetings.

I have input on the agendas of grade-
level meetings.

I feel like I have input into who I work
with.

I can talk to another teacher on my
campus to help me improve my lesson
plan.

I can talk to another teacher on my
campus to help me improve my
classroom management.

I talk to my colleagues about
professional topics during or after the
school day.

I talk to my colleagues about personal
topics during or after the school day.

I trust my colleagues.
I believe my principal trusts me.
Opportunities to collaborate make me a
better teacher.

I believe that I can be just as effective
with or without collaboration with my
colleagues.

157

Interacting with colleagues allows me to
develop more creative teaching ideas.

I feel micromanaged in staff meetings.
I feel micromanaged in PLC.
After a training, I receive feedback
about how I am using that training in
my class from an administrator or a
peer.

Certain outcomes are expected by
colleagues or administrators after a
PLC.

Certain outcomes are expected by
colleagues or administrators after a
grade-level meeting.

Grade-level and/or team meetings make
me feel empowered to do my job better.

I feel as though I have autonomy in staff
meetings.

I feel as though I have autonomy in PLC
meetings.

Interacting with colleagues makes me
feel more creative.

158
APPENDIX B: QUALITATIVE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

1. Tell me about the opportunities that you have on your campus to interact with your
colleagues professionally.
2. Do you believe that you can be just as effective in your practice as a teacher with or
without collaborative opportunities planned into the day?
3. When does your school plan collaboration? During the day? After school?
a. Follow-up probe: How does the timing, if at all, affect your participation in the
collaboration?
4. Describe for me the expectations for interacting with your colleagues on your campus.
a. Follow-up: Are those your expectations you have for yourself or did the campus
administrators give those expectation?
b. Follow-up: If campus administrators, how did they communicate those
expectations to you?
5. When you meet with your colleagues, how much of the learning in those situations ends
up being used in your professional practice?
Follow-up: Can you give me a percentage?
6. If at all, how much does your interaction with other teachers impact your students’
performance?
7. How do you feel when you share your ideas with peers?
a. Follow-up: How about in the context of PLCs?
8. What are the outcomes of your interactions in PLCs?
9. How much do campus leaders and administrators guide PLC agendas and outcomes?
10. In what ways, if at all, does the campus or district support your professional growth?
11. If I were to walk into a PLC as an observer, what would I see?
12. Can you describe for me how PLCs would change if you or another colleague were
unable to attend?
a. Follow-up: How about if an administrator could not attend?
13. If someone were struggling with something like classroom management, how would they
approach getting the tools to improve in classroom management?
14. Can you think of a time when you attended a professional development that was
especially useful and productive for you?
a. How did the presenter/instructor/administrator structure the learning?
15. Can you share with me a specific experience when you felt like you learned something
that really changed how you teach?
16. What do you feel like you need from administrators, if anything, to better support
collaboration on your campus?
17. What do you feel like the school could do, if anything, to make employees more willing
to share ideas?
18. Is there anything you would like to add or clarify?

159
APPENDIX C: IMMEDIATE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY
For each of the following questions, use a Likert-scale 1-4 (1=highly disagree, 4=highly agree)
Level 1: Reaction
Engagement
I was personally interested and motivated during this session.
1 2 3 4

I feel like I understand more about how to create appropriate lesson plans because of the
learning activities in this session.
1 2 3 4
I feel like I understand more about how to prepare for PLCs because of the learning activities
in this session.
1 2 3 4
I was engaged in learning new ideas that I am willing to try.
1 2 3 4
Relevance

I found today’s content relevant to what I do in the classroom.
1 2 3 4
Customer Satisfaction
I feel comfortable using the skills I learned today in my day-to-day practice.
1 2 3 4
I think this training will make me more effective in the classroom.
1 2 3 4

Level 2: Learning
Knowledge
What are the major concepts that you learned during this training?
Attitude
On a scale of 1-4 (one strongly agree; four strongly disagree) rate your response to each of the
following statements.

I believe it is worthwhile for me to apply what I learned.
1 2 3 4
160
Confidence
What additional support will you need to implement what you learned?
Commitment
How do you plan to apply what you learned?

161
APPENDIX D: DELAYED PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY
Level Item
1 What I learned from the training has helped me on the job.
1 2 3 4
2 I feel confident about filling out a preplanning template for PLC.
1 2 3 4
2 I feel confident about completing lesson plans.
1 2 3 4
3 I have conferred with my peers about my use of the pre-planning template.
1 2 3 4
3 Describe something that you have applied to your practice after meeting with
colleagues.
4 I believe I will see a positive impact if I consistently use the pre-planning template.
1 2 3 4
4 I see a positive impact on student performance when I come to PLCs prepared with the
pre-planning template and utilize the lesson planning format.
1 2 3 4
4 How has the pre-planning template helped you, if at all, to better collaborate with your
colleagues?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An evaluation study: quality contextual professional development

PDF

Increasing family engagement at Lily Elementary School: An evaluation model

PDF

Factors impacting the effectiveness of mentor teachers in a national teacher residency

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

Labor displacement: a gap analysis an evaluation study addressing professional development in a small business environment

PDF

Characteristics that create a quality early learning center: An evaluation study

PDF

Transforming hardships into hope for juvenile justice-involved youth: a promising practice case study

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

Influencing teacher retention: an evaluation study

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents in developing collective efficacy in public secondary school...

PDF

Low teacher retention rates in private schools

PDF

The voices of teacher attrition: Perceptions of retention and turnover at an international school in Thailand

PDF

Professional development at an international school

PDF

First-year retention: Community college students -- a gap analysis

PDF

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

PDF

Increasing the number of minoritized teachers in the Apex public schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

PDF

Implementation of the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program in an urban secondary school: an improvement practice to address closing the achievement gap

PDF

School connectedness and teacher reflective practices

PDF

Bridging the gap: a formative evaluation of the productivity-based funding model’s support for academically underserved students

Asset Metadata

Creator Drzymala, Lisa Marie (author)

Core Title Developing a culture of teacher collaboration in middle school

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 12/13/2018

Defense Date 06/14/2018

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

Tag CIP,collaboration,OAI-PMH Harvest,PLC,teacher collaboration

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee chair), Kaplan, Sandra (committee member), Tiwana, Ravneet (committee member)

Creator Email lisaboulanger921@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-114021

Unique identifier UC11675723

Identifier etd-DrzymalaLi-7017.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-114021 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-DrzymalaLi-7017.pdf

Dmrecord 114021

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Drzymala, Lisa Marie

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