University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Teacher leadership for personalized learning: An implementation study in an international school

(USC Thesis Other)

Teacher leadership for personalized learning: An implementation study in an international school

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING
Copyright 2018 Amanda E. Wood

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING:

AN IMPLEMENTATION STUDY IN AN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL

by

Amanda Elizabeth Wood

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 12, 2018

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

ii

Acknowledgements

This dissertation would not be possible without the support I’ve received from friends,
colleagues, mentors and most importantly, family. To everyone who cheered me on over the last
three years, a sincere thank you.
Thank you to the elementary school faculty for your understanding and kind words of
encouragement. I am honored to learn alongside you and appreciate your dedication to our
school. A tremendous thank you to the elementary leadership team for your grace, humor and
continued support. I am so grateful to be part of this team.
A special thank you to the members of the USC cohort. I cannot imagine completing this
journey without you. Each member of the cohort is an inspired learner and I became more
reflective about my own practice because of our conversations in class and beyond.
I am grateful for the mentorship and guidance provided by my dissertation chair, Dr.
Lawrence Picus. You found the balance between asking the right questions to push my thinking
and giving me space to reflect on my research. Thank you to Dr. Doug Reeves and Dr. Ruth
Chang, my dissertation committee members. Your insights and expertise guided me through the
development and implementation of this study and I appreciate your continued support through
the process.
My most heartfelt thanks and gratitude to my family here and overseas. Your support
helped me to push through when stuck and your belief encouraged me to keep going. Above all
else, thank you to my husband, Simon, for being beside me every step of the way. You have
sacrificed more than anyone along this journey and your support means more than I can ever say.
Thank you for listening patiently and offering feedback as I developed this study, but most of all,
thank you for believing in me, even when I did not.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Abstract vii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM 1
Organizational Context and Mission 2
Organizational Performance Problem 3
Related Literature 4
Importance of the Problem 6
Organizational Goal 7
Stakeholder for the Implementation Study – Teacher Leaders 7
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 8
Definitions 8
Organization of the Dissertation 10

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 11
Leadership 12
Transformational Leadership 15
Instructional Leadership 19
Distrubted Leadership 22
Teacher Leadership 29
Personalized Learning 37
Learning Theory and Personalized Learning 39
Elements of Personalized Learning 40
Differentiation and Individualization 43
Evidence of Personalized Learning and Student Achievement 45
Cautions for Personalized Learning 46
Purpose of the Study 46

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 48
Rationale for Method of Study 48
Participants and Sampling Rationale 49
Instruments 51
Interviews 51
Survey 53
Procedure 53
Credibility and Trustworthiness 55
Ethics 56
Analysis 56

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 58
Participants 59
Findings Related to Research Question 1 61

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

iv

Systems and Process 64
Dispositions Ahead of Knowledge and Skills 66
Relationship Building 71
Summary of Findings on Indentifying Teacher Leaders 73
Findings Related to Research Question 2 73
Transformational Leadership 74
Instructional Leadership 77
Distributed Leadership 80
Summary of Findings on Sustaining Teacher Leaders 85
Findings Related to Research Question 3 85
Summary of Findings on the Cultural Imperatives of Teacher Leaders 89
Summary of Findings 89

CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION 94
Discussion of Findings 95
Implications for Practice 100
Results 102
Behavior 103
Learning 104
Reaction 105
Future Research 105
Conclusion 106

References 107

Appendix A: Interview Protocol 115

Appendix B: Survey Protocol 118

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

v

List of Tables
Table 1.1 The 21 Responsibilities and Roles of the School Leader 13
Table 2.1 A Comparison of Differentiation, Individualization and Personalization 44
Table 3.1 Summary of Participants 51
Table 3.2 Two Phase Data Collection Procedure 55
Table 4.1 Overview of Principals and School Leaders Interviewed 60
Table 4.2 Overview of Expert Participants Interviewed 61
Table 4.3 Dispositions for Teacher Leaders 66
Table 4.4 Skills for Teacher Leaders 69

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

vi

List of Figures
Figure 4.1 Input on School’s Vision and Mission 77

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

vii

Abstract
This study reviews three frameworks for school leadership to understand the role of
teacher leaders in implementing instructional change. The three leadership systems include
transformational leadership, instructional leadership, and distributed leadership. The purpose of
this study was to identify the role of the teacher leader in facilitating system wide change such as
personalized learning. The study examined how teacher leaders are identified and recruited, as
well as how school systems sustain teacher leadership. Finally, the study explored the cultural
imperatives of teacher leaders. Data was collected through interviews with international school
principals and experts in teacher leadership and personalized learning. In total, ten principals and
two experts were interviewed. This data was then coded for themes related to the research
questions. Additional data was collected from teacher leaders at American International School
through an online survey. Ninety-six teacher leaders replied to the survey and these responses
were also analyzed and coded according to the research questions. Findings from the study
indicate inconsistencies in how teacher leaders are identified and recruited, specifically as this
relates to the knowledge, skills, and dispositions teacher leaders need to facilitate change.
Principals, experts and teacher leaders agree that teacher leaders are important participants in the
change process; however, there are differing views on the role of the teacher leader when
implementing instructional change. The data collected in this study informs potential
professional development for teacher leaders so that they have the knowledge and skills needed
to lead system-wide instructional change.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

1

CHAPTER ONE:
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM
Our schools should be learning organizations that prepare students for college and future
careers. The current environment of standardized testing has placed limits on curriculum and left
students with very little choice in their learning (Lieberman, 2011; Reeves, 2006). Empowering
students to understand problems, ask questions, create solutions, discern truth, and contribute to
knowledge will engage students in their own learning and set them up for success in their careers
(Lieberman, 2011; Redding, 2014; Reeves, 2006; Zuma, Curtis, & Ullman, 2015). This requires
a shift from teacher-directed learning to student-driven or personalized learning. Personalized
learning represents a complex change and requires leadership at multiple levels. Literature
demonstrates that principals and teacher leaders need to work collaboratively in order to
transform schools and improve learning (Ackerman & Mackenzie, 2006; Angelle, 2007; Levin &
Schrum, 2017; Lieberman, 2011).
One international private school in Southeast Asia has made personalized learning a
priority and is focused on building the teacher leadership to support this change. American
International School (AIS) is a pseudonym for a high functioning international school in
Southeast Asia. The school has a commitment to learning and innovation and promotes a vision
of being a world leader in education, cultivating exceptional thinkers who are prepared for the
future (American International School, 2017). The organization values ongoing learning for
teachers, students and parents, and completed a research and development process in 2014 to
identify areas for growth and to inform a five year strategic plan. Preparing students for the
future requires consistent reflection and review of instructional practice, as well as effective
leadership. Through reflection and study of current research on learning, the school has

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

2

identified personalized learning as means to cultivate exceptional thinkers who are prepared for
their futures. Strong leadership is needed in order to shift instructional pedagogy towards
personalized learning. In complex organizations such as AIS, this leadership requires multiple
stakeholders across the system to facilitate this paradigm shift.
Organizational Context and Mission
American International School is a not-for-profit single campus private school in
Southeast Asia. The school was founded in 1956 with less than fifty students and has grown to a
current enrollment of 3,926 (American International School, 2014). Approximately 56% of the
students at the school are American passport holders with the remaining 44% holding passports
originating from approximately sixty other countries (American International School, 2014).
Data regarding race or ethnicity is not currently collected. Approximately 52% of families pay
tuition directly to the school, and tuition for the remaining students is a benefit covered by the
parent’s employer (American International School , 2016). There are 380 faculty members and
26 administrators on campus. The school is comprised of three divisions: the elementary school
includes all students from preschool to grade five, the middle school encompasses students in
grades six through eight, and the high school serves students in grades nine to twelve (American
International School, 2014). Each division is supported by a building principal and between two
to four deputy principals, with the remaining administrators supporting school-wide goals.
Students at AIS consistently score above United States norms on standardized testing. On
average, students score higher and demonstrate more growth than their United States peers on
the Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) in reading, language and math (American
International School, 2016). Students from AIS score as well or better than the top two nations
on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Scores are also increasing on

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

3

the SATs with students scoring, on average, 621 in critical reading, 659 in math and 632 in
writing. Typically, 99% of AIS graduates matriculate to a four-year college (American
International School, 2016).
The mission of American International School is to provide an exemplary American
education with an international perspective for every student. In support of this mission, the
school-wide strategic plan was developed and shared with the community in 2015. American
International School 2020 (AIS 2020), as it is known, includes a focus on professional learning
communities, a standards based approach, high impact instructional practices, and pastoral care.
Underlying this work is a focus on systems that support learning (American International School,
2016). In December 2016, the superintendent, deputy superintendent, and principals reviewed
the plan and prioritized personalized learning as an area of focus within the strategic plan.
Currently, there is no clarity regarding how the AIS educational leader role needs to evolve to
support the AIS strategic plan and specifically, personalized learning. American International
School educational leaders need to understand what will be expected of them and how their roles
may or may not change as the AIS 2020 plan continues to unfold.
Organizational Performance Problem
The AIS 2020 plan includes a significant focus on personalized learning. Professional
learning, program funding and hiring in the next two academic years will be focused on
developing and implementing personalized learning school-wide. This initiative will require
leaders across the system and, therefore, teacher leaders will need to be skilled in the facets of
personalized learning as defined at AIS and will need to have the requisite knowledge, skills and
motivation to support this initiative. Without teacher leaders, classroom teachers will not have
the support and leadership they need to implement personalized learning in the classroom.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

4

Currently, there is no measurement in regard to personalized learning at AIS. To implement
personalized learning, teacher leaders will need to know what defines personalized learning at
AIS and then support teachers as they implement the practices within the classroom.
Related Literature
Leading any organization is a complex task requiring systematic and cohesive mission
and vision. Leithwood (2012) denotes leadership as the exercise of influencing stakeholders
towards the organization's goal. This leadership is based on relationships and exercised through
the interactions between leaders and members of the organization (Leithwood, 2012).
The literature on leadership initially identified the singular leader as a “heroic” leader or
individual to drive change, transform organizations, and manage systems (Ackerman &
MacKenzie, 2006; Harris, 2003, 2004; Muijs & Harris, 2003; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). This
heroic leader was responsible for developing the mission and vision, implementing best practice
in instruction, monitoring and reviewing assessment practices including related data, and
managing the systems and facilities to keep the school functioning smoothly. This heroic leader
metaphor dominated the literature until the effective schools movement in the 1980s, which
indicated a need for leadership teams in schools (Harris, 2008; Levin & Schrum, 2017; Muijs &
Harris, 2003; Shatzer et al., 2014; Spillane, 2006). These leadership teams included principals,
coaches and teacher leaders, working collaboratively to improve teaching and learning
(Ackerman & Mackenzie, 2006; Angelle, 2007; Levin & Schrum, 2017; Lieberman, 2011).
In contrast to the heroic individual leader, Spillane and Healey (2010) identify the leader
plus model, which recognizes the multiple individuals involved in leading and managing a
school. The literature notes that leadership can be distributed to multiple individuals, including
principals, assistant principals, mentor teachers and curriculum leaders as critical leaders for

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

5

change within an organization (Harris, 2003, 2008; Leithwood, 2016; Spillane, Halverson, &
Diamond, 2004). In addition to identifying those involved in leading change, Spillane and
Healey (2010) note that by distributing leadership with multiple faculty members, group efficacy
and expertise often develop for those involved.
Levin and Schrum (2017) note that teacher leadership has evolved since the effective
schools movement. At the most simplistic definition, teachers provide leadership through their
work with students in the classroom as they use learning evidence to improve instruction. The
literature initially identified teacher leaders as those in formal roles with titles such as
Department Chairs in secondary schools and grade level chairs in elementary schools (Levin &
Schrum, 2017). Additional roles developed for teacher leaders included curriculum and
instruction and often required secondment to the local district office. Within schools, mentoring
and advising new teachers and teams began to gain acceptance as leadership, along with short
term responsibilities such as serving on hiring committees or long-term roles on school
leadership teams. Teacher leadership continues to grow and evolve with some in the literature
identifying teachers as teacherpreneurs (Berry, Byrd, & Wieder, 2013). These teacherpreneurs
continue to serve in the classroom while also taking on part time leadership roles, facilitating
professional development as instructional leaders or policy makers. This combination sustains
expertise in the classroom while also sharing pedagogical practice with colleagues and impacting
education policy in the school or district.
Teacher leaders provide the necessary instructional expertise required to implement
change across an organization. One such change American International School has embarked on
is the implementation of personalized learning. Personalized learning is defined as a
progressively student-driven approach to learning in which students engage in meaningful,

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

6

authentic and rigorous challenges (Zmuda, Curtis, & Ullman, 2015). A guiding coalition of
stakeholders reviewed current research and literature in personalized learning and developed a
definition for personalized learning at AIS in April 2017. This definition highlights the school’s
vision for cultivating exceptional thinkers prepared for the future and denotes personalized
learning as student-centered, grounded in the student’s individual learning profile, and
characterized by competency-based progressions, customized pathways and flexible learning
environments (AIS, internal communication). Learning theory indicates that personalized
learning promotes greater capacity for self-management and independence (de Freitas & Yap,
2005). Current literature indicates that the increased focus on learning standards and resulting
step-by-step instruction has sanitized learning so that students become compliant and focus on
following directions instead of thinking critically (Zmuda et al., 2015).
Importance of the Problem
Traditional education structures are not preparing students for career success. Students at
AIS are grouped by age and required to learn the required curriculum standards. Currently,
students have very little choice in their learning and compliance is valued over questioning.
Empowering teachers and students to understand problems, create solutions, discern truth and
contribute to knowledge will engage students in their own learning and set them up for success in
their careers (Zmuda et al., 2015). Personalized learning, for the purpose of this dissertation, is
defined as “a progressively student-driven model in which students deeply engage in meaningful,
authentic and rigorous challenges to demonstrate desired outcomes” (Zmuda et al., 2015, p. 7).
Implementing personalized learning throughout the organization requires a significant shift in
teachers’ knowledge, motivation and organization. This work requires leadership across the
organization. York-Barr and Duke (2004) note that greater participation in organizational goals

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

7

leads to greater ownership and commitment. Additionally, teacher expertise is foundational to
improving teaching quality and advancing authentic learning (York-Barr & Duke, 2004).
Therefore, it is imperative to develop a cadre of teacher leaders to lead this evolution of teaching
and learning. Currently, there is a gap between the system-wide leadership and the classroom
teacher. Creating an effective team of teacher leaders is needed to move the work forward.
Organizational Goal
American International School has established a goal to develop and implement a teacher
leadership program to facilitate personalized learning in the classroom by May 2020. This goal is
based on the AIS 2020 strategic plan and informed by the guiding coalition within the leadership
team. In order to achieve this goal, AIS must identify the relevant knowledge and skills a teacher
leader must have to facilitate and implement personalized learning in the classroom.
Stakeholder for the Implementation Study – Teacher Leaders
For the purpose of this study, teacher leaders will be the stakeholders of focus. School
leadership is a complex task that requires many stakeholders. American International School is
one of the largest single campus international schools in the world and, as such, there are
multiple levels of leadership within the school. The superintendent’s office, consisting of the
superintendent, deputy superintendent, communications, advancement, admissions and facilities
provides the ongoing leadership related to the vision on future planning for the school. The
office of learning provides leadership in curriculum, teaching and learning across the school.
Building administrators provide leadership in support of the mission and vision. Teacher leaders
provide targeted leadership in grade levels and departments regarding specific instructional
practices in support of the mission and vision.
Teacher leaders are an integral part of improving instruction at American International

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

8

School. These classroom leaders mentor colleagues and facilitate professional learning related to
specific instructional initiatives. However, there is very little professional development or
training provided for teacher leaders and the opportunities are inconsistent across the school.
Currently, teacher leaders are invited to attend a two-day workshop prior to the start of the
school year. This professional development is in the early stages and will be offered for the
second time in August 2017. Teacher leaders are not required to attend and the workshop is held
during the summer holiday. In the elementary school, grade level leaders are required to attend
two days of divisional goal setting and planning prior to the start of the school year. Each grade
level has two to four stipend-compensated grade level leader positions and are required to attend
the planning days as of August 2017. Teacher leaders in other divisions of the school are not
required to attend two days of planning with their divisional administrators, but they do receive a
stipend. This inconsistency indicates that the expectations for teacher leaders differs across the
school.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to identify the role of the teacher leader in facilitating the
strategic plan and, specifically, personalized learning. Teacher leadership is not clearly defined
across AIS and there is currently very little connection between the strategic plan and the role of
the teacher leader in implementing personalized learning at the classroom level. The following
research questions will be explored:
1. How are prospective teacher leaders identified and recruited?
2. How does the system sustain teacher leaders?
3. What are the organizational cultural imperatives for teacher leaders?
Definitions

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

9

AIS2020 - the five year strategic plan for American International School.
DSLOs - Desired student learning outcomes; these are the 7 mindsets and skillsets for
AIS students to develop, including creativity, collaboration, critical thinking, communication,
character, cultural competency and content knowledge.
Grade level leaders - one or two stipend-compensated teacher leaders at each grade level
who are responsible for leading the collaborative work across the grade level.
Small PLC leaders - two to three stipend-compensated teacher leaders within the grade
level who are responsible for facilitating protocols for assessment planning, data review, and
coordinating interventions and extensions.
Department leaders - one stipend-compensated teacher leader for each specialist subject,
including art, music, physical education, counseling, learning support and world language.
Personalized learning - progressively student-driven model in which students deeply
engage in meaningful authentic and rigorous challenges to demonstrate desired outcomes
(Zmuda, Curtis, & Ullman, 2015).
Customized pathways - Students follow a customized path that is fluid and responsive
based on the learner profile, including their individual learning progress, strengths, needs,
interests and goals (Zmuda, Curtis, & Ullman, 2015).
Competency based progressions - Students’ progress toward clearly-defined learning
goals is regularly assessed using common formative assessments. Summative assessments are
accessed when the student and teacher agree the student is ready. (Zmuda, Curtis, & Ullman,
2015).
Flexible learning environments - Student need drives the design of the learning
environment. Operational elements including learning spaces, staffing and schedule are

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

10

responsive and adaptive with the goal of supporting students to achieve their learning goals
(Zmuda, Curtis, & Ullman, 2015).
Differentiation - instruction is adapted to meet the learning needs of individual and small
groups of students.
Individualization - students are responsible for the pace of the learning while teacher
directs the content.
Organization of the Dissertation
This implementation analysis dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter One,
presented here, introduces the problem and indicates the research questions. Chapter Two
includes the relevant research regarding teacher leadership and personalized learning as related
to this study. Chapter Three focuses on methodology. Chapter Four presents the findings, data
collection results and analysis. In Chapter Five, evidence-based solutions will be presented to
address next steps.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

11

CHAPTER TWO:
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter provides a review of literature related to teacher leadership and personalized
learning. Included is a focus on leadership versus management in schools and districts, as well as
transformational leadership, instructional leadership, distributed leadership, and teacher
leadership. Additionally, the necessary knowledge, skills and dispositions required for impactful
teacher leadership and the organizational supports and barriers are reviewed. Current research
and definitions of personalized learning are reviewed, including four key elements of
personalized learning. The chapter ends with evidence of personalized learning and student
achievement, as well as cautions for implementing personalized learning.
Currently, personalized learning is often used as an umbrella term to describe a number
of fads in education and, therefore, is often misinterpreted. Personalized learning, for the purpose
of this dissertation, is defined as “a progressively student-driven model in which students deeply
engage in meaningful authentic and rigorous challenges to demonstrate desired outcomes”
(Zmuda, Curtis, & Ullman, 2015, p.7). Personalized learning represents a transformational
change, as it requires all faculty to increase their capacity with the approach, commit to
continuous learning and collaborate effectively to improve student learning (Hallinger, 2003).
This second order change requires leadership across the organization and potential changes and
adjustments to the structures within the organization (Ackerman & Mackenzie, 2006; Angelle,
2007: Harris, 2003; Levin & Schrum, 2017; Lieberman, 2011; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty,
2003). York-Barr and Duke (2004) note that greater participation in organizational goals leads to
greater ownership and commitment. Additionally, teacher expertise is foundational to improving
teaching quality and advancing authentic learning (Liebermann, 2011; York-Barr & Duke,

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

12

2004). Therefore, it is imperative to develop a cadre of teacher leaders to lead this evolution of
teaching and learning at the team and classroom level. Creating an effective team of teacher
leaders with the requisite knowledge, skills and motivation is required to implement any change
(Levin & Schrum, 2017; Liebermann, 2011). This cadre of teacher leaders will be particularly
important given the broad range of fads that sit within the definition of personalized learning, as
well as the many misconceptions of the framework.
Leadership
In 1978, James Burns defined the work of leaders and leadership in what is considered
modern leadership philosophy (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Burns (1978) identified a
leader as one who induces followers:
to act for certain goals that represent the values and motivation - the wants and the
needs, the aspirations and expectations - of both leaders and followers...the genius
of leadership lies in the manner in which leaders see and act on their own and their
followers’ values and motivations” (p. 19).

The literature indicates that effective leadership is a key component in developing and sustaining
school improvement (Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Marzano et al., 2005; Muijis &
Harris, 2003; Printy, Marks, & Bowers, 2009; Shatzer, Caldarella, Hallam, & Brown, 2014).
However, early research pointed to the principal as the primary leader in the school who was
responsible and accountable for all change, while recent research has indicated that shared and
distributed leadership, where teachers and principals collaborate on school-wide goals,
curriculum and instruction is also effective in improving student achievement (Harris, 2008;
Levin & Schrum, 2017; Muijis & Harris, 2003; Shatzer et al., 2014; Spillane, 2006). Hallinger
(2003) referred to the principal as the heroic leader of the school who was the central expert and,

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

13

thus, often led teachers to rely primarily on the principal for curricular leadership and school
management. What is clear from the literature is that leadership is complex and acts as the
catalyst for change that can provide the necessary momentum and energy for school
improvement (Harris, 2008; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000).
The complexity of school leadership is evident throughout the literature. In a meta-
analysis of 69 schools over 23 years, Marzano and colleagues (2005) identified 21
responsibilities of the school leader. These responsibilities are described in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1. The 21 Responsibilities and Roles of the School Leader (Marzano et al., 2005, p.42)
Responsibilities Role of the leader
Affirmation To recognize and celebrate accomplishments of students
and teachers and acknowledge failures of school as a
whole.
Change agent To challenge the status quo to work through complex
issues with uncertain outcomes so as to energize the
commitment to the goals.
Contingent Rewards To recognize and reward individual accomplishments.
Communication To communicate school-wide goals to the community
while providing effective means for teachers to
communicate with one another and the principal.
Culture To build a positive culture that influences teaching and
learning. The school leader builds culture by developing a
shared vision and promoting cohesion and well-being
among staff.
Discipline To protect instructional time from interruptions and protect
teachers from external and internal distractions.
Flexibility To adapt leadership to the needs of the situation, encourage
others to share diverse or contrary opinions and be
comfortable with making changes to structures and
expectations.
Focus To establish concrete goals for the general function of the
school, as well as curriculum, instruction, assessment and

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

14

Responsibilities Role of the leader
student learning.
Ideals and beliefs To hold well-defined beliefs about schools, teaching and
learning, and share these with the school community.
Input To provide opportunities for teachers to be involved in
developing policy, decision-making and school leadership.
Intellectual Stimulation To stay informed and keep staff informed about current
research and theory on teaching and learning through
systematic discussions and collaboration.
Involvement in curriculum,
instruction and assessment
To collaborate with teachers to design curricular activities
and address instruction and assessment issues.
Knowledge of curriculum,
instruction and assessment
To have extensive knowledge of effective curricular,
instructional, assessment and classroom management
practices.
Monitoring and evaluating To continually monitor the effectiveness and impact of
schools practices in curriculum, instruction and
assessment.
Optimizer To inspire teachers to accomplish goals beyond their grasp
through confidence in the staff’s ability particularly when
faced with fundamental change.
Order To establish routines and provide clear structures for the
smooth operation at the school level for teachers, parents
and students.
Outreach To ensure the school complies with district and state
mandates while also being an advocate of the school with
parents, central office and the community.
Relationships To be informed of significant personal needs and issues
with staff members.
Resources To ensure teachers have the necessary materials,
equipment and professional development to meet the
school-wide goals.
Situational awareness To accurately predict what could go wrong within the
school day through knowledge of informal groups and
issues that have not yet surfaced.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

15

Responsibilities Role of the leader
Visibility To make systematic and frequent visits to classrooms and
regular contact with students and parents.

School change and improvement is a complex task that cannot be the work of a singular,
isolated leader. The work of school improvement and leadership is more effective when a team
of teachers and principals collaborate to improve student learning. The following sections will
define and describe the leadership practices needed in schools to impact teaching, learning, and
student achievement. School leadership teams must embark on transformational leadership
practices to inspire change among stakeholders, and they must focus on the instructional needs of
the institution by understanding instructional leadership and share this leadership in a coherent
and structured manner to impact growth and improvement throughout the organization
(Hallinger, 2003; Harris; 2008; Marzano et al., 2005; Printy et al., 2009). It is this collaboration
between principals and teacher leaders that will impact classroom instruction and transform
student learning.
Transformational Leadership
Defined by Burns in 1978 and reinforced by Bass in 1985, transformational leadership
emphasizes reciprocal relationships as the basis of influence as opposed to power-based
influences. A transformational leader is one who seeks to redefine the purpose of the
organization and inspire faculty to engage and commit to the moral purpose of education (Burns,
1978; Marzano et al., 2005; Printy et al., 2009; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). This leader
reflects the values, aspirations, needs, and expectations of the school leaders and faculty in a
quest for school improvement (Printy et al., 2009; Robinson et al., 2008). The transformational
leader is focused on the needs of the staff related to the organization’s mission and vision rather

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

16

than coordinating and controlling the specific aspects of curriculum and instruction (Hallinger,
2003; Robinson et al., 2008; Shatzer et al., 2014). Appealing to the values and goals of
stakeholders allows the leader to increase the level of commitment and aspiration throughout the
system; the transformational leader is not focused solely on coordinating and controlling the
curriculum and instruction of the school, but also developing the capacity of the organization to
innovate (Printy et al. 2009; Shatzer et al., 2014). As a transformational leader, the principal
collaborates with teachers, parents and students to build capacity to benefit the entire
organization; however, as Hallinger (2003) notes, there is some danger that members put all of
their trust in the leader so that a singular heroic leader ideal is embraced.
Characteristics of transformational leadership. Bass (1985) and others identify four
characteristics of the transformational leader. This leader facilitates change through inspirational
motivation, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration (Hallinger,
2003; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Marzano et al., 2005; Printy et al., 2009). Initially, the
transformational leader inspires individuals within the organization to commit to the moral
purpose of education and collaborates with stakeholders to develop a shared mission for the
school (Hallinger, 2003; Printy et al., 2009; Shatzer et al., 2014). This mission becomes the
guiding belief within the organization and includes specific, measurable learning targets for
students. Inspiring others to commit wholeheartedly to this mission indicates a principal is
engaged in transformational change for student learning and school improvement.
Bass (1985) notes that transformational leaders motivate stakeholders to engage in this
shared mission by employing idealized influence. Consistent reference and reverence for the
mission inspires stakeholders, keeps engagement high and requires high levels of trust,
admiration and respect (Hallinger, 2003; Printy et al., 2009; Shatzer et al., 2014). Faculty

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

17

members often associate this influence with positive outcomes in the school environment and
improved relationships between faculty and school leadership (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006). It is
possible, however, that the leader may become idealized and so closely associated with the
change that the work stalls or stops completely when the leader leaves the organization.
Through this idealized influence, transformational leaders build capacity throughout the
organization by promoting intellectual stimulation. Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) note that
transformational leaders create a climate of creativity by encouraging innovation, divergent
thinking and calculated risk taking. In this intellectually stimulating environment, stakeholders
commit to ongoing learning and inquiry to improve student learning and support the mission.
Transformational leaders also consider the individuals within the school community.
Bass (1985) considers individualized considerations to be the degree to which leaders understand
the specific needs of their followers and develop them through ongoing coaching (Leithwood &
Jantzi, 2006; Shatzer et al., 2014). Shatzer and colleagues (2014) note that supporting individuals
within the community builds trust, admiration and respect for all parties involved.
Teacher leaders share in the transformation that evolves in the school. Through shared
leadership, this group of teachers and principals will incrementally influence the individual
teachers, as well as student learning in the school in the same way that collective efficacy
improves the self-efficacy of team members (Printy et al., 2014). As professional educators,
teacher leaders share in the creation of the school’s mission, model and mentor colleagues, and
inspire growth (Hallinger, 2003; Printy et al., 2009; Shatzer et al., 2014). Throughout the
transformation in the school, teacher leaders extend care and concern and lead teams to innovate
instructional practice and ultimately improve student learning. School change, then, is more
effective when leadership teams of principals and teacher leaders integrate transformation with

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

18

instructional leadership (Hallinger, 2003; Printy et al., 2009; Shatzer et al., 2014). Through this
collaboration the teacher leader connects the theoretical with the practical classroom application.
Impact of transformational leadership on student achievement. Multiple studies have
been conducted to explore the impact of leadership practices and student achievement. Findings
from the late 1990s and early 2000s did not demonstrated significant direct impact on student
achievement, as many of these studies did not control for school context or principal
demographics (Robinson et al., 2008; Shatzer et al., 2014). Robinson and colleagues (2008)
conducted a meta-analysis and found that 10 of 11 transformational leadership effect size
statistics demonstrated weak to small impact. However, this was not the finding when comparing
transformational leadership with an instructional leadership framework.
Shatzer and colleagues (2014) compared the impact of instructional leadership and
transformational leadership on student achievement and did control for context and principal
demographics. In this study, instructional leadership was more effective at increasing student
achievement. The results indicate that the specificity inherent in instructional leadership practices
may in turn impact student learning. Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999) identified an effect
size of 0.80 on school conditions and a 0.62 effect size on classroom conditions. This study also
notes that transformational leadership and school conditions account for 17% of variance in
classroom conditions; however, as others have noted, transformational leadership does not have a
significant effect on student achievement (Leithwood et al., 1999).
Transformational leadership has also been noted to have a direct impact on teacher
motivation and engagement (Printy et al., 2009; Shatzer et al., 2014). Hallinger (2003) notes that
developing people is a cornerstone of transformational leadership. This occurs when the leader
inspires faculty to commit to a mission, promotes innovative thinking, and provides

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

19

individualized coaching to build capacity for new instructional strategies. The transformational
principal also accounts for the improvements in school conditions and classroom conditions, but
does not directly impact student achievement (Hallinger, 2003). Shatzer and colleagues (2014)
note that when transformational leaders incorporated more transactional practices, student
achievement improved. Hallinger (2003) asserts that long term school improvement requires an
ongoing collaborative inquiry approach where teachers have the opportunity to research a
learning-focused question.
Instructional Leadership
Through the effective schools movement of the late 70s and early 80s, research emerged
about the role of the principal in improving instruction in schools. This research indicated that
“strong, directive leadership focused on curriculum and instruction from the principals” was
necessary to improve schools (Hallinger, 2003, p. 329). The instructional leadership model was
borne of this research and is focused on the role of the school principal in coordinating,
controlling and supervising instruction and developing curriculum (Hallinger, 2003; Robinson,
Loyd, & Rowe, 2008; Shatzer et al., 2014). Research indicates that instructional leadership is the
link between school-level leadership practice and the provision for high quality instruction, as
the leader must possess the necessary curriculum knowledge as well as an understanding of the
most effective instructional practices (Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood & Seashore-Louis, 2011;
Printy & Marks, 2003; Shatzer et al., 2014). Although there is significant time spent on student
learning, the instructional leader must also build a positive culture in the school and motivate
teachers to engage in ongoing professional learning and implement new instructional practices
(Hallinger, 2003). In recent years, the instructional leadership model has expanded to include
teacher collaboration, ongoing targeted professional growth and implementation of professional

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

20

learning communities in school (Marks & Printy 2003; Shatzer et al., 2014).
Initially, instructional leadership was solely focused on student achievement and it was
the principal’s role to coordinate and supervise the curriculum and instruction in the school.
Instructional leaders, therefore, were goal oriented and focused on student learning outcomes
(Hallinger, 2003; Marks & Printy, 2003; Shatzer et al., 2014). The instructional leader sets the
school’s mission, manages the instructional program and promotes a positive school learning
climate (Hallinger, 2003). According to this model, setting the school’s mission is a collaborative
effort to identify clear, measurable goals focused on student academic growth. It is the
principal’s responsibility to ensure the process is shared and communicate the mission regularly
within the school and community (Hallinger, 2003). The instructional leader manages the
instructional program through the coordination and control of curriculum and instructional
practices. This includes managing curriculum, supervising and evaluating instruction and
monitoring student progress (Hallinger 2003; Leithwood & Seashore-Louis, 2011). Finally, the
instructional leader also promotes a positive learning environment in the school. Shatzer and
colleagues (2014) note that the learning environment is built through relationships with teachers
by providing specific, constructive feedback, arranging incentives, protecting instructional time
and minimizing disruptions, promoting professional development, and being involved in the
learning environment (Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood & Seashore-Louis, 2011; Levin & Schrum,
2017; Robinson et al., 2008).
More recently, instructional leadership has grown to reflect the collaborative nature of
teaching and learning. While instructional leaders still have specific student achievement goals,
they also include teacher learning in school-wide learning goals (Levin & Scrhum 2011; Shatzer
et al., 2014). Success as an instructional leader is closely tied to teacher and student growth and,

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

21

therefore, instructional leaders must include a focus on their own learning, teacher professional
growth and regular monitoring of student progress (Levin & Schrum, 2017). It is this
combination of leader, teacher and student learning that impacts overall school improvement.
Impact of instructional leadership on student achievement. Evidence in the literature
suggests a contradiction regarding the impact of instructional leaders on student achievement.
Some research indicates a direct impact, while others demonstrate indirect impact on student
learning (Hallinger, 2003; Robinson et al., 2008; Shatzer et al., 2014). Robinson and colleagues
(2008) indicate that about half of sixteen leadership effects demonstrated weak or small impact.
Teachers in higher performing schools indicate a greater focus on teaching and learning, and
were found to be stronger instructional collaborators and regularly lead professional
development in their schools (Robinson et al., 2008).
As noted by Robinson and colleagues (2014), when student background factors are
controlled, establishing goals and setting expectations, leadership has an impact on student
achievement with an average effect size of 0.42 standard deviations. Shatzer and colleagues
(2014) also indicated the moderately large impact of setting goals and establishing expectations
once background factors are controlled. Regular communication of these goals and expectations,
as well as teacher commitment, was also noted in higher performing schools (Robinson et al.,
2008; Shatzer et al., 2014). Robinson and colleagues (2008) also noted eighty indicators across
nine studies in which planning, coordinating, and evaluating curriculum and instruction had a
moderate impact on student achievement. Studies noted that principals and teachers who actively
reviewed and refined instructional strategies and their impact on student learning had stronger
student achievement (Hallinger, 2003; Marks & Printy, 2003; Robinson et al., 2008).
Studies also indicate that establishing a positive and orderly environment where teachers

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

22

can focus on teaching and learning had a small effect size of 0.27 standard deviations (Robinson
et al., 2008). The principal contributes to this learning environment by resolving conflicts
quickly, reinforcing social expectations and discipline codes so that all school members feel safe,
cared for and comfortable (Hallinger, 2003; Robinson et al., 2008). Overall, Robinson and
colleagues (2008) note the impact of instructional leadership is three to four times that of
transformational leadership, and that the “closer the educational leaders are to the core business
of teaching and learning, the more likely they are to have a positive impact on students’
outcomes” (p. 664).
Researchers have identified some limitations of the studies of instructional leadership.
First, there is limited research in this area. Only 22 of 27 studies were used and available for the
first meta-analysis of instructional, transformational and other types of leadership, and only 12
studies were available for the meta-analysis of leadership dimensions (Robinson et al., 2008).
Second, early studies focused on poor urban schools in the United States, which needed
significant change, and strong instructional leadership was necessary (Hallinger, 2003).
Distributed Leadership
School leadership for student learning is complex and requires multiple stakeholders; it is
not possible to have one overall leader for all aspects of the school. Spillane (2005) notes that it
is the interactions of many individuals, specifically teacher leaders and principals, that defines
leadership functions in a school. This broad-based involvement in the leadership function of a
school is typically referred to as distributed leadership (Harris, 2008; Leithwood & Seashore-
Louis, 2011; Spillane, 2005, 2006; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). As a theoretical framework,
distributed leadership implies that the “social context and inter-relationship is an integral part of
the leadership activity” (Harris, 2008, p. 36). Distributed leadership is not restricted to one

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

23

structure or hierarchy; rather, it is a network of employees who share the vision of the school and
are actively involved in the decision making. In fact, it is the leadership practices that encompass
distributed leadership, not the structures (Harris, 2008; Leithwood & Seashore, 2011; Spillane,
2005). Through this network of shared or collective leadership, schools develop more effective
teams, increase teacher engagement, and create an environment that stimulates innovation and
learning (Harris, 2008; Leithwood & Seashore, 2011; Spillane, 2005). Spillane (2005) also notes
that distributed leadership is a diagnostic tool for thinking about school leadership, rather than a
prescription for successful school leadership. This focus on practice and as a framework for
thinking shapes the collaboration between principals and teacher leaders.
Distributed leadership is not egalitarian leadership. Harris (2008) notes that teacher
leaders must have (or be developing) the knowledge and expertise required to follow through
with the leadership tasks assigned to them. For example, a teacher with minimal experience in
teaching primary aged students should not be leading a group of primary teachers. Additionally,
principals who distribute leadership effectively need to do so in a coordinated and planned
manner with clear expectations and role definitions for each teacher leader (Harris, 2008). In this
way, distributed leadership is holistic or person-plus leadership, which is carefully and
consciously managed, leading to school leadership that is greater than the sum of its parts
(Gronn, 2003; Harris, 2008). This holistic leadership has high levels of interdependence among
teacher leaders and principals. This leadership team influences the direction and achievement of
school wide goals through dynamic, multidirectional and collegial processes, which lead to
learning for adults and students (Gronn, 2003; Harris, 2008). When this distribution is not
planned or coordinated, the work becomes additive and lacks focus. Ultimately, haphazard
distribution of leadership reduces collaboration and sidetracks the focus on student learning

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

24

(Gronn, 2003; Harris, 2008). Gronn (2003, p. 35) also identifies three forms of distributive
leadership:
1. spontaneous collaboration - groups of individuals with various skills and
knowledge work together across multiple organizational levels for a specific task
and then disband.
2. intuitive working relations - two or more members begin to rely on each other and
develop a close, collaborative, working relationship; leadership is manifested
through this shared work.
3. institutionalized practice - teams are created through design or systematic
adaptation and function within formal structures.
Additional research by Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, and Hopkins (2007) revised Gronn’s
distributive leadership forms and proposes the following:
1. planful alignment - thoughtful consideration and planning by the organization,
including clearly defined roles and identified leadership practices.
2. spontaneous alignment - minimal planning, with principal modelling chosen
important values and expecting others to agree with his or her choice.
3. spontaneous misalignment - similar to spontaneous misalignment for leadership
distribution and underlying values, but the outcomes are less impactful.
4. anarchic misalignment - active rejection of the organization’s leaders, whereby
teacher leaders become highly independent and work in competition to the
school’s goals.
Distributed leadership does not reduce the role of the principal in the growth and
direction of the school. Rather, the principal is the individual who is accountable for the overall

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

25

school improvement that occurs as a result of the shared vision, collaboration and decision
making that occurs through distributed leadership. This distributed leadership framework
provides the opportunity for principals to build leadership capacity, thereby increasing teacher
ownership and motivation (Harris, 2008). When teacher leaders have increased influence in these
areas, there is potential for significant positive effect on school improvement (Harris, 2008;
Harris & Mujis, 2004; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2004; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008).
As noted previously, one of the many roles of the principal is that of instructional leader.
It is expected that the principal is up to date on pedagogy and curriculum so as to provide
feedback to individual teachers and ensure program coherence (Leithwood & Seashore, 2011;
Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). However, if this work is solely the responsibility of the principal,
teachers will continue to look to the principal for support and decision making, and teacher
isolation will continue. When teachers are isolated, they are less likely to develop trusting,
collaborative relationships with team members and there will be greater inconsistencies with
curriculum delivery and instructional practices (Harris & Mujis, 2004; Wahlstrom & Louis,
2008). In this environment, student growth is reliant on the knowledge, skills and self-efficacy of
the individual teacher (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008).
When principals focus on distributing leadership throughout the school, professional
communities of teachers develop. Effective professional communities provide a framework for
increased collaboration, shared knowledge and decreased dependence on the principal as the
source of expertise. The more effective the professional community, the greater the group
efficacy and, in turn, teacher self-efficacy and student achievement (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008).
Research indicates that these professional communities of teachers, led by teacher leaders,
demonstrate growth in student learning in part through increased teacher self-efficacy. The

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

26

collaboration and shared knowledge of the group increases the efficacy of the group and the
individual. However, increasing teacher self-efficacy through individual training or professional
development does not, in turn, increase the group efficacy. Dedicated time is needed for
professional communities to work together on shared goals to improve student learning. The role
of the teacher leader in this framework is vital. Teacher leaders who are involved in school-wide
decision making are able to share the insights and perspectives of their colleagues and provide
the classroom experience to impact change. This reduces teacher isolationism and provides
motivation for professional communities to focus on specific learning goals (Wahlstrom &
Louis, 2008).
When principals support distributed leadership and collaborate with teacher leaders,
faculty members report increasing levels of trust for the teacher leaders and the principal
(Leithwood & Seashore-Louis, 2011; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). In schools where there is high
trust, leadership can be distributed so that teacher leaders work with small teams of teachers,
often at a grade level, to improve organizational learning and, in turn, student learning. Through
the professional community, teacher leaders build a common goal focused on learning for
students, and collaborate with team members to identify high impact instructional strategies and
provide job-embedded professional development to improve teaching and learning (Leithwood &
Jantzi, 2000; Leithwood & Seashore-Louis, 2011; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Through this goal
setting, collaboration, reflective conversations and ongoing professional development, teachers’
beliefs in their ability to address the learning needs of their students improves, and they are more
motivated to persevere (Leithwood & Seashore-Louis, 2011; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). In turn,
the group experiences a greater sense of efficacy and trust increases among team members. This
improved group efficacy can be a stronger predictor of student achievement than socioeconomic

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

27

status (Harris, 2008; Leithwood & Seashore-Louis, 2011; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Principals
have a role in improving group efficacy as well. Principals provide the structures required to
share decision making and address specific student issues, such as discipline referrals
(Leithwood & Seashore-Louis, 2011; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Researchers within this body
of literature note that there is a need for increased study of the link between teacher efficacy and
trust in schools (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008).
The organizational structures required to promote distributed or shared leadership are
somewhat vague at this time. Institutional theory promotes leadership as an organizational
phenomenon, and includes principals, teachers, students, parents and community members
(Harris, 2008; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000). Additionally, most research is focused on
organizational change, effectiveness, school improvement and teacher leadership (Harris, 2003,
2008; Harris & Mujis, 2004). Researchers agree that distributed leadership includes creating a
shared vision, setting goals and sharing in the decision making (Harris, 2008; Leithwood &
Jantzi, 2000; Leithwood & Seashore-Louis, 2011; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2004;
Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008).
In a 2006 study by Leithwood, leadership accounted for one quarter of the variance in
measuring student achievement and growth (Harris, 2008; Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008).
Additional studies indicate that student outcomes improve when leadership sources are
distributed throughout the school and teachers are empowered to influence instructional
practices, professional development and facilitate data reflection (Harris, Leithwood, Day,
Sammons, & Hopkins, 2007; Sillins & Mulford, 2002). While the structures of distributed
leadership may be vague, there is some evidence that this framework improves student learning.
Distributed leadership in practice. Distributed leadership may best be exemplified

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

28

through a regular school-wide faculty meeting. The principal, who is accountable for the
school’s goals and student learning, revisits the goals at the start of the meeting and reviews the
learning standards that will indicate that students have achieved the goal. The principal ensures
that the agenda items are connected to the school goals, summarizes commentary and shares
reminders about curriculum and expected instructional practice. The literacy coach then shares a
concern regarding literacy instruction and suggests a solution through an instructional practice,
as well as resources for teachers to use. Teacher leaders describe efforts used to implement the
strategies and the impact within the classroom. Teachers are encouraged to collaborate in their
groups to share ideas (Spillane, 2005). Throughout this meeting, a number of leadership practices
are evident. Multiple leaders are included, some with formal roles and some with informal roles.
Followers are included and contribute ideas, and the meeting is focused on interactions, not
directions or actions (Spillane, 2005).
Barriers to distributed leadership. While the benefits of distributed leadership are
emerging, there remains resistance by some districts, leaders and teachers. Often, strong
structural, cultural and physical boundaries block the transition from isolated leader to shared
leadership. Structurally, principals may be reluctant to provide the time to build capacity with
teacher leaders and retain a top-down management approach (Harris, 2008; Harris, Leithwood,
Day, Sammons, & Hopkins, 2007). Culturally, principals may embrace the heroic leader persona
and prefer teacher dependence over collaboration with teacher leaders. Distributed leadership
may lack focus or role definition, and colleagues may be openly resistant to teacher leaders
participating in shared decision making (Harris, 2008; Harris et al., 2007). Distributed leadership
is often considered the antithesis of high structured leadership, and many may avoid the
framework because of a perceived lack of stability, predictability and security, opting for one or

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

29

two heroic individuals to direct the course of the school (Harris et al., 2007). Additionally,
physical space within the same school or across multiple buildings can be a barrier to effective
distributed leadership, as teams struggle to find the time and opportunity to meet to develop
shared goals, identify key instructional practices and reflect on learning data (Harris, 2008).
Teacher Leadership
The definition of teacher leadership is complex and points to the wide range of
responsibilities teachers take on outside the classroom (Ackerman & Mackenzie, 2006; Angelle,
2007; Harris, 2003; Levin & Schrum, 2017; Mujis & Harris, 2003; York-Barr & Duke, 2004).
Teacher leader roles are not restricted to specific titles or positions, and may range from
supporting day-to-day management of schools to evaluating instructional programs and
facilitating professional learning communities (Angelle, 2007; Levin & Schrum, 2017; York-
Barr & Duke, 2004). York-Barr and Duke (2004) note that teacher leadership is the process by
which teachers improve teaching and learning practices to improve student learning and
achievement. This process happens collectively and individually, and includes influencing
colleagues, principals and school community members.
Katzenmeyer and Moller (2009) assert that teacher leadership can also be defined by the
actions teachers undertake outside of their classroom instruction. Teacher leaders demonstrate
leadership through influence and contribution to the community of teachers in the school, as well
school-wide or district policies (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2009). Levin and Schrum (2017)
identify four waves of teacher leadership occurring within the last century. In the first wave,
senior faculty members were chosen as department or grade level chairs by principals. Next,
additional positions were added to include curriculum leaders; this involved teachers leaving the
classroom for a school-wide or district position. Following this, teachers served as mentors and

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

30

advisors to new teachers while remaining in the classroom. These informal roles provided short-
term opportunities that did not require extended absences from the classroom. Some examples
include hiring committees or membership on the school-wide leadership team.
Most recently, Levin and Schrum (2017) note that teacher leadership is the
“manifestation of distributed leadership” (p. 3). Formal leadership through full-time assigned
roles continues; however, additional informal leadership roles are also recognized as valuable in
improving instructional practice (Levin & Schrum, 2017). Others state that teacher leadership
can also be informal, such as when teachers share classroom practices and expertise with
colleagues. Additional examples of informal teacher leadership include asking difficult questions
about policies at meetings and modeling collaboration (Ackerman & Mackenzie, 2006; Angelle,
2017; Levin & Schrum, 2017). What is consistent in the literature is that teacher leadership
requires agency, collaboration and relationship building (Ackerman & Mackenzie, 2006;
Angelle, 2017; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2009; Levin & Schrum, 2017; York-Barr & Duke, 2004).
Literature indicates that, initially, teacher leadership roles were managerial in nature and
focused on maintaining the efficiency of school operations; however, these roles have shifted and
become more focused on improving instruction and student learning (Harris, 2003; Katzenmeyer
& Moller, 2009; Levin & Schrum, 2017; Mujis & Harris, 2003; Silva, Gimbert, & Nolan, 2000).
Early teacher leadership roles included department chairs, grade level leaders, and union
representatives. These individuals focused on ensuring policies and procedures were followed.
Later, teacher leadership shifted to collaboration, professional learning and instructional practice,
whereby teachers mentored new teachers, led professional development, implemented new
curriculum and improved educational practice (Angelle, 2006; Frost, 2008; Harris, 2003; Levin
& Schrum, 2017; Mujis & Harris, 2003; Silva, Gimbert, & Nolan, 2000). This shift from teacher

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

31

leaders as managers to learning leaders provides the opportunity to support teachers as they
implement new instructional strategies.
Recently, teacher leaders have been identified as key stakeholders in school improvement
and specifically in the recruiting of school communities to facilitate second order change
(Ackerman & Mackenzie 2006; Angelle, 2017; Hallinger, 2003; Harris, 2003; Levin & Schrum
2017; Mujis & Harris, 2003; Silva, Gimbert, & Nolan, 2000; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty,
2003). Within this context, teacher leaders are viewed as pivotal to leading the organizational
shift that is needed to promote collaboration, critical thinking and ongoing professional learning
(Angelle, 2006; Hallinger, 2003; Levin & Schrum, 2017; Silva, Gimbert, & Nolan, 2000). Harris
(2003) asserts that leadership no longer implies a leader-follower paradigm, but rather a
collaboration in which ideas are generated together in light of shared beliefs leading to an action
plan for improvement. Harris (2003) also notes that leadership is both socially constructed and
culturally sensitive; the single charismatic leader construct no longer supports school
improvement and student learning.
Fullan (1997) and others contend that teacher leaders create collaborative cultures
focused on inquiry, assessment, collegiality and student relationships (Ackerman & Mackenzie
2006; Angelle, 2007; Levin & Schrum, 2017). Reeves (2008) notes that teacher leadership
offers exceptional promise for both student achievement and faculty morale in ongoing school
wide change (Ackerman & Mackenzie 2006; Angelle, 2007; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2009;
Levin & Schrum, 2017). This ongoing commitment to the moral purpose of teaching reshapes
the school culture and provides the foundation for improved teaching and learning (Fullan, 1997;
Hallinger, 2003).
Central to teacher leadership is the need for active participation, or agency, in the

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

32

decision-making and change initiatives of the educational institution (Ackerman & Mackenzie,
2006; Angelle, 2007; Levin & Schrum, 2017; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Teacher leadership is
based on the concept of individual empowerment and localized management (York-Barr &
Duke, 2004). Within this context, it is teachers who carry influence and hold key positions in
adapting teaching and learning for all (Ackerman & Mackenzie, 2006; Angelle, 2007; York-Barr
& Duke, 2004). Frost (2008) notes that teacher leadership is a component of shared leadership;
however, it is more than sharing the leadership workload. Shared leadership is proactive and
includes coaching and strategies for leadership across the school. Spillane, Halverson, and
Diamond (2004) argue that shared leadership is too broad a term and instead focus on
establishing a core leadership team which includes teacher leaders, principals and curriculum
leaders.
Knowledge and skills. Literature indicates specific knowledge and skills teacher leaders
should have to be successful in improving teaching and learning. Collegiality, collaboration and
communication are repeatedly noted as skills and dispositions foundational for all teacher leaders
(Ackerman & Mackenzie, 2006; Angelle, 2007). Harris (2008) notes that school leadership and,
specifically, teacher leaders need to incorporate creativity, flexibility, portability and ingenuity to
lead in rapidly changing societies and organizations. Within these three areas, Levin and Schrum
(2017) have identified specific knowledge that teacher leaders must have. These include:
knowledge of curriculum content, power standards, assessment design, analysis of learning data,
school environment, research based teaching practices, new and current education trends, school
community, and individual team members. Additionally, teacher leaders need to know
themselves as learners and leaders (Levin & Schrum, 2017).
Motivation. Teacher leaders are often individuals with high self-efficacy in instructional

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

33

practice, but may not see themselves as leaders (Mujis & Reynolds, 2002). They are not often
motivated by titles or additional pay; however, they have significant capacity to impact
instructional change (Levin & Schrum, 2017). These teacher leaders often experiment with
instructional strategies, research new methods, experiment with materials and have a higher
commitment to teaching (Mujis & Reynolds, 2002). The motivation for teacher leaders often
comes from the leadership work itself. Mujis and Harris (2003) note that a new professionalism
is developed through the shared trust, recognition, empowerment and ongoing support from the
faculty and principals. Bandura (1977) and Henson (2001) note that self-efficacy in leadership is
influential for teacher leaders. Bandura (1977) defines self-efficacy as the “beliefs in one’s
capabilities to organize and execute a course of action required to produce given attainments” (p.
3). Henson (2001) describes teacher self-efficacy as the teacher’s own judgment of his or her
capabilities to bring about the desired outcomes for student learning. Henson (2001) also notes
that collaboration improves the collective efficacy of a group, and schools with high collective
self-efficacy have a positive effect on student achievement.
Mujis and Harris (2003) also note that an area for growth in developing teacher
leadership is in the area of self-confidence to act as leaders. They note that transformational
teacher leadership occurs through structured collaboration and networking. Through this
collaboration within schools and with other teacher leaders, new teaching strategies are explored.
Sharing findings with colleagues on action research helps to develop confidence and reflect on
instructional impact (Mujis & Harris, 2003). This collaboration and increase in confidence
improves teaching practice and motivates teachers to grow as leaders.
Organizational structures. In addition to knowledge, skills and motivation, schools
must provide specific organizational structures to support teacher leadership. Schools with a

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

34

cohort or pipeline of teacher leaders provide a pool of leaders to continue school-wide initiatives
and take on roles of greater responsibility as experienced leaders move on from the school
(Levin & Schrum, 2017). Principals work closely with the leadership pool to develop leadership
skills with the cohort, while also implementing school-wide initiatives. The principal must also
provide clear, ongoing communication with teacher leaders and be clear about boundaries for
decision-making and power sharing (Levin & Schrum, 2017; Mujis & Harris, 2003). This
collaboration provides opportunities for teacher leaders to give input and be part of the decision-
making process, be accountable for the implementation of initiatives and programs and receive
recognition for efforts and successes. Reeves (2004) notes that accountability that is student-
centered motivates and engages teachers in classroom instruction and student learning. Teacher
leaders can harness this increased motivation from teachers and facilitate teams to review their
practice as it relates to student growth (Reeves, 2004). In doing so, the principal must also
relinquish some control of the school (Levin & Schrum, 2017). The literature indicates that the
increase in collaboration and responsibility that comes with teacher leadership not only reduces
teacher isolation, but also improves transformations in schools (Levin & Schrum, 2017; Mujis &
Harris, 2003; Reeves, 2004;).
School-wide structures, including release time and regular meetings with the leadership
team, will also contribute to the overall impact teacher leaders can have within the school.
Establishing a school-wide culture of collaboration, goal setting, shared decision making,
reflective practice, and quality, ongoing professional development will not only benefit the
school, but teacher leaders as well (Levin & Schrum, 2017). Coordinating common planning
time for teams will also provide a necessary structural support for teams to collaborate and for
teacher leaders to work with teams to review learning data and improve instruction (Mujis &

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

35

Harris, 2003). However, it is also noted in the literature that principals cannot provide
empowerment to teachers; rather, principals create the environment and provide opportunities for
teachers to lead and, in turn, support empowerment (Levin & Schrum, 2017).
Student achievement. While teacher leadership is not a new concept, the impact of
teacher leaders on student achievement and school improvement has become an increasing area
of study since the start of the millennium (Ackerman & Mackenzie, 2006; Reeves, 2008; York-
Barr & Duke, 2004). School improvement and increasing student achievement are complex
endeavors and beyond the scope of a single individual. The singular, charismatic leader is not
capable of doing this work alone, and, therefore, must include a cohort of stakeholders from
across the school to engage in the problem solving and decision making (Harris, 2003; Reeves,
2008; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Reeves (2008) notes that additional training and directives
from district or building leaders rarely lead to improved learning across the school system.
Others identify that increased employee participation leads to greater ownership and deeper
commitment to the goals of the organization (Levin & Schrum, 2017; York-Barr & Duke, 2004).
Therefore, changes to curriculum and instruction and, in turn, student learning require the input
and support of teacher leaders if the work is to be implemented with fidelity and improve student
learning (Reeves, 2008; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Additionally, it is the teachers who have the
in-the-moment experience with the students and the curriculum that will inform areas for growth
and change (York-Barr & Duke, 2004).
York-Barr and Duke (2004) go on to identify that teacher leaders experience profound
learning as they engage in school improvement planning and develop a big-picture sense of the
school. Additionally, teacher leaders are at the forefront of new practices in instruction, and this
learning directly affects the growth of students (Leithwood & Duke, 1999 as cited in York-Barr

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

36

& Duke, 2004). Reeves (2008) notes that many educators connect outside factors such as socio-
economic status and language proficiency with student achievement, yet do not consider the
positive impact of high quality teaching and leadership. When teachers work together to share
instructional practices and strategies, and then reflect on the impact of these strategies, student
achievement often increases.
Reeves (2008) notes that belief systems, those beliefs about teaching and learning, only
change after behaviors change. Typically, leaders have worked to change beliefs by sharing
research and evidence and providing training (Reeves, 2008). Rather than a linear distribution of
leadership for change, Reeves suggests a networked framework of nodes and hubs of teachers,
where nodes are single points of contact and hubs are nodes of multiple contacts. When
functioning optimally, hubs and nodes collaborate to investigate, research, implement and reflect
on instructional practices and strategies to improve learning. However, in most organizations, the
nodes and hubs are ill-coordinated and rely on the direction of individuals who may or may not
support the mission and vision of the school (Reeves, 2008). These individuals are superhubs,
according to Reeves, who have extensive connection and influence within the organization.
When these superhubs are known and their influence is leveraged, there is significant potential
for change and growth within the system (Reeves, 2008).
Barriers to teacher leadership. Teaching is often considered to be equalitarian with
very little career progression or leadership from the classroom teacher to principal. For this
reason, teachers often do not view themselves as leaders or the work they do as leadership (Levin
& Schrum, 2017; Mujis & Harris, 2004). Teacher leaders often note that they fear repercussions
from colleagues or are viewed as administration, losing sight of the work of the classroom
teacher (Angelle, 2007; Levin & Schrum, 2017).

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

37

Personalized Learning
The term personalized learning has become more common in education literature,
although it dates back to Dewey’s work from 1916 (De Freitas & Yap, 2005; Zmuda et al.,
2015). Within the 21st century, personalized learning has grown in popularity and become a
broad, all-encompassing term that includes: personal learning plans, digital portfolios, blended
learning, computer adaptive learning, dual enrollment, community-based learning, project-based
learning, inquiry learning, and anything-anytime-anywhere student-designed learning
(Halverson, 2015; Tomlinson, 2017). As a result of personalized learning including so many
variations, there is no clear understanding of personalized learning within the literature. As
mentioned earlier, AIS developed a school-wide definition of personalized learning based on
current literature and practice. For the purpose of this dissertation, personalized learning is:
...student-centered, grounded in each learner’s profile, and characterized by competency-
based progressions, customized pathways, and flexible learning environments. Students
take ownership of their learning, while also developing meaningful relationships with
each other, teachers and members of the local and global communities (AIS, internal
communication).
This definition is based on the work of Zmuda, Curtis, and Ullman (2015), where personalized
learning is defined as “a progressively student-driven model in which students deeply engage in
meaningful, authentic, and rigorous challenges to demonstrate desired outcomes” (p. 7). The
Institute for Personalized Learning (2015) notes that learner profiles, customized learning paths
and proficiency based progressions are key elements of personalized learning. The institute
defines personalized learning as “an autonomous activity, initiated and controlled by the learner.
For learning to occur, there needs to be a connection, interaction or context identified”

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

38

(institute4pl.org). Bray and McCluskey (2013) note that personalization is learner-centered and
refers to instruction that is paced to learning needs, tailored to learning preferences and tailored
to the specific interests of the learner. Kallick and Zmuda (2017) describe personalized learning
as a “progressively student driven model” where students “engage deeply in meaningful,
authentic and rigorous challenges” (p. 53). Each of these definitions shape the focus, as well as
the elements, of personalized learning at AIS.
Much of the literature about personalized learning includes the role of technology.
Rickabaugh (2016) notes that while technology is useful, personalization can and does occur
without technology. Technology is one tool that supports personalization. Software and devices
can adapt to student learning needs and track student progress (Halverson; 2015; Rickabaugh,
2016; Zmuda et al., 2015). However, technology has an important role in collecting and
analyzing learning data so that teachers are able to track student progress and co-construct next
steps in learning (Rickabaugh, 2016; Zmuda et al., 2015).
Although personalized learning has become an umbrella term in education, at the core is
an interest in improving learning and success for all students. Proponents of personalized
learning advocate for the need for powerful, engaging learning over compliant students who can
answer questions on multiple choice standardized tests (Rickabaugh, Sprader, & Murray, 2017).
Some argue that currently, 21st century learners are experiencing a 20th century curriculum in a
19th century schedule (Zmuda et al., 2015). Personalized learning supporters value learners
working in partnership with educators to identify learning goals, design learning paths and share
accountability for growth, success and failure (De Freitas & Yapp, 2005; Zmuda et al., 2015).
Finally, those who support personalized learning note that students are more engaged and have a
better understanding of the concepts when their progress is based on documented learning rather

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

39

than time spent sitting in a classroom (Rickabaugh et al., 2017; Zmuda et al., 2017). In essence,
students who learn in a personalized learning environment improve executive functioning,
specifically time management, prioritizing and self-management (De Freitas & Yapp, 2005).
Learning Theory and Personalized Learning
Personalized learning is not a new concept; rather, it is based on the work of Dewey,
Bruner, Piaget, Vygotsky, Bandura, and Skinner (De Freitas & Yapp, 2005; Zmuda et al., 2015).
Dewey’s inquiry-focused approach proposed that schools build on student interest and include
outside experience develop learners (Zmuda et al., 2015). Piaget and Bruner’s constructivist
theory of learning is supported by over 60 years of learning and is centered on the learner
making sense of the world around them. Within this theory, concepts are learned when they are
integrated into the learner’s own personal structure or theory (De Freitas & Yapp, 2005). Similar
to constructivism, Vygotsky (1978) asserts that learning occurs first between individuals or as an
inter-psychology category and then within the individual or in the intra-psychology category (De
Freitas & Yapp, 2005; Vygotsky, 1978). Skills are learned and performed through social rules
until they are internalized. Vygtosky (1978) also notes that internalization is supported through
the use of shared tools, artifacts and sign, which he labelled as semiotic mediation (De Freitas &
Yapp, 2005). Vygotsky also noted that learners’ capacities can be extended beyond what they are
capable of independently, but not so far that they are not able to participate in the discussion or
activity (De Freitas &Yapp, 2005; Vygotsky, 1978). In behaviorism, Skinner suggests that
learners develop their own repertoire of behavior, which demonstrates advanced learning as
opposed to copying (De Freitas & Yapp, 2005). Learning theorists agree that learning occurs
through discovery, inquiry and constructivism. Learning itself is a social process whereby
learners take part through goal-oriented tasks, exploration, experimentation, feedback and

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

40

reflection.
Elements of Personalized Learning
While the definition of personalized learning is still broad in much of the literature, these
definitions will provide to focus for the purpose of this study. These broad definitions include a
number of common elements which will be discussed below.
Learner profiles. In a personalized learning environment, each student co-creates a
learner profile, which is composed of extensive and up-to-date information for each student
(Education Alberta, 2010; Rickabaugh, 2016). Each learner profile consists of demographic data,
academic status, learning-related skill set evidence and potential learning drivers (Rickabaugh,
2016). Demographic data includes current living situation and education history, including
potential barriers and supports for learning. This section may also include information on the
student’s learning preferences, as well as documentation such Individualized Education Plans
(Education Alberta, 2010; Halverson et al., 2015; Rickabaugh, 2016). Academic status includes
learning evidence, such as formative and summative assessment information, standardized
testing, universal screening data and portfolio information (Education Alberta, 2010;
Rickabaugh, 2016). Information related to the learner’s skill set includes the learning styles,
strategies, habits and specific skills the student prefers and has mastered (Education Alberta,
2010; Rickabaugh 2016). Potential learning drivers provide insights related to the student’s
aspirations, interests, motivations and possible career plans that may impact the individual’s
commitment and independence in learning.
Customized pathways. Just as the teacher and learner co-constructed the learner profile,
so too do they develop the student’s customized pathway for learning. In developing this
pathway for learning, students take on greater ownership and responsibility for their learning,

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

41

while also building their capacity as a learner (Rickabaugh, 2016; Zmuda et al., 2015). In
developing this pathway, students set specific learning goals, find resources to support the goal
and plan tasks to demonstrate learning. The goal is not for an independent study project nor a
free-for-all, but a targeted, co-constructed path for learning (Rickabaugh, 2016; Zmuda et al.,
2015).
A culture of agency and responsibility is necessary throughout the school for students to
successfully collaborate and plan their own learning pathway. Each student is expected to have
agency for their learning by taking ownership of their learning. This is often developed as
students control the pace and sequence of their learning, as well as the physical and social space
in which they work (Halverson, 2015; Rickabaugh, 2016; Zmuda et al., 2015). Students develop
responsibility by managing their time to meet agreed upon targets. Failing to manage time is also
a feature within personalized learning, as it is part of developmental process of the learner. The
role of the teacher, when this does occur, is to support the student as they recover from these
setbacks (Halverson et al., 2015).
Agency and responsibility are developed through opportunities to choose learning
activities and outcomes. As students work towards agreed upon targets, they have the
opportunity to choose activities that will support their learning. In an elementary school, this may
include choosing the sequence of activities for weekly learning targets, while in middle school
students may have opportunities to work individually or in groups to achieve targets and
demonstrate mastery (Halverson et al., 2015; Rickabaugh, 2016). In some settings, schools
incorporate a “genius hour” each week in which students can direct their own learning based on
individual interests. Students make decisions about each aspect of their learning, including
strategies to develop new skills, pacing, resources and material. The teacher provides the time

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

42

and acts as the architect to develop the necessary ecosystem to encourage agency and
responsibility (Spencer, 2017). This design/thinking approach shifts the focus away from content
and provides a framework for students to develop their capacity as learners and creative problem
solvers (De Freitas & Yapp, 2005; Halverson et al., 2015; Spencer 2017).
Developing student agency and responsibility require changes to the traditional model of
schooling. Schools that embrace personalized learning revise their master schedule to provide
opportunities for students to meet with advisors, in small groups, or conduct research to achieve
their learning targets (Halverson et al., 2015).
Competency based progressions. Concerns with personalized learning often focus on
standards-based teaching and learning. Some are concerned that personalized learning does not
include curriculum or standards; however, the literature shows that standards are part of a
personalized learning environment. Rickabaugh (2016) indicates that standards provide the
targets and drive learning outcomes. The student is able to move through these targets and
outcomes at their own pace and is able to seek support as needed. Students also have the
opportunity to choose how targets and relevant activities are sequenced (Rickabaugh, 2016;
Zmuda et al., 2015). When the focus is on competencies, teachers shift from knowledge givers to
learning facilitators, and students shift from receivers of knowledge to partners in learning
(Goodwin, 2017; Halverson et al., 2015; Rickabaugh, 2016; Zmuda et al., 2015).
Flexible learning environments. Personalized learning extends beyond learning targets
and the relationships with teachers and peers. Schools that incorporate a personalized learning
model organize the environment around the needs of the students. Space is available for
individuals, small groups, large groups and one-to-one meetings with teachers. Furniture is
flexible and can be moved easily to accommodate the needs of the group (Halverson et al., 2015;

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

43

Rickabaugh, 2016). This flexibility extends to teachers as well, since individual classrooms are
rarely part of flexible learning environments. Rather than spending most of the day isolated in
one classroom, teachers in professional learning environments teach across various spaces in an
open plan setting. Instead of a classroom with rows of desks and a front, teachers lead seminars,
provide interventions and meet with individual students across the learning environment
(Halverson et al., 2015; Rickabaugh, 2016). This arrangement also aims to meet specific needs of
students, such as those who need quiet, those who prefer to stand and those who benefit from
regular movement (Rickabaugh, 2016). With these options, students build self-management
skills, develop respectful relationships with peers and develop a greater understanding about
themselves as learners.
Differentiation and Individualization
The terms differentiation and individualization are often considered as synonyms for
personalized learning. However, this is not accurate. Differentiation and individualization are
tailored to meet the learning needs of students without input from the students. With both, the
learning goals and activities directed by teachers with little to no input from the students on the
targets (Bray & McCluskey, 2013; Halverson et al., 2015).
In a differentiated classroom, instruction is tailored to learning preferences for various
learners; however, all students progress towards the same learning outcomes at a similar pace
(Bray & McCluskey, 2013). Learners are identified for intervention based on challenges with
specific learning standards and the teachers adapts instruction to respond to the needs of the
students (Tomlinson, 2014, 2017). Differentiated classrooms may include stations, a feature of
many personalized learning environments, but these stations are created by the teacher with little
to no input from students, meaning that students are passive participants in the learning (Bray &

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

44

McCluskey, 2013). Active learning occurs through discussion and interactions in small groups,
but student choice is still lacking. Goals, outcomes, resources and assessments are all identified
by the teacher. Additionally, teachers continue to be tied to the master schedule and time-based
units for credit (Bray & McCluskey, 2013; Zmuda et al., 2015).
Individualized instruction is also directed by the teacher with passive participation by the
learner. In this situation, learners are identified through educational assessments by learning
professionals typically outside the school setting. A team of teachers, and often the parents,
develop an individualized education plan (IEP) for students based on their identified learning
challenges. The professionals identify learning goals, resources and specific strategies and
interventions to support the student (Bray & McCluskey, 2013; Zmuda et al., 2015). Although
individualized, the student does not have the opportunity to contribute to the goals or choose the
learning sequence. Progress is assessed and documented through the IEP and credit for classes is
time-based and awarded in Carnegie units.
Table 2.1 compares personalized learning environments with differentiated approaches
and individualized instruction.
Table 2.1. A Comparison of Differentiation, Individualization and Personalization (Bray &
McCluskey, 2013, www.personalizelearning.com)
Differentiation Individualization Personalization
The teacher The teacher The learner
provides learning for groups
of students, adjusting as
needed to meet the needs of
the learners
accommodates learning
needs through targeted skill-
based intervention and
explicit instruction
co-constructs learning with
the teacher, connects
learning with interests and
aspirations
develops learning activities
and incorporates a variety of
instructional strategies for
modifies instruction for
individuals
co-constructs learning
pathways

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

45

groups of learners
identifies learning outcomes
for the groups of learners
and the class
identifies specific learning
targets for individuals while
also identifying targets for
the whole class
identifies learning goals and
benchmarks to monitor
progress
learning is credited through
Carnegie units (time in
class)
learning is credited through
Carnegie units (time in
class)
demonstrates mastery of
content within competency
based progressions
documents learning through
assessment OF and FOR
learning
documents learning through
assessment OF learning
demonstrates learning
through assessment AS and
FOR learning with some OF
learning

Evidence of Personalized Learning and Student Achievement
Although based in learning theory, very little scientific research has been conducted on
the personalized learning and student achievement. A RAND corporation study compared the of
achievement of 62 schools and 11,000 students in low income districts and found a positive
effect size of 0.27 in math achievement and 0.19 in reading in elementary schools, but not in
secondary schools. However, the same study also noted that approximately one fourth of the
schools surveyed experienced negative effect sizes and another one fourth demonstrated no
change (Goodwin, 2017; Riley, 2017). The study noted uneven implementation with inconsistent
use of learner profiles and competency-based progressions (Goodwin, 2017; Riley, 2017).
Therefore, further research on personalized learning and student achievement is needed.
A Stanford study of four California high schools following a personalized learning model
indicated that students at these schools outperformed their peers in nearby schools (Goodwin,
2017). These four schools had higher documented graduation rates, greater gains on
standardized tests and increased time spent in college (Goodwin, 2017). Researchers at
Columbia University also conducted a study on personalized learning and student achievement.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

46

The study focused on over 4,100 students in 15 schools following a personalized approach to
math using computer adaptive technology (Goodwin, 2017). Students were found to perform
47% higher than national norms in the second year of implementation, with students from the
bottom one third performing 81% better than similar students after one year. Students in the
average range on standardized assessments scored 21% higher (Goodwin, 2017). However, it
must be noted that very little research has been conducted in this area, and the three studies
included here did not follow scientific design.
Cautions for Personalized Learning
Further ongoing research is needed to study the effects of personalized learning on
student growth and achievement. Additionally, the term personalized learning is so broad that it
is difficult to identify specific components and their impact on learning (Riley, 2017). As
Tomlinson (2017) notes, school leaders must have clarity about the purpose and vision when
implementing personalized learning. Leaders need to know why personalized learning is needed
before determining how or what will be restructured (or implemented).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to identify the role of the teacher leader in facilitating the
personalized learning goals of the strategic plan at AIS. Currently, teacher leadership is a broad
term at AIS and there is a lack of clarity about the role of the teacher leader to improve student
learning or implement personalized learning at the classroom level. The study is focused on the
following questions:
1. How are prospective teacher leaders identified and recruited?
2. How does the system sustain teacher leaders?
3. What are the organizational cultural imperatives for teacher leaders?

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

47

These research questions will help guide principals at AIS to identify the knowledge, skills and
dispositions required for various teacher leadership positions connected to the implementation of
personalized learning. The study will also clarify systems across the school to support and
develop teacher leadership while also considering the organization’s cultural needs.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

48

CHAPTER THREE:
METHODOLOGY
This chapter provides an overview of the methodology for the qualitative study and
includes the rationale, along with the demographics and relevant characteristics of the
participants. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) note that qualitative research intends to understand how
individuals interpret their experience, construct their world and attribute meaning. This study
focused on the experience of international school principals in Asia and teacher leaders at AIS.
These teacher leaders were identified as full time teachers who had additional responsibilities as
grade level leaders, department leaders, professional learning community leaders and student
athletics and activity leaders.
The purpose of this dissertation was to identify the knowledge, skills, and organizational
needs required for teacher leaders at American International School in order to recruit, retain and
sustain teacher leadership across the school as the organization implements personalized
learning. As part of the methodology, the chapter includes a description of the instruments used
to gather data, as well as the protocols followed for data collection. The chapter concludes with
an analysis of the data obtained, including relevant documentation.
Rationale for Method of Study
This study followed a qualitative approach. As Merriam (2015) notes, a qualitative study
is designed to reveal how individuals construct meaning. The researcher studied participants’
responses during interviews and through online surveys to describe, decode, translate and
understand the meaning of the participant situation from their perspective (Merriam, 2015;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In keeping with a qualitative approach, the study included multiple
data sources, inductive and deductive data analysis and a holistic account of the emerging

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

49

understanding (Creswell, 2014). Semi-structured interviews with international school principals
and experts provided the primary data source for the study, while online surveys provided
triangulation of data. Through these semi-structured interviews and surveys, the study attempted
to make meaning of the knowledge and skills of teacher leaders as well as interpret the cultural
imperatives to sustain teacher leadership.
Participants and Sampling Rationale
Purposeful sampling was used throughout the study. Participants were selected
purposefully in order to help understand and gather insights from those with extensive
experience and knowledge so that rich data could be collected to inform the study (Creswell,
2014; Merriam, 2015; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Two participant groups were identified to
ensure rich data was collected from multiple data points. The first participant group included
international school principals and experts in personalized learning and teacher leadership. Ten
principals and two experts were interviewed for the study. The data collected from the interviews
was then triangulated through an online survey with teacher leaders at AIS.
As stated previously, interview subjects included ten international school principals and
two experts. Principals included in this study were employed in international private schools in
Asia from countries including Indonesia, Japan, Nepal and Singapore. Five of these interviewees
had experience as elementary principals, three interviewees were middle school principals and
two participants were high school principals. Two interviewees, one an elementary principal and
one a middle school principal, were system-wide school leaders at the time of the interview.
Three of the ten principals were employed at AIS. In total, three schools followed the Common
Core State Standards and three schools incorporated the International Baccalaureate program.
Each of the international school principals were committed to school-wide improvement and

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

50

leveraging teacher leadership to implement change. Additionally, these schools were exploring
the role of personalized learning on student growth and were beginning to implement elements of
personalized learning within their schools. Two experts were interviewed as part of the study to
provide clear understanding of personalized learning and teacher leadership. Expert one is a
former high school principal and personalized learning consultant. Expert two is also a former
principal; she has held roles in private international schools in Asia as an elementary and high
school principal, as well as head of school, and currently leads professional development on
teacher leadership for school leaders.
The teacher leaders surveyed were all employed at AIS at the time of the study and
included faculty from the elementary, middle and high school divisions. Each survey respondent
had classroom teaching responsibilities and received a stipend for their leadership role at Asia
International School. Teacher leaders were identified as having basic or advanced teacher
leadership responsibilities. Basic responsibilities include leading a team with six or fewer
members and having the support of a grade level leader or department chair. Advanced teacher
leadership responsibilities included those leaders who were responsible for teams with more than
six members and conducting classroom visits to give teachers feedback, and/or lead the
implementation of new programs or instructional practice, and/or provide instructional coaching.
These teacher leaders with additional responsibilities were typically responsible for leading a
grade level or department. Participation in the study was voluntary and each respondent
completed the survey anonymously by following a link embedded in the email inviting them to
participate (see Table 3.1 for summary of participants).

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

51

Table 3.1. Summary of Participants
Position Sample Size
Basic Teacher leaders
Preschool - grade 12
102
Advanced teacher leaders
Preschool - grade 12
32
Principals at AIS
Elementary
Middle
High School
3
Principals - International schools
Elementary
Middle
High School
7
Experts - personalized learning and teacher leadership 2

Instruments
Permission was obtained from the University of Southern California Institutional Review
Board (IRB) prior to undertaking the study. Participants were invited by email to participate in
completing responses on specific instruments, the interview or survey. The message outlined the
purpose of the study, the time commitment, information regarding anonymity and confidentiality
and an option for participants to opt out.
Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were used with international school principals to gather rich
data regarding their experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews were conducted with
principals, including those from AIS and other international schools, as well as external
personalized learning experts and teacher leadership experts. Merriam (2015), notes that
interview participants provide direct information regarding their thoughts, feelings and

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

52

experiences as it relates to the study. These schools were identified because of their focus on
teacher leadership and personalized learning as demonstrated through the school’s website or
participation in regional leadership conferences. The purpose of these interviews was to make
meaning of the current teacher leadership strategy within these schools. Principals were asked to
share the skills and knowledge they mark as priorities when identifying and recruiting teacher
leaders. These questions were asked to determine if principals use similar qualities to recruit
teachers as those identified by Angelle (2007), Ackerman and Mackenzie (2006), and Levin and
Schrum (2017). Interview questions also focused on transformational, instructional and
distributed leadership as systems that support teacher leadership in schools. These three areas
were identified in the research as frameworks to support system-wide teacher leadership
(Hallinger, 2003; Harris, 2008; Leithwood & Seashore-Louis, 2011; Levin & Schrum, 2011;
Printy et al., 2009; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008; Shatzer et al., 2014; Spillane, 2005, 2006;
Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Finally, interview participants were asked to share their experience
with implementing personalized learning in their current setting. These questions provided data
on personalized learning and the four elements included in the approach as described by
Halverson and colleagues (2015), Rickabaugh (2016), and Zmuda and colleagues (2015).
Interviews with principals and experts served two purposes. First, by interviewing
principals, the researcher was able to identify practices to recruit and retain teacher leaders.
Second, interviewing personalized learning experts provided data to identify the specific
knowledge, skills and systems required for teacher leaders to lead the implementation of
personalized learning. Each of these semi-structured interviews were conducted with elementary,
middle and high school principals. The interview protocol was shared at the start of the interview
and all sessions were recorded with the participant’s approval. The interview protocol is included

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

53

in Appendix A.
Survey
An online survey was given to 134 teacher leaders at American International School. The
purpose of the survey was to triangulate the data collected through semi-structured interviews
with principals and experts. Through the surveys, data was collected on the knowledge and skills
teacher leaders identify as necessary for effective leadership with the team they lead. Survey
participants identified specific knowledge and skills from a drop down menu or open ended
responses. The purpose of these questions was to triangulate the data collected through the semi-
structured interviews during phase one. Survey questions also gathered data on teacher leaders’
experience with transformational, instructional and distributed leadership. These questions were
included to gather data on specific frameworks to support system-wide teacher leadership
(Hallinger, 2003; Harris, 2008; Leithwood & Seashore-Louis, 2011; Levin & Schrum, 2011;
Printy et al., 2009; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008; Shatzer et al., 2014; Spillane, 2005, 2006;
Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Finally, the survey gathered data on systems that support or
challenge teacher leadership at AIS as identified by Angelle (2007) and Levin and Schrum
(2017). Anonymity was protected by administering the survey using Qualtrics, an online survey
host. The survey protocol is included in Appendix B.
Procedure
Data was collected in two phases. Initially, semi-structured interviews were conducted
with principals at AIS, as well as those at private international schools in Singapore, Nepal and
Japan. Participants were invited to take part in the interviews by email and were informed of the
purpose of the study. At the start of each interview, the researcher again shared the purpose of
the study and assured participants that their personal details would be kept confidential.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

54

Participants were asked for permission to record the interview and were given the choice to opt
out of the interview or specific questions. Each participant signed an informed consent form after
receiving this information and before the first question was asked. All interviews were conducted
face-to-face and recorded using the researcher’s smart phone running the app Quick Voice Pro.
The recordings were uploaded to the researcher’s password protected laptop and transcribed
verbatim.
Interviews with AIS principals were conducted at the AIS campus, while those conducted
with principals from Nepal and Japan and teacher leadership experts were conducted at a
regional conference. Interviews with principals from other international schools in Singapore
were conducted at a coffee shop within the city. Each interview consisted of thirteen to twenty-
one questions and were completed in twenty to sixty minutes. Each participant was asked the
same thirteen questions and, based on the responses of the individuals, additional follow-up
questions were asked as applicable.
Online surveys were given as the second stage of data collection. Each of the 134 teacher
leaders at AIS were invited to participate in the survey via an email to their AIS email account.
The email included information about the purpose of the study and a link to complete the
anonymous survey. The message also informed individuals that the survey was hosted by
Qualtrics, an online survey host and that narrative responses could be included in the dissertation
as a survey participant. Participants were given three weeks to complete the survey and a
reminder was sent to all teacher leaders one week before the survey closed. See Table 3.2 for
phases of the data collection.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

55

Table 3.2. Two Phase Data Collection Procedure
Phase Phase 1 Phase 2
Research
method
Qualitative Qualitative
Purpose Gather data on systems for
identifying and recruiting teacher
leaders; perceived knowledge and
skills for teacher leaders;
professional development related to
leadership knowledge and skills
Gather data on process for identifying
teacher leaders; perceived knowledge
and skills for teacher leadership;
professional development related to
leadership knowledge and skills
Participants School principals and experts in
personalized learning and teacher
leadership
Teachers leaders who receive a
leadership stipend at AIS
Protocol 1:1 semi-structured interviews Online anonymous survey

Credibility and Trustworthiness
In a qualitative study such as this one, the researcher must acknowledge their own bias,
as this will impact all facets of the research. Creswell (2014) notes that gender, education, and
experience influence data collection, coding, and interpretation, and thus need to be addressed
within the analysis. Interview subjects should not be closely connected to the researcher, for
example, and the researcher should not supervise or evaluate interview participants (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). This distance allows the researcher to ask real questions and explore assumptions
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In the case of this study, the researcher was not responsible for
supervising or evaluating any of the interview participants. However, it should be noted that the
researcher is part of the school wide leadership team, which also includes AIS principals
interviewed in this study. Survey participation was anonymous to provide distance between
teacher leaders completing the survey and the researcher. To gather rich, credible data, as
described by Maxwell (2013), each interview was audio recorded and verbatim transcripts were

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

56

prepared. These audio recordings and transcripts provided details that were reviewed and coded
for analysis after the semi-structured interviews were completed. Additionally, memos for each
interview were recorded to note participants’ body language and nonverbal cues. Rich, credible
data was gathered through the online survey by using the Qualtrics platform as a third party host.
This platform ensured anonymous participation and kept the data password protected.
Credibility is further developed through the triangulation of data. Using multiple data
measures such as interviews and surveys provided varied points of evidence to justify a theme or
construct (Creswell, 2014). For the purposes of this study, qualitative interviews were conducted
with multiple individuals and surveys were sent to numerous participants to ensure multiple
sources of data.
Ethics
A number of factors were employed to ensure an ethical study for all participants. Each
interview session began with a statement identifying the purpose of the study, the individuals
who would have access to the interview transcripts and a request to record the session.
Participants were informed that the information shared in the interview would only be used for
the study and shared with the review committee. Pseudonyms were used for principals and
experts throughout the transcription and interpretation of the data to ensure anonymity. Each
participant gave consent at the start of the interview before the recording device was started and
then again during the opening statement for the interview. Each interview participant received a
gift card for a local coffee shop at the end of the interview. Online surveys were conducted
anonymously using a Qualtrics, a third party web-based survey provider and participants had the
option to opt out of any question
Analysis

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

57

A range of descriptive data was collected through the interview protocol and survey
instrument. Data from both instruments was reviewed for relevant material and extraneous
information was ignored. Each interview was recorded, transcribed, analyzed and coded. The
analysis included reading each transcript and highlighting comments and phrases related to the
research questions or connected to the literature. Interviews were reviewed and coded to note
processes or systems used by principals to identify and recruit teacher leaders, including specific
knowledge or skills for teacher leaders. Responses were also analyzed for systems to support
teacher leadership, including frameworks identified in the literature review. Finally, interview
transcripts were analyzed and coded according to the elements of personalized learning
implemented in each school. Survey data was analyzed with focus on the knowledge and skills of
teacher leaders. Questions on the survey included open responses, and these comments were
reviewed, highlighted and coded for specific knowledge and skills. Survey participants also
shared their experiences in attaining their current leadership role. These comments were also
reviewed, highlighted, and coded for key words and ideas.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

58

CHAPTER FOUR:
FINDINGS
Implementing change across a school requires leadership from principals and teachers.
As noted by Printy and colleagues (2009), as well as Hallinger (2003), principals set the stage for
school improvement through transformational and instructional leadership. As transformational
leaders, principals inspire teachers regarding the moral imperative of teaching and learning, and
work collaboratively with teacher leaders to set the vision and mission for the school (Printy et
al., 2009). As instructional leaders, principals influence student learning by guiding the curricular
and instructional direction of the school (Hallinger, 2003). Research has been conducted on
transformational leadership, instructional leadership and teacher leadership; however, little
research has been done to identify the impact of the teacher leader when implementing change
(Schrum & Levin, 2013). The purpose of this study was to identify the role of the teacher leader
in facilitating change, specifically in the area of personalized learning. Chapters one through
three offered a statement of the problem, review of literature and a description of methodology.
Chapter four includes a description of the participants interviewed during the study and the
teacher leaders surveyed. In addition, chapter four includes the findings that emerged from semi-
structured interviews of principals and experts and survey data from teacher leaders. For the
purposes of sharing the findings in this chapter, the principals interviewed will be referred to as
principals, the experts interviewed will be referred to as experts, and the teacher leaders surveyed
will be referred to as survey participants.
The researcher investigated three areas related to effective teacher leadership for
change. First, the researcher investigated the systems principals use when identifying and
recruiting teacher leaders, as well as the knowledge and skills principals look for when choosing

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

59

a teacher leader. Next, the researcher examined the leadership styles that principals incorporate
to retain teacher leaders. These included transformational leadership, instructional leadership and
distributed leadership. Finally, the researcher investigated teacher leader perceptions about their
role in leading change with their teams and achieving the strategic goals of the school
These three research questions were investigated through interviews with principals and
experts, as well as online surveys for teacher leaders. During the interview, the researcher asked
principals and experts to identify the process for identifying teacher leaders and the knowledge
and skills teacher leaders need when implementing change. Principals were asked to provide
examples of teacher leaders supporting and facilitating transformational leadership and
instructional leadership. Finally, principals were asked about the role of the distributed
leadership model to facilitate change. Survey participants were asked to identify the knowledge,
skills, and dispositions they use as a team leader compared those identified by in the literature.
Survey participants were asked to use a Likert scale to rate their participation in developing the
mission and vision for the school. The researcher asked principals, experts and survey
respondents to identify professional development that has supported the work of teacher leaders.
Finally, through interview questions and survey items, the researcher investigated the cultural
imperatives, or the value teacher leaders add, when schools implement change. The data
collected from these interviews and surveys was analyzed and coded to identify emerging trends.
Participants
This qualitative analysis incorporated data that was collected through semi- structured
interviews and an online survey. A semi-structured interview protocol was used to collect data
from ten experienced principals and two experts. An overview of the principals who were
interviewed is displayed in Table 4.1 and experts are shown in Table 4.2. To ensure anonymity,

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

60

principals’ names have been replaced with principal number, while experts’ names have been
identified by expert number.
A total of 134 teacher leaders were asked to respond to an online survey within a three
week window. Each teacher leader was employed at Asia International School and was identified
by the divisional principal as someone who held a formal leadership position with a stipend.
Ninety-six teacher leaders responded to the survey. Of these ninety-six, 44% were teacher
leaders in the elementary school (ES), 34% were teacher leaders in the middle school(MS) and
21% were high school (HS) teacher leaders. More female teacher leaders responded to the online
survey (58%), with male teacher leaders making up 41% of the respondents. One teacher leader
opted to not identify their gender. Survey participants self-identified their leadership roles, which
included: professional learning community leader, department chair, team leader, instructional
coach, technology coach, technology coordinator, faculty senate leader, week without walls
coordinator. Ninety-two of ninety-six survey respondents identified at least one of the teacher
leader roles listed above. Fourteen participants identified two leadership roles, such as
department chair and professional learning community leader, and four participants did not
complete this question. Names and email addresses were not collected as part of the online
survey, and to ensure anonymity respondents are referred to as survey participants.
Table 4.1. Overview of Principals and School Leaders Interviewed
Identification
Number
Description Tenure in Role School Description
P1

Female, MS principal
International School
Singapore

3 years Grade 6 – 8
international middle
school in Asia
P2

Female, ES Principal
International School
Singapore
3 years Preschool – 6
international
elementary school in
Asia

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

61

P3

Male, ES principal
International School Japan
3 years K- 5 international
elementary school in
Asia
P4

Female, HS principal
International school
Nepal
3 months Grades 9 – 12
International school in
Asia
P5

Female, ES Principal
International school
Singapore
3 years Preschool – Grade 2
International school in
Asia
P6

Female, MS Principal
International school
Singapore
3 years Grade 6 – 8
International school in
Asia
P7

Male, Former ES principal
International school
Indonesia
Current school wide leader
International school
Singapore
3 years Pre-school – Grade 12
International school in
Asia
P8

Female, Former MS
principal School wide leader
International school
Singapore
3 years Pre-school – Grade 12
International school in
Asia
P9

Male, HS Principal
International school
Singapore
4 years Grade 9 -12
International school in
Asia
P10 Male, ES Principal
International school
Singapore
28 years Pre-School - grade 5
International school in
Asia

Table 4.2 Overview of Experts Interviewed
Identification Participant description
E1 Female, former elementary and high school principal and head of school,
founder and director of teacher leadership consultancy
E2

Female, former high school principal, lead consultant with education design
company for personalized learning

Findings Related to Research Question 1
The first research question asked, How are prospective teacher leaders identified and
recruited? The purpose of this question was to understand the systems and procedures principals
use when identifying teacher leaders. The principals and experts did not agree on a system for

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

62

identifying teacher leaders, but rather indicated the need to identify specific dispositions and
skills teacher leaders need to demonstrate to be chosen as a leader. Principals described varied
approaches to identifying teacher leaders, including gathering applications and holding
interviews, to asking teachers directly to take on a leadership role. There is very little in the
literature to inform specific systems for identifying teacher leaders. Schrum and Levin (2013)
suggest a systems thinking approach, but also noted that principals approach the specifics of
identifying leaders and creating leadership teams from multiple perspectives. Notably, Fairman
and McKenzie (2014) suggest that veteran teachers often initiate teacher leadership
responsibilities, rather than school administrators. These additional responsibilities are based on
the teacher’s desire to improve their own practice, as well as that of their colleagues for the
benefit of student learning (Fairman & McKenzie, 2014). Despite inconsistencies with
identifying and recruiting teacher leaders, there was agreement from principals, experts and
survey participants that dispositions and skills were more important than specific curriculum or
content knowledge when identifying teacher leaders. Throughout all of the interviews, principals
made very little connection between teacher leadership and improving student learning.
The comments made by principals and experts regarding knowledge, skills and
dispositions does not align with the research. Reeves (2008) and others note that teacher
leadership shows exceptional promise for student achievement and school improvement
(Ackerman & Mackenzie 2006; Angelle, 2007; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2009; Levin & Schrum,
2017). Increased student achievement and school improvement was found in schools where
teacher leaders had specific content knowledge and demonstrated a range of skills (Ackerman &
Mackenzie 2006; Angelle, 2007; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2009). Levin and Schrum (2017)
identified specific knowledge teacher leaders must have to be successful in leading change

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

63

within their teams. This includes: knowledge of curriculum content, power standards, assessment
design, analysis of learning data, school environment, research-based teaching practices, new
and current education trends, school community and individual team members. Ackerman and
Mackenzie (2006), Angelle (2007), and Fairman and Mackenzie (2014) assert that successful
teacher leaders demonstrate the following skills: advocacy, communication, coaching,
collaboration, time management, organization, meeting facilitation, motivation of others and data
analysis. By interviewing principals from United States based schools, Schrum and Levin (2015)
have identified specific dispositions teacher leaders rely on to lead change. These include:
confidence, strength and willingness to make difficult decisions. Therefore, effective teacher
leaders need to demonstrate a combination of the abovementioned knowledge, skills and
dispositions to improve student learning. Literature also indicates that over time, teacher
leadership has shifted from managerial roles to leading professional learning, instructional
improvement and collaboration on school based teams (Angelle, 2006; Frost, 2008; Harris, 2003;
Levin & Schrum, 2017; Mujis & Harris, 2003; Silva, Gimbert, & Nolan, 2000). During the
interviews, principals were asked to identify specific knowledge and skills teacher leaders
needed to lead teams effectively. Responses were then analyzed and coded to highlight the
knowledge and skills identified in the literature.
Despite this information in the literature, principals and experts in this study did not
connect the work of teacher leaders with increased student achievement and school
improvement. There is very little alignment between the knowledge and skills identified by
Ackerman and Mackenzie (2006), Angelle (2007), Fairman and Mackenzie (2015) or Levin and
Schrum (2017) and the data collected from principals and experts. When asked specifically about
the knowledge and skills they look for in teacher leaders, principals and experts described

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

64

dispositions instead. Specifically, principals and experts consistently cited that dispositions for
teacher leaders included building relationships with team members to lead change.
Systems and Process
Each principal interviewed noted different approaches to identifying and recruiting
teacher leaders. Principals number three, four, seven, and nine indicated that they did not follow
a formal process when identifying teacher leaders; some teachers were asked to take on the role,
some teachers were asked to change grade levels in order to become a leader on a different team
and some teacher leaders approached the principals to express interest when a formal teacher
leadership opening occurred. Principal number three was the least systematic of those
interviewed when identifying teacher leaders. He indicated that he uses “intuition [for] people
that come to you with ideas all the time even though they’re not a leader” and provides
opportunities for these individuals to share with the faculty. Principal number four stated that she
asks individuals if they are interested in leadership at the end of the school year to place teachers
in specific leadership roles for the following year. Principal number seven noted that the school
has a responsibility to develop teacher leaders and, therefore, should provide ongoing training to
“build leadership capacity”; however, this principal did not describe a systematic approach for
assigning teachers into available roles. Principals number nine and ten indicated that identifying
teacher leaders is a constant focus. Principals number seven and nine noted that the teacher
leaders are identified through conversations with department leaders and the leadership team, as
well as observations during team meetings, but neither could describe a process or system to
choose these leaders.
Principals number one, two, five, eight and ten described a system in which individuals
applied and interviewed for teacher leadership roles. Principal number one included the greatest

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

65

level of detail when describing the process she used as a middle school principal. For each
opening, a position description was shared with faculty members. Those who were interested
were interviewed by an interview committee, which consisted of principals and other teacher
leaders. This committee identified the successful candidate for the position. Principals number
two and ten also described a system of applying and interviewing for teacher leadership
positions; however, neither referred to a position or job description for these roles, as mentioned
by principal number one. Principal number ten indicated that he had asked for volunteers and
found it difficult to implement changes with this group of volunteer teacher leaders, so he
established a systematic process. Principal number eight described a system in which teachers
applied for openings and were elected to the position by their peers; while this approach is
different than those described previously, it is systematic and transparent.
The experts were also inconsistent in their recommendations to identify teacher leaders.
Experts number one and two indicated that a process would be valuable, but could not provide
details as to what that process should be for schools. Each expert noted that building
relationships with teacher leaders was valuable in leading change, but did not indicate a
systematic approach to identifying teachers for leadership roles.
Survey respondents also noted inconsistencies in attaining leadership roles. As noted by
the principals previously, some teachers were asked to take on leadership roles by administrators,
some were asked by team leaders who were leaving the role and some were required to apply
and interview. Seventy-seven of ninety-six survey participants responded when asked how
individuals were chosen for their current leadership role. Forty-one survey participants stated
that they applied and interviewed with at least one administrator, and twenty-one replied they
were asked by an administrator or the teacher leader vacating the role. Thirteen teacher leaders

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

66

noted that they volunteered when the position became available and were given the role. Two
respondents noted that there was no process, and this could mean that they were asked by their
administrator, a teacher leader or they volunteered. However, it is not clear.
Inconsistencies were noted by both principals and survey respondents when choosing
teacher leaders. Interestingly, the teacher leadership expert was not able to describe a systematic
process for identifying teacher leaders, citing that she identified who others were listening to in
faculty meetings and then approached these individuals as openings became available. These
findings are supported by Schrum and Levin (2013), who indicate that a systems thinking
approach is needed to identify and recruit teacher leaders, but note that principals are
inconsistent in their approach to identifying leaders and building leadership teams.
Dispositions Ahead of Knowledge and Skills
Principals agreed that the dispositions of teacher leaders more important than specific
knowledge and skills and that specific dispositions are necessary for teacher leaders to facilitate
change. Levin and Schrum (2017) define dispositions as “the mindset and conduct expected of a
teacher leader” (p. 35). Levin and Schrum (2017) also highlight sixteen dispositions to describe
successful teacher leaders. These dispositions are listed in Table 4.3 and “serve as a catalyst for
developing awareness about what it takes to be a teacher leader” (Levin & Schrum, 2017, p. 36).
Table 4.3. Dispositions for Teacher Leaders (Levin & Schrum, 2017, p.36)
Dispositions for teacher leadership
active
approachable
caring
cheerful

consistent
determined
driven
ethical

flexible
patient
persistent
positive
open
self-efficacious
supportive
tactful

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

67

The principals and experts interviewed noted dispositions that they consider when
identifying teacher leaders; however, the dispositions they identified did not align with those
from the literature. Dispositions identified by three interview participants included curiosity,
learning focused and forward thinking. Principal number eight favored dispositions over skills
and knowledge, citing that “skills and knowledge can be taught and often need to be developed
as teams change”. This principal also stated that effective teacher leaders can take feedback and
be coached: “they are someone who wants to learn and push their practice.” Principal number
eight commented that she wanted,
“someone who is curious versus someone who is not. Someone who is interested in the
work you’re doing, versus someone who is just going to be obstinate.”
Rather than looking for an individual with the skills described by Levin and Schrum (2017),
principal number eight looked for leaders who had the dispositions noted above, and then the
principal collaborated with the individual to grow them into a leader who would help move the
school forward. Principal number four stated that she identifies teacher leaders as those who are
“progressive and keep abreast of best practice.” This principal went on to comment that teacher
leaders are those who ask questions and are willing to learn by taking risks and making mistakes.
Principals number three and nine identified and recruited teacher leaders who are passionate
about change and were interested finding solutions to obstacles that developed through change
initiatives. Principal number nine notes that in identifying teacher leaders he is looking for those
who area interested or “keen to do the work.” He also looked at ,teachers who had expressed
interest in implementing new programs and instructional practices and then recruited them to
lead innovative practices on teams. The dispositions listed by these principals can be described
as coachable, inquisitive, interested, questioning, risk taking and solution focused. None of these

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

68

are identified by Levin and Schrum (2017) as dispositions required for teacher leadership. This
indicates that principals do not have agreement about the dispositions necessary for teacher
leaders to lead change and, ultimately, improve student learning. More importantly, the
dispositions principals do identify as important do not align with current research; therefore, the
principals interviewed do not follow clear criteria to identify effective teacher leaders.
Of the ten principals interviewed for the study, only two identified dispositions aligning
with those listed in Table 4.3. Principals number two and five asserted that respect, integrity and
trust are valued, as these dispositions help leaders to get people on board and inspire them. These
dispositions can be described as ethical using Levin and Schrum’s (2017) list . Finally, not one
principal interviewed for this study connected the dispositions, skills and knowledge of teacher
leaders with improved teaching and learning.
The experts interviewed also identified dispositions for successful teacher leaders without
indicating key knowledge or skills. Again, the dispositions identified by experts did not align
with those noted by Levin and Schrum (2017). Experts interviewed expressed agreement that
teacher leaders should be identified by dispositions. Expert number one noted that teacher
leaders should be curious and demonstrate interest in the problems and issues facing the school.
This expert asserted that the teacher leader fosters reflection on the team and develops
collaborative practices. Expert two notes that trust and a deep understanding of the team’s
culture is necessary for teacher leaders to be effective. School leaders and experts in each
interview shared the common belief that a willingness to learn and grow were intrinsic qualities
for every teacher leader. These inherent qualities of mind and character are the entry point for
many teacher leaders to develop the specific skills and knowledge necessary to lead effective
teams.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

69

Survey respondents also indicated that dispositions were valued over specific skills or
knowledge. In total, 134 teacher leaders were surveyed and ninety-six respondents completed the
survey. Survey respondents were asked, “What skills do you find helpful to lead your team?
Choose all that apply.” Respondents could choose any of the following: change management,
curricular planning, goal setting, long range planning, meeting facilitation, motivating others,
organization, time management, tolerance for ambiguity or other. This list of skills combined
those identified by Ackerman and Mackenzie (2006), Angelle, (2007) and Fairman and
Mackenzie (2014). Goal setting and tolerance for ambiguity was added because this survey was
exclusively focused on teacher leaders at AIS. These two skills are directly connected to two
requirements for teacher leaders at AIS. One requirement is that all teams establish specific,
measurable, attainable, relevant and timely goals (SMART goals) each year. The second
requirement is connected to the shift towards personalized learning; the implementation of
personalized learning will include some ambiguity and teacher leaders will need to be able to
tolerate this as the elements of personalized learning evolve through the school. Finally, an
“other” option was available to determine which skills teacher leaders self-identified as
important in their role. Results are indicated in Table 4.4.
The survey did not include specific questions on dispositions, as the focus was on
identifying skills and, to a lesser degree, knowledge. Although there was not a direct question
related to dispositions, the comments given by participants suggest a focus on the “mindset and
conduct of a teacher leader” (Levin & Schrum, 2017, p. 35).
Table 4.4. Skills for Teacher Leaders
Skill Number of respondents
Change management 52
Curricular planning 45

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

70

Goal Setting 59
Long range planning 53
Meeting facilitation 68
Motivating others 55
Organization 65
Time management 53
Tolerance for ambiguity 51
Other 15

Survey participants were also provided with an option to add skills that they use as a
teacher leader but were not identified in the previous question. Fifty-four respondents added
comments to the question, “What other skills do you rely on to lead your team?” Similar to
interviews with principals and experts, the comments added by participants valued dispositions
over specific skills and knowledge. Of the fifty-four who shared comments, only one participant
identified knowledge of relevant teaching and learning practices, including a “firm foundation in
competency based learning and modern learning practices” as a requirement for teacher
leadership. Six survey respondents out of 54 voluntarily commented that flexibility or
adaptability were dispositions that they rely on as teacher leaders. An additional six survey
participants commented that trust was a key disposition, with one responding,
“If those I lead don’t feel they can trust me and that I care about them and that I am ready
to listen and adapt based on their needs, then we will not be able to progress as
effectively with whatever we are working on.”
Another teacher leader noted that their aim was to make the team “a place where everyone
belongs and has a voice.” Other survey participants identified humor, empathy and patience as
important dispositions. Five of fifty-four commenters identified humor as a disposition that they
rely on while leading their team, while four noted empathy and an additional four noted patience
as key dispositions. While these dispositions were noted by multiple participants, relationship

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

71

building was most commonly identified as a disposition necessary to teacher leadership.
Relationship Building
Multiple principals, both experts and many survey participants placed a high value on
relationship building, often citing this first when asked to identify teacher leader skills. Principals
number two, five, six, seven, eight and nine identified relationship building as the first skill a
teacher leader needs to lead change. Principal number two shared that a teacher leader who “can
manage emotional relationships and build a team based on respect…. that is focused on moving
forward” had the most success implementing change. Principal number 5 notes that “people
skills, communication, trust and someone who can get people on board and inspire them”
supports ongoing change on teams. Principals number six, seven and nine also note that
relationship building comes first when implementing change, and a team leader who is respected
and respects the views of all team members and establishes a collaborative approach for teaching
and learning has the greatest impact. Principal number eight stated that teacher leaders who were
most successful implementing change had “positive, respectful relationships with the admin team
and peers.” Principals number six, seven and eight noted that additional skills and specific
instructional or curricular knowledge can be developed through targeted professional
development with the individual teacher leader.
Relationship building was also noted as a primary skill among the experts interviewed.
Expert number one noted that teacher leaders need to be “genuine in their interactions” and want
to connect with the people on the team. This relationship, the expert asserts, allows team leaders
to have conversations about change and “build commitment and capacity” for improvement.
Expert number two noted that building relationships is one of the most important skills of the
teacher leaders. The principals and experts agree that building relationships that are proactive,

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

72

respectful and collaborative are necessary in leading change.
More survey participants identified relationship building as a valued disposition for team
leadership than any other area. Twenty-two of fifty-four participants who voluntarily commented
noted that relationship building was a valued skill. One survey participant commented, “I feel
that if team members are cared for, they feel led.” Another connected trust and relationship
building, noting, “In order to lead teams, trust is essential. Relationship building is what I rely on
a great deal with my teams.” Another survey participant commented:
“Building strong relationships and trust are essential to my work as a teacher leader. I
spend a great amount of time building these relationships and I believe that is why I am
able to lead and support my teams effectively.”
Other participants noted people skills, personal connections, interpersonal skills and building
personal relationships with each member of the team as relational dispositions for team
leadership.
Principals and survey participants agreed that specific dispositions and the ability to build
relationships with peers are important considerations in identifying and recruiting teacher
leaders. Principals agreed that specific content knowledge could develop once the teacher took
on the leadership role, and that specific dispositions were needed to lead change within teams.
However, they did not indicate how this developed or how they supported teacher leaders to
develop this knowledge. Principals interviewed noted that dispositions such as curiosity, flexible
thinking and trustworthiness superseded the content knowledge. Principals asserted that it is the
interest and drive of the teacher leader to learn and try new things that needs to be developed
ahead of knowledge of specific content or procedures. The experts interviewed identified
curiosity and trust as dispositions for teacher leaders. Principals, experts and survey participants

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

73

all identified relationship building as a key skill to leading a team and facilitating collaborative
practices; with all participants agreeing that developing positive relationships was more
important than specific academic or procedural knowledge.
Summary of Findings on Identifying Teacher Leaders
Data on the systems for identifying and recruiting teacher leaders was collected through
interviews and surveys and analyzed. Three themes emerged from the data collected from
principals, experts and survey participants: (a) principals, experts, and survey participants do not
have agreement on systems or procedures for identifying teacher leaders; (b) principals and
teacher leaders prioritize dispositions over skills and knowledge when identifying teacher
leaders; and (c) relationship building emerged as a skill that many interview and survey
participants associated with successful teacher leaders. The next section will focus on
professional learning to sustain teacher leaders.
Findings Related to Research Question 2
Research question two asked, How does the system sustain teacher leaders? The purpose
of the question was to identify the leadership systems that support teacher leadership to improve
student learning. Levin and Schrum (2017) note that it is the combination of three leadership
styles, transformational leadership, instructional leadership and distributed leadership, that
enables the system to support teacher leaders. These three systems connect to provide a
collaborative organization where leadership empowers teachers and provides agency for all
faculty (Harris, 2003).
Transformational Leadership
A transformational leader seeks to redefine the organization’s purpose and inspire the
faculty to commit to the moral purpose of education and engage in meaningful school

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

74

improvement (Burns, 1978; Marzano et al., 2005; Printy et Al., 2009; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe,
2008). Principals were asked to respond to the following: “Transformational leadership is
described as a focus on redefining an organizations purpose and inspiring faculty to engage and
commit to the moral purpose of education. Think of a time when you led your faculty through a
change and how were you able to get the faculty to commit to that change?” Each principal was
able to describe a change they led; however, nine out of ten principals did not connect the
organization’s purpose with the change they led, nor did they comment on engaging faculty to
commit to the moral purpose. Only one principal described the creation of a vision statement for
the division as a means of building teacher commitment and buy-in. While all principals noted
that teacher leaders needed to be committed to the school’s vision, they each noted that the
vision and mission, or the school’s purpose, were already established and that teachers currently
serving in leadership roles were not part of the process to establish this school-wide purpose.
Principal number five, the one principal who created a vision statement for the division
she leads, stated that the school’s mission and vision were established when the school was
created and had not changed, thereby making it difficult for some teacher leaders to connect to
school’s purpose. To inspire the faculty and build commitment with teacher leaders, this
principal collaborated with teacher leaders to develop a vision statement. The principal stated
that in developing this collaborative vision statement, the team “felt that they owned it; they had
some buy-in as well.” She also noted that she works collaboratively with the teacher leadership
team to form the plan for school improvement and implement it across the school. Principal
number five noted that teacher leaders “are the ones down on the ground helping to implement
change. They are catalysts for change.” Other principals noted the contribution teacher leaders
make during transformational change, with principal number seven stating that teacher leaders

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

75

“play a significant role”, as they are the ones who build understanding for new instructional
strategies and practices within their teams. However, this principal was not able to describe a
transformational change he led that purposefully engaged and inspired teacher leaders to commit
to the change. The lack of collaboration in developing a shared vision indicates that principals
interviewed for this study are not redesigning the school’s purpose or inspiring faculty to engage
in school transformation.
Survey respondents also noted a lack of input to the school’s mission and vision. While
many noted that they were not involved in developing these, they did indicate support for the
school’s direction. Hallinger (2003) and colleagues assert that the transformational leader
develops a shared mission for the school, including specific measurable targets for student
learning; this shared mission provides inspirational motivation to engage all stakeholders in
school improvement (Hallinger, 2003; Printy et al., 2009; Shatzer et al., 2014). When survey
participants were asked if they had input to the school’s mission or vision, 2% strongly agreed
with the statement and 25% agreed with the statement. However, 37% disagreed or strongly
disagreed, with 29% disagreeing with the statement and 8% strongly disagreeing. Additionally,
34% had a neutral response, indicating they did not agree or disagree. These results are indicated
in Figure 1. Some survey participants noted, similar to principals, that the mission and vision
were established previously and that teacher leaders are not included in this. One survey
participant remarked, “the mission and vision are set, as a teacher leader, I don’t have any impact
on that.” Another commented, “ I feel I don’t have input into the school’s vision and mission
because those have been established for years. The mission has been in place since the school’s
founding and the vision may evolve in the future, but for now, the community believes in it as
is.” Another respondent noted,

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

76

“our school is constantly reinventing itself, continually on the search for best practice or
whatever makes us world leaders so most of the mission/vision is decided on by the
higher ups and communicated down to us.”
Teacher leaders demonstrated interest and agreement with the school’s mission and vision, and
considered their focus to be on clarifying the mission and vision instead of leading school
transformation. This was summarized by a respondent who stated,
“As a teacher leader I agree with the schools’ vision and mission and work and lead to
carry out this vision or spearhead it in ways that my position allows, but I do not believe I
have a part in really changing or transforming the direction of the school. I do believe we
serve to make the vision clearer and transparent in the daily lives of our students and
faculty.”
However, as indicated by the survey data, some survey respondents did note some input with the
school’s mission and vision. One respondent commented, “I work collaboratively with other
teachers, coaches and people from [central administration] to transform the direction of the
school.” Interestingly, this respondent also noted that they did not work with the principal or
assistant principal in this way. Shatzer and associates (2014) describe the transformational leader
as one who collaborates with teachers, parents and students to build capacity to benefit the entire
organization. Developing people, and specifically leaders, is a cornerstone of transformational
leadership, according to Hallinger (2003). Building this capacity in leaders happens by
promoting changes in behavior, adopting new programs and implementing new instructional
strategies; these changes account for improvements in school and classroom conditions, but may
not impact student achievement (Hallinger, 2003). The responses from survey participants
demonstrate a disconnect between the literature and the principals’ view of transformational

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

77

leadership.

Figure 4.1. Input on School’s Vision and Mission.
Instructional Leadership
Similar to a transformational leader, an instructional leader must also motivate
stakeholders and build a positive school culture; however, the instructional leader is focused on
ongoing professional development and implementing proven instructional practices instead of
redefining the school’s purpose and motivating faculty to commit to the moral imperative of
education (Hallinger, 2003). The instructional leadership model includes teacher collaboration,
ongoing targeted professional growth, and implementation of professional learning communities
in school (Marks & Printy, 2003; Shatzer et al., 2014). Therefore, collaborative instructional
leadership with principals and teacher leaders is necessary to improve instruction and student
achievement. Levin and Schrum (2011) assert that instructional leadership reflects the
collaborative nature of teaching and learning; principals and teacher leaders collaborate to
identify specific student achievement goals and then plan teacher learning to meet these goals
learning goals (Levin & Scrhum 2011; Shatzer et al., 2014). Principals and survey respondents

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

78

indicated that instructional leadership was often the responsibility of curriculum and teacher
leaders, and that principals had very little to do with the curricular direction of the school.
Principal number two noted instructional leadership as “my weakest area…because I have two
curriculum coordinators who are extremely adept [at] what they do.” Principal number five noted
that her role is focused on the pastoral care of students and in this organization, the assistant
principals are responsible for curriculum and instruction. In this school, principal number five
commented that assistant principals work collaboratively with teacher leaders to research new
instructional strategies, align and articulate curriculum and implement new curriculum
throughout the school. This work is largely led by teacher leaders because,
“they have their finger more on the pulse with the newly written curriculum; they’ve worked
together with the people who wrote the curriculum and they work with the assistant principal to
unpack it more. And then they share it with their team, so they have a pretty big role.”
Principals number three, five, six, seven, eight and nine agreed that teacher leaders are drivers
for curriculum alignment and instructional practices. Each principal provided examples of
teacher leaders facilitating adult learning to introduce new curriculum, assessments and
instructional strategies. In each of these examples, principals worked collaboratively by ensuring
that common agreements for curriculum and instruction are developed across the school, as well
as providing release time for teacher leaders. Principal number three shared that teacher leaders
share curricular needs with the principal and work collaboratively to ensure alignment with
curriculum and instructional strategies. Principal number five noted that teacher leaders are
involved from the beginning of a curricular review and are deeply involved in writing
curriculum, as well as implementation. As an example, principal numbre five explained that at
weekly collaborative meetings, “teacher leaders discuss instructional strategies and talk about

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

79

what has and hasn’t been successful.” Principal number six described another example of
collaborative instructional leadership whereby the principals and teacher leaders identified an
instructional goal for the school and then teacher leaders provided professional development to
the faculty throughout the year in support of the goal (principal number six interview). Principal
number seven cited similar practice in which teacher leaders build understanding of new
curricular frameworks and provide opportunities for team members to explore it and learn from it
to build capacity, and ultimately commit to new instructional practices. Principal number seven
also noted that the principal cannot be solely responsible for the instructional leadership and
change because one person cannot sustain deep implementation of new practices. Instructional
leaders identify that their success as leaders is closely tied to teacher and student success and,
therefore, attention needs to be paid to their own learning, teacher professional growth and
regular monitoring of student progress (Levin & Schrum, 2017).
Survey participants were also asked about their collaborative work with principals.
Survey participants responded to the statement: I work collaboratively with the school
principal/assistant principal to transform the direction of the school using a Likert scale.
Comments from survey participants about collaboration with principals were mixed. One survey
participant noted that, although they do collaborate with divisional principals and assistant
principals, “the ultimate say doesn’t come from the division in the end”, indicating that the
central office leadership makes decisions regarding curriculum and instruction and that teacher
leaders are responsible for implementing the change. Another survey respondent noted that the
teacher leader’s role in leading instructional change is “inconsistent between teachers, coaches,
the curriculum office, principals and assistant principals despite having a job description for the
role and working hard to share ideas, this seems to be a challenge.” One survey respondent noted

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

80

that the collaboration can shift depending on the principal leading the school, commenting, “with
our past administration, I felt like I had direct impact on the planning and implementation of
grade [level] activities and the overall vision of our school. Under the current administration, I
feel as I have very little influence…. Current team leaders have expressed similar opinions,
explaining that administrators do not seek their advice or ideas before implementing changes.”
Another noted, “teacher leaders have not been given the opportunity to be a part of the change
leadership in our school. More responsibilities have been given to the leaders to oversee or
manage their teams but little support has been given from administration.” However, some
teacher leaders indicated ongoing collaboration with principals, with one commenting that there
was a focus on “continual learning and growth, emphasized by my current key leadership
[which] makes for a very collaborative, open, non-hierarchical atmosphere where sharing ideas,
concerns and giving/receiving feedback is the norm.” Another survey respondent agreed,
commenting, “I believe we are highly valued as an integral part of the process of change. We are
well supported and encouraged.” Finally, a survey respondent noted the positive impact of
collaborating with principals as well as their team, citing, “ I have always had the support of the
admin team and our own team. The team works collaboratively and is very professional which
makes the meeting productive and always keeps the emphasis on student learning.”
While principals agreed that teacher leaders were the experts on curriculum knowledge,
discrepancies were noted regarding the effect of the collaboration on student learning. Principals
agreed on the need to collaborate with teacher leaders to facilitate curricular review and improve
instructional strategies; however, teacher leaders did not have agreement with principals about
whether the collaboration impacted student learning.
Distributed Leadership

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

81

While the role of instructional leader is an important one for any principal, it is not their
only responsibility, and as such, a leadership network is needed within an organization. This
broad-based network is typically referred to as distributed leadership; it is this collective
leadership in which schools develop more effective teams with increased teacher engagement
(Harris, 2008; Leithwood & Seashore-Louis, 2011; Spillane, 2005, 2006; Wahlstrom & Louis,
2008). Harris (2008) asserts that principals who distribute leadership effectively communicate
clear expectations and, in turn, define the role of the teacher leader. Through distributed
leadership, teachers are less isolated and they are more likely to develop trusting, collaborative
relationships with team members, aligning curriculum delivery and instructional practices
(Harris & Mujis, 2004; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Responses from four principals indicated
there is evidence of distributed leadership contributing to trusting collaborative relationships to
improve teaching and learning. Principal number two noted that the network of teacher leaders
are a collective decision making group for matters of curriculum and instruction. Teacher leader
teams plan collaboratively throughout the year to develop assessments, learning targets and
instructional strategies (principal number 3). This team plans and leads the strategic planning to
increase teaching and learning across the school (principal number 3). Principal number nine also
noted the innovative changes to programs and instructional practices as a result of the
collaborative work of the teacher leadership team. Principal number four noted that teacher
leaders are empowered by the distributed leadership framework because teacher leaders work
collaboratively as a leadership team to “make decisions to move student learning forward.” As a
result, teacher leaders at this school have changed pedagogy and coordinated professional
development to improve instructional practices. While teacher leaders often do not have a
supervisory role, principal number six stated that teacher leaders are best positioned to influence

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

82

practice and influence others. Collaborating with teacher leaders on the reasoning behind the
shift, or the “why” behind a new practice, builds a common message as teacher leaders share the
message with their teams. Teacher leaders also build momentum for change and new practices;
this informs the leadership team to calibrate messaging and ensure all teams understand the next
steps (principal number 6). Principal number seven agreed and noted that a leadership team
comprised of principals, teacher leaders and curriculum leaders are most effective when they
collaborate to form a common vision and common language. In some schools, teacher leaders
used learning evidence to identify school-wide learning goals (principal number 8). This teacher
leadership team, in collaboration with the principals, crafted the school’s improvement plan and
took responsibility for the professional development required to improve pedagogy and meet
student achievement targets (principal number 8). These collaborative relationships between
principals and teacher leaders suggest that distributed leadership framework develops stronger
teams, increases teacher engagement and improves instructional practice and, in turn, student
learning.
Survey participants were also asked about their collaborative work with principals.
Overall, more teacher leaders responded positively when asked about collaborating with
principals; however, more than one quarter of survey respondents gave a neutral response. This
shows that more purposeful time and planning are needed to support collaboration between
teacher leaders and principals. Given the statement, I work collaboratively with the school
principal/assistant principal to transform the direction of the school, 12.9% of respondents
strong agreed and 35. 3% agreed. However, 21.2% of respondents disagreed with the statement
and 4.7% strongly disagreed. The remaining 26% responded neutrally by choosing neither agree
or disagree. The number of teacher leaders agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

83

totaled 48.2%, while the number of those disagreeing or strongly disagreeing totaled 25.9%. This
initially demonstrates that more teacher leaders work collaboratively with principals than do not;
however, 26%, an almost equal amount to those who disagreed or strongly disagreed, answered
neutrally.
Those who collaborated with principals and a leadership team noted that this work
provides a cohesive direction for the division. One survey respondent stated, “I appreciate the
effort this year to meet regularly with the admin (principals and assistant principals) to ensure we
are all moving the same direction as a school.” Another survey respondent noted that the
collaborative work builds buy-in across the leadership team, which is important because “the
implementation of the [change] falls on teachers and teacher leaders so it’s important to have buy
in.” While collaboration with principals provides a cohesive direction and builds buy-in across
the leadership team, it also informs teacher leaders of the work of the many departments within
the school. One survey respondent noted: “I have enjoyed being a teacher leaders because I feel
like I have a greater impact on the school and have a better understanding of everything that
happens in in each grade level and department. I appreciate the opportunity to provide input into
divisional decisions and feel like my voice is heard by the administration.”
Not all survey participants were part of a collaborative leadership team. Some
respondents commented that “teacher leaders have not been given the opportunity to be part of
the change leadership in our school. More responsibilities have been given to the leaders to
oversee or manage their teams but little support has been given from administration.” Another
noted, “I feel that my assistant principal does not have time to work collaboratively with us. I do
work collaboratively with our team’s educational coach who takes on some of that role.” Some
survey participants indicated they were working collaboratively with their team, but this

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

84

collaborative work did not extend to include the principal, as noted by this comment: “I have
strong influence on my grade level team but am unsure how my input influences other parts of
the school.”
Survey participants were also asked if they were part of a divisional leadership team. This
leadership team creates a network of teacher leaders and principals and is indicative of effective
distributive leadership in a school. Only 37.6% of teacher leaders indicated that they were part of
a leadership team, while 62.4% indicated they were not part of this team. Teacher leaders who
were part of the leadership team identified the following members: principal, assistant principal,
team leaders/department chairs, school psychologist, curriculum office leaders and others. Others
included instructional coaches, technology coordinators and special education leaders. The
teacher leaders who indicated effective collaboration commented that they felt they had a voice
for decisions related to the department they led, and others indicated that they were vocal about
ideas and opinions with support from evidence and research. These survey participants felt that
they were part of the leadership team in the school and could share thoughts with the principal or
assistant principal regarding the direction of the school.
With fewer than 40% of teacher leaders serving on leadership teams, there is the
possibility that school leadership will have difficulty developing buy-in for new ideas and
maintaining a cohesive direction. One survey participant noted that the implementation of
change becomes the responsibility of the teacher leaders and, therefore, buy-in is important.
Another participant identified a decrease in collaboration with the principal, and that it had
reduced input within the leadership team, citing that teacher leaders were being asked for input
on small details but not on “long-term, far reaching decisions” that impacted the direction of the
school. Data collected from principals and survey participants indicated a gap in perception

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

85

between principals and teacher leaders. While principals repeatedly reported the importance of
collaborating with teacher leaders, less than half of the teacher leaders indicated purposeful
collaboration with principals as part of a leadership team. This gap indicates that greater
communication, alignment and partnership is needed to develop a consistent focus on improving
teaching and learning.
Summary of Findings on Sustaining Teacher Leaders
Data was collected through interviews of principals and experts and using online surveys
of teacher leaders regarding the systems to sustain teacher leadership. The systems included
transformational leadership, instructional leadership and distributed leadership. Two themes
emerged from the data collection and analysis: (a) principals do not connect transformational
changes to the organization’s purpose or the role of faculty in committing to the change, and (b)
survey participants connect instructional and distributed leadership when leading change, but
report that they do not have input on the vision of the school.
Findings Related to Research Question 3
Research question three asked, What are the organizational cultural imperatives for
teacher leaders? The purpose of this question was to gather perception data from teacher leaders
on their role in leading change with their teams and achieving the strategic goals of the school.
Levin and Schrum (2017) state that leadership is more than what one person knows or can do,
but rather what individuals bring to the issue and how the team of leaders, including teacher
leaders, builds on strengths so that problems can be solved collaboratively. Lieberman (2011)
identifies teacher leaders as having a unique role in facilitating change; they know what is
necessary in schools and classrooms to improve learning and transform schools. Teacher leaders
are also key stakeholders when investigating problems of practice or implementing initiatives to

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

86

increase student achievement (Levin & Schrum, 2017). It may seem obvious, but for real change
to occur, those at the front line, like teacher leaders who are responsible for student learning,
need to be involved in identifying and implementing the change (Levin & Schrum, 2017;
Lieberman, 2011).
Comments from principals indicated that teacher leaders are highly respected individuals
on teams and become drivers when implementing instructional change. Lieberman (2011) notes
that teacher leaders who understand and support instructional change, pilot new strategies in the
classroom and support their peers as they trial new practices are highly respected and trusted by
their colleagues. Lieberman (2011) also notes that those teacher leaders who hold high
expectations for their students and lead adult learning focused on improving student achievement
are change agents who can reshape schools. One principal compared teacher leaders to
cheerleaders for initiatives and decisions (principal number 2). This principal noted that teacher
leaders have the opportunity, through leadership meetings, to question and process decisions and
changes, which, in turn, informs changes or adjustments in decisions such as curriculum
implementation. The same principal also noted that through this collaboration within the
leadership team, the teacher leaders become advocates for change and support teachers as they
apply new practices. Other principals noted that teacher leaders have valuable insights for
implementing initiatives that can be missed by administrators (principals number six and seven).
Many principals noted that the teacher leaders provide valuable on-the-ground feedback
on the progress related to initiatives. Lieberman (2011) agrees and notes that teacher leaders
sustain commitment to an initiative through collaboration and influence during times of change.
When teacher leaders work collaboratively in teams, they are able to identify teachers who are
successfully using new instructional strategies and those who are having difficulty (Levin &

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

87

Schrum, 2017). Principals number four, five, six and seven cited examples of teacher leaders
facilitating professional development to build capacity for new initiatives and provide ongoing
support for individuals who struggled to implement new practices. Teacher leaders often spend
time in their colleagues’ classrooms demonstrating new instructional strategies and co-teaching
to provide targeted feedback to their peers (principal number 5). Teacher leaders also work
collaboratively to review instructional strategies and initiatives to determine what is working and
what is not working (principal number 4). This feedback is shared by teacher leaders with
principals so that additional professional development can be created (principals number 4 and
5). Principal number nine noted that teacher leaders who are on board with the direction of the
strategic plan and ensure the work of the team aligns with this plan are most successful in
implementing change. Ensuring fidelity to the mission and vision of the school is an important
role of formal and informal teacher leaders, according to principal number 8. This fidelity
provides the focus for the team and the response to questions or concerns raised by individuals
on the team (principal number 8). The most successful teacher leaders are viewed as highly
professional individuals who demonstrate integrity and dignity; they are trusted by their
colleagues who value their actions and words so that when these teacher leaders support a new
initiative, others get on board (principals numbers 6 and 7). The trusting relationships teacher
leaders build with their team members provide the environment for teachers to take risks with
new practice and provide feedback to administrators on the strengths and needs of the team.
Some survey participants also noted the important role they have in building support for
change, implementing new initiatives, and aligning the work to the strategic direction of the
school. One participant commented, “I believe we are highly valued as an integral part of the
process of change. We are well supported and encouraged to follow our passions in the leading

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

88

the team through learning.” Another survey participant commented, “the implementation of the
transformation falls on teachers and teacher leaders so it is important to have buy in.” Another
survey participant noted,
“I have enjoyed being a teacher leader because I feel like I have a greater impact on the
school and have a better understanding of everything that happens in each grade and
department. I appreciate the opportunity to provide input into the divisional decisions and
feel like my voice is heard by the administration.”

Survey participants also noted their role in ensuring fidelity to the mission and vision, with one
participant commenting, “I do believe we serve to make the vision clearer and transparent in the
daily lives of our students and faculty.” Finally, one survey participant noted,
“Leadership is a humbling experience and will always be so. It provides opportunities to
both guide/support where the most important work exists: that which is in front of
students. Leadership inspires me, and in turn I am to be inspirational.”
In comparison, many of the teacher leaders who completed the online survey shared that they did
not feel that they were part of the changes occurring across the school. Multiple survey
participants noted that teacher leaders have more responsibilities but little support from their
principals or administration (survey comments). Others noted that they were not given the
opportunity to be part of the change leadership in the school, with one stating, “I do not believe I
have a part in really changing or transforming the direction of the school” (survey participant).
Another survey participant noted that the role of teacher leader is often vague and therefore there
are misconceptions from administrators, central office leaders, teachers and teacher leaders about
the role of the teacher leaders in decision making and implementing changes (survey participant).
Other survey participants noted that lack of time impacts their ability to lead rich discussions and

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

89

facilitate professional learning in support of instructional initiatives (survey participant). This
lack of connection to the changes within the school could impact the fidelity with which change
is implemented.
Summary of Findings on the Cultural Imperatives of Teacher Leaders
Data was collected through interviews with principals and experts, and from surveys of
teacher leaders. This data was analyzed for themes related to cultural imperatives of teacher
leaders. Two themes emerged from interviews and surveys: (a) principals view teacher leaders as
important change agents in identifying and implementing new instructional strategies, and (b)
many teacher leaders feel they do not have the opportunity to be part of the decision making
process for identifying or implementing instructional change.
Summary of Findings
Qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews with principals and
experts, as well as open response online surveys of teacher leaders. Analysis of the data revealed
inconsistencies among principals in identifying and recruiting teacher leaders. Discrepancies
were noted between principals, experts and teacher leaders regarding the knowledge, skills and
dispositions necessary for teacher leaders to facilitate instructional change and improve student
learning. The data also indicates connections between organizational approaches to leadership,
such as instructional and distributed leadership, in improving teaching and learning. However,
inconsistencies were noted in inclusion of teacher leaders in transformational leadership. Finally,
the data includes organizational imperatives for teacher leaders in leading change. A total of 7
themes emerged:
1. Principals are not systematic when identifying and recruiting teacher leaders.
2. Principals are not consistent in identifying the knowledge, skills and dispositions teacher

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

90

leaders need to support change initiatives and improve student learning.
3. Principals and teacher leaders identify relationship building is a skill connected to
successful teacher leadership.
4. Principals do not connect transformational changes to the organization’s purpose or the
role of faculty in committing to the change.
5. Survey participants connect instructional and distributed leadership with leading change
but note that they do not have input on the vision of the school.
6. Principals view teacher leaders as important change agents in identifying and
implementing new instructional strategies.
7. Teacher leaders feel they do not have the opportunity to be part of the decision making
process for identifying or implementing instructional change.
The first three themes are connected to how teacher leaders are identified and the knowledge,
skills and dispositions of effective teacher leaders. In the first theme, it is clear that the principals
and experts do not distinguish or utilize a system for identifying and recruiting teacher leaders.
Neither principals, nor experts, described a systematic approach to ascertain potential teacher
leaders and recruit them into formal leadership positions. Instead, principals described a variety
of approaches from observing who other faculty listen to, to noticing who has good ideas and
takes initiative to try new strategies in their classroom. Principals were also inconsistent in
following systems when filling specific teacher leader roles, with some conducting interviews
and others asking individuals to take on more responsibility. The second theme is noticeably
inconsistent with the research presented in Chapter 2. The principals and experts interviewed do
not identify the knowledge, skills or dispositions noted in the research when identifying teacher
leaders. This indicates that these principals and experts do not know what is necessary for

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

91

teacher leaders to facilitate instructional change and improve student learning. The third theme
focuses on relationship building. Principals and experts repeatedly cited relationship building as
the most important skills for teacher leaders; however, the literature indicates a combination of
the following knowledge, skills and dispositions:
• curricular standards
• assessment design
• data analysis
• research based instructional practices
• communication,
• organization
• meeting facilitation
• ability to motivate others.
This third theme indicates that teacher leaders are consistent with the skills and dispositions
required to improve student learning, but not the knowledge required. Teacher leaders identified
dispositions over skills and knowledge, with trustworthiness and relationship building as two key
dispositions for successful leadership. Through the online survey, teacher leaders indicated
meeting facilitation, organization and goal setting as the three most important skills. Only one
survey participant noted the importance of content knowledge as a leader. This disconnect
between identifying the necessary knowledge, skills and the focus on dispositions such as
relationship building indicates that improving student learning is not the focus when identifying
teacher leaders.
Themes four and five are centered on the leadership approaches that support effective
teacher leadership for change. The fourth theme indicates that principals recognize that

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

92

transformational leadership centers on redesigning an organizations purpose to inspire faculty to
engage and commit to a moral purpose, but they were not able to connect a change they led or
how they engaged the faculty to commit to the change. Only one principal collaborated with
teacher leaders to develop a vision statement for their school in support of the organization’s
vision and build commitment with the faculty. The fifth theme shows that survey participants
want to be involved in leading instructional change in the school through a networked or
distributed approach to leadership. Survey participants noted that, while they feel they have
insights to offer on instructional practices, the collaboration between administrators and teacher
leaders can be ineffective and impact the fidelity to which new strategies are implemented.
Greater consistency by principals is needed in utilizing the three leadership systems to sustain
teachers leaders and improve teaching and learning across the system.
Themes six and seven focus on the impact of teachers as change agents in a school. The
sixth theme indicates that principals value teacher leaders as key stakeholders to implement
change at the classroom level. Multiple principals noted that teacher leaders are the ones who
work closely with teachers to ensure new instructional practices are implemented with fidelity.
Teacher leaders are also the individuals that principals reach out to when gathering feedback on
new practices or the implementation of initiatives. Finally, the seventh theme demonstrates the
disconnect that teacher leaders perceive between decision making and implementation.
The data collected and analyzed as part of this qualitative study highlights inconsistencies
between teacher leaders and principals. While there is agreement on the value of relationship
building in leading teams, teacher leaders and principals indicated that greater consistency is
needed in identifying the knowledge and skills required for leading change. Leadership systems
provide a framework for trusting collaboration between principals and teacher leaders to

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

93

successfully implement change within the classroom. This effective leadership team is key to
moving change forward.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

94

CHAPTER FIVE:
SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION
The purpose of this study was to identify the role of the teacher leader in facilitating the
strategic plan, which includes implementing personalized learning at American International
School. There are 134 formal teacher leadership positions at AIS, with a stipend provided for
each position; however, the role of these leaders is not clearly defined across the organization
and there is currently very little connection between the strategic plan and the role of the teacher
leader. The context of the study included teacher leaders at AIS and experienced principals at
international private schools in Singapore, Indonesia, Japan, and Nepal.
The following research questions were explored:
1. How are prospective teacher leaders identified and recruited?
2. How does the system sustain teacher leaders?
3. What are the organizational cultural imperatives for teacher leaders?
Data was collected using semi-structured interviews and online surveys. Interviews were
conducted with twelve experienced principals; two of the principals currently lead professional
learning in teacher leadership and personalized learning. Online surveys were sent to 134 teacher
leaders at American International School, with 85 participants completing the entire survey.
Each interview was recorded, transcribed and coded according to the following categories:
1. Identifying and recruiting teacher leaders
2. Knowledge and skills of teacher leaders
3. Cultural imperatives for teacher leaders
4. Transformational leadership
5. Instructional leadership

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

95

6. Distributed leadership
7. Teacher leadership
8. Personalized learning
This chapter will summarize the findings, implications for practice and recommendations for
future study.
Discussion of Findings
Interviews with principals and online surveys for teacher leaders yielded data on teacher
leadership for change. Qualitative data from semi-structured interviews and the open responses
from survey questions provided insights on processes for identifying and recruiting teacher
leaders, as well as specific knowledge, skills and dispositions teacher leaders need to lead
change. The data also revealed leadership frameworks that support teacher leadership, as well as
the cultural impact teacher leaders have on an organization. Seven themes emerged from the data
analysis:
1. Principals are not systematic when identifying and recruiting teacher leaders.
Although research indicates a variety of approaches when identifying and recruiting
teacher leaders, the principals interviewed did not connect the process of finding teacher
leaders with improving student learning.
2. Principals and teacher leaders are not consistent in identifying the knowledge,
skills and dispositions teacher leaders need to support change initiatives and improve
student learning. Principals and teacher leaders did not identify specific knowledge for
teacher leaders to lead change. However, principals and survey participants asserted
relationship building as the most important skill in teacher leadership. Dispositions such
as curiosity and flexibility were identified by principals and teacher leaders as key in

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

96

leading change.
3. Principals and teacher leaders identified relationship building as a skill connected
to successful teacher leadership. This focus on relationship building was consistent across
all study participants and indicates a gap in understanding the knowledge and skills
teacher leaders require to lead change and improve student learning.
4. Principals do not connect transformational changes to the organization’s purpose
or the role of faculty in committing to the change. When describing transformational
changes principals had led in schools, principals failed to connect the change to the moral
purpose of education. Principals did not align the mission and vision of the school with
the need for change and, therefore, did not inspire the faculty to commit and engage in
the change.
5. Survey participants noted connections to instructional and distributed leadership,
but not transformational leadership. Teacher leaders identified elements of instructional
and distributed leadership frameworks and consistently noted that they were not involved
in the mission and vision of the school.
6. Principals viewed teacher leaders as important change agents in identifying and
implementing new instructional strategies. Focused collaboration between principals and
teacher leaders provided valuable opportunities to gather feedback on proposed initiatives
and progress on the implementation of instructional strategies.
7. Teacher leaders felt that they do not have the opportunity to be part of the
decision making process for identifying or implementing instructional change.
The first theme identified a gap in the literature review in this study. Minimal research was
found that indicates a systematic approach to identifying or recruiting teacher leaders. Through

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

97

interviews with principals, it emerged that principals do not apply a consistent systematic
approach to identifying teacher leaders and, therefore, principals can find it difficult to recruit
teacher leaders within the school. Without a systematic approach for identifying and recruiting
teacher leaders, schools may struggle to build the capacity required to implement
transformational or instructional change (Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood & Seashore-Louis, 2011;
Printy et al., 2009; Shatzer et al., 2014). Building a systematic plan to identify and recruit
teacher leaders is necessary to implement a transformational and instructional change such as
personalized learning.
The second and third themes demonstrate a gap between what current research identifies
as important knowledge, skills and dispositions for teacher leaders, what teacher leaders identify
as important and what principals identify as important when identifying and recruiting teacher
leaders. The research describes a range of knowledge, skills and dispositions teacher leaders
need in order to implement change. However, principals and teacher leaders were inconsistent in
identifying these traits. Principals focused on dispositions such as flexibility and curiosity over
knowledge of curriculum and personalized learning, or specific skills such as facilitating
collaborative meetings or setting specific, measurable goals. Principals and survey participants
focused on relationship building as a key trait of successful teacher leaders; however, very little
was suggested in the literature to support this focus. Teacher leaders did not identify specific
knowledge required to lead teams; however, they did agree with some of the research and
indicated that facilitating collaborative meetings, goal setting and organization are key skills in
leading change on teams. Teacher leaders also noted trust, empathy, patience and humor as
dispositions required to lead change on teams. Levin and Schrum (2017) note that teacher leaders
indicated that knowledge of the following is necessary when leading school based teams: (a)

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

98

curriculum and content, (b) research-based instructional strategies, (c) data and assessment
practices, (d) school environment, (e) community stakeholders, and (f) collaboration – how
people learn and interact. Levin and Schrum (2017) and Angelle (2007) also identify skills that
teacher leaders reported as key when leading change on teams. These include the following: (a)
communication, (b) collaboration, (c) public speaking, and (d) facilitating meetings. A number of
dispositions, or inherent qualities are noted as valued traits for teacher leaders, including: (a)
active, (b) approachable, (c) caring, (d)cheerful, (e) consistent, (f) determined, (g) driven, (h)
ethical, (i) flexible, (j) open, (k) patient, (l) persistent, (m) positive, (n) self-efficacious, (o)
supportive, and (p) tactful (Angelle, 2007; Levin & Schrum, 2017). The inconsistencies between
what the research identifies as important for teacher leaders, what teacher leaders identify as
important and what principals focus on indicates that greater clarity is needed at the school level.
Therefore, principals should be clear about the knowledge, skills and dispositions of teacher
leaders when identifying and recruiting these individuals.
The fourth theme indicates that principals are not engaging the faculty to commit to the
moral purpose of the organization when leading transformational change. Principals did not
indicate faculty or community commitment when describing transformational change in schools.
Additionally, principals were inconsistent in connecting transformational change to the moral
purpose of education or an increase in student learning. Printy, Marks, and Bowers (2009),
indicate that principals who lead transformational change share this responsibility with teacher
leaders, which inspires them to grow as educators. Collaborating with teacher leaders for
transformational change influences curriculum, instruction and assessment, thereby improving
student learning (Printy et al., 2009). This indicates that schools focused on implementing
transformational change need to identify the purpose of the change and work collaboratively

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

99

with teacher leaders build engagement for the change. This collaboration is needed within a
system to sustain teacher leaders through the difficult journey of implementing significant,
transformational change.
The fifth theme is related to the leadership frameworks that principals incorporate across
the organization, and the impact on teacher leadership. Survey participants indicated a
connection between leading change with the instructional and distributed leadership frameworks,
but note that they are often not included in developing the vision. Printy and colleagues (2009)
note that schools grow as organizations and student learning improves when principals and
teacher leaders integrate transformational and instructional leadership approaches. While
principals shared examples of transformational and instructional leadership, teacher leaders
noted connections to instructional and distributed leadership, but not transformational leadership.
This could indicate that teacher leaders do not feel committed to the transformational change or
the mission and vision of the organization. Hallinger (2003) notes that transformational change is
second order change because leaders seek to increase the capacity of others so that they can lead
first order change. However, if teachers leaders do not indicate a connection to the
transformation, they will experience difficulty in leading instructional change with their teams.
Therefore, principals must continue to collaborate and engage teacher leaders in transformational
change to build capacity and impact instructional change.
The sixth theme demonstrates the impact teacher leaders have on a school undergoing
change. It is clear that principals value teacher leaders in the change process and assert their role
in providing feedback on initiatives, and that supporting team members to implement new
practice is key in facilitating change.
Finally, the seventh theme indicates the need for teacher leaders to be connected to the

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

100

decision making and implementation of new initiatives. Teacher leaders do not need to be
responsible for making decisions related to change, but gathering their input on potential changes
will inform potential instructional initiatives and program development. Including teacher
leaders in implementation planning will also allow for careful planning related to pace of the
proposed change and required professional development.
Implications for Practice
Schools that are implementing change to improve student learning must have an agreed
upon mission and vision. In schools, principals and superintendents often drive system-wide
change, but it is the teacher leaders who work at the ground level to implement these changes
with fidelity. These teacher leaders provide the link between idea and application, providing
leadership to improve classroom practice and increase student learning. American International
School must ensure that these roles are clearly defined and prioritize student learning. Ensuring
that these teacher leaders are equipped with the knowledge, skills and dispositions required to
lead change is the responsibility of the organization.
Careful attention must be paid to the role of teacher leader and the associated job
descriptions. Currently, AIS has identified 134 teacher leaders on a faculty of approximately 450,
and included in this number are teachers who are responsible for implementing curricular
change, as well as teachers responsible for leading athletics, activities and short-term events. In
order to support teacher leaders as they implement personalized learning, AIS must differentiate
between leadership roles that focus on student learning and those that are related to student
events. This will include the review and revision of teacher leader job descriptions to identify
those roles as either learning leaders or event coordinators. Learning leadership roles should
include specific responsibilities and targets to improve student learning, while roles that are

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

101

focused on organizing student events should be renamed as coordinator roles with associated
success indicators. Differentiating these roles into learning leader or coordinator positions will
provide greater clarity across AIS and provide the foundation for identifying and recruiting
teacher leaders.
Once the learning leader roles are revised and clarified, leadership development will be
needed to ensure consistent understanding of the four elements of personalized learning.
Purposeful leadership development will provide the necessary training to ensure that teacher
leaders are prepared to lead this innovative change. Time has already been established in the
days prior to the start of the school year for teacher leaders to build these skills and knowledge.
Two days are available for principals and central office leaders to provide professional
development for teacher leaders. In order to prepare for these two days, it is necessary to survey
all teacher leaders within the division to determine current skills and knowledge prior to the end
of the current school year. The survey tool will assess knowledge teacher leaders have in (a)
curriculum and content, including power standards, (b) assessment design and data
interpretation, (c) high impact instructional practices, and (d) school environment. This
information will inform the professional development needs for the two day training, as well as
possible readings to complete in preparation. The survey tool will also gather teacher perception
data related to the skills identified in the literature for effective teacher leaders. Teacher leaders
will be asked to respond using a Likert scale on their skills in (a) listening, (b) communicating,
(c) collaborating, (d) time management, (e) organization, (f) relationship building, (g) problem
solving, (h) meeting facilitation, and (i) data analysis (Levin & Schrum, 2017). This data will
allow principals to prioritize skills for development at the two day training. Since these skills
require ongoing practice, this information will also inform shorter professional development at

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

102

leadership meetings throughout the school year.
In addition to ongoing professional development for teachers, teacher leadership job
descriptions should be revised to include dispositions noted in the literature. Current job
descriptions at AIS are task-focused and should be expanded to incorporate the dispositions such
as (a) flexible, (b) caring and supportive, (c) positive, (d) consistent, (e) approachable, (f) active,
(g) patient, (h) persistent, (i) tactful, (j) self-efficacious, and (k) ethical. Using these dispositions
as part of the job description will inform those interested in leadership of the qualities required
for success. These job descriptions will also inform principals as they identify and recruit
potential leaders.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) note that when implementing system-wide change,
leaders must consider the impact professional learning is having on the overall mission and
vision. Therefore, a systematic plan is needed to evaluate the impact teacher leaders have on
personalized learning in the classroom. This plan will follow Kirkpatrick’s four level model of
(a) reaction, (b) learning, (c) behavior, and (d) results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). These
four levels will be presented in reverse order, as recommended by Kirkpatrick, to keep the focus
on the most important element, the outcome (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Results
The vision of American International School is that every graduate is an exceptional
thinker prepared for their future. Personalized learning supports this vision by giving students
agency to demonstrate mastery of learning standards along a progression of competencies
(Rickabaugh, 2016). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) note that leading indicators are typically
needed to bridge the gap between organizations vision and short term measurements that
demonstrate that “behaviors are on track to create a positive impact on the desired results” (p.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

103

13). Balancing these leading indicators with high-level results will ensure viability over time
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). In the case of personalized learning at AIS, school-wide
leadership will need to determine the leading indicators that will inform progress towards the
school wide vision.
Behavior
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) describe behavior as the “degree to which participants
apply what they learned during training when they are back on the job” (p. 13). These behaviors
are further broken down into critical behaviors, required drivers and on the job learning
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Critical behaviors are the few specific actions that have the
greatest impact on the desired results or overall vision (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). At
American International School, principals across the school must identify and agree on the
critical behaviors that teacher leaders must demonstrate to impact student learning. Identifying
these critical behaviors will bring greater consistency when recruiting teacher leaders and will
shape the professional learning provided to teacher leaders to support the implementation of
personalized learning. Based on data collected from surveys, these critical behaviors should
include facilitating purposeful collaboration in team meetings and setting measurable and
attainable goals. On-the-job learning is the third element in applying new learning to authentic
practice (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This element recognizes the reality that (a) up to
70% of learning that contributes to job performance takes place on the job, and (b) personal
responsibility and motivation are closely aligned to external support and reinforcement efforts
for optimal performance (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). For these reasons, school-wide
leaders and principals must empower teacher leaders to continue to build the necessary
knowledge and skills while also holding them accountable for maintaining the appropriate

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

104

knowledge and skills required to lead teams and improve student learning (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Learning
Learning is described as “the degree to which participants acquire the intended
knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence and commitment” as the result of professional learning in
a specific area (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 15). Through online surveys, teacher leaders
have identified knowledge and skills that they rely on to lead teams. This, along with the
knowledge and skills stated in the literature, will inform principals when identifying and
recruiting teacher leaders, as well as guide ongoing professional learning for teacher leaders in
the organization. Attitudes are the degree to which participants feel that it is worthwhile to
implement what is learned in their role as teacher leader (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Monitoring teacher leader attitudes as part of professional learning will help principals to
identify when teacher leaders likely implement new learning and skills with their teams.
Confidence describes the likelihood in which a participant will be able to implement what is
learning on the job (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Principals may also consider the teacher
leaders’ self-efficacy in implementing new learning with the team. Self-efficacy, as defined by
Bandura (1977), is the belief in one’s own “capabilities to organize and execute a course of
action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). A teacher leader may be confident that they
are able to implement change on a team and still fail. By considering one’s own self-efficacy,
teacher leaders will also consider their abilities to organize and execute a plan, two skills
identified by teacher leaders through online surveys as important skills for leading change on
their teams. The final element of the learning phase of Kirkpatrick’s model is commitment,
which is defined as the “degree to which a learning intends to apply the knowledge and skills

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

105

learned during training on the job” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 16). This commitment
connects the motivation teacher leaders have to consistently apply the knowledge and skills
attained through training to the daily work of teacher leadership.
Reaction
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) define reaction as the level of satisfaction
participants report regarding specific training. When participants find training to be engaging and
relevant, they are more likely to apply the new learning. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) also
note that time and attention must be paid to monitor the on-the-job performance of teacher
leaders, as well as the implementation of the required drivers to determine if teacher leaders are
effective in implementing change with their teams. Therefore, principals should use the
identified required drivers to regularly check in and monitor progress. This monitoring may be
done through monthly meetings with the leadership team, meetings with individual team leaders
and online surveys. What is important to consider is that the required drivers and frequency in
which progress is monitored should be consistent with all principals in the organization.
Throughout this process, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) note that there are no
shortcuts. Professional learning, as well as attitudes, commitment and ongoing monitoring are all
necessary when implementing change across an organization. Therefore, when implementing
personalized learning, principals and system wide leaders will need to (a) carefully plan relevant
professional development for teacher leaders (reaction and learning), (b) monitor behaviors,
required drivers, and on the job performance (behavior), and (c) align leading indicators with
results statements (results).
Future Research
This study focused on the identifying and retaining teacher leaders when implementing

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

106

system-wide changes. Research questions were also focused on the cultural imperatives or
barriers that teacher leaders face when facilitating change. Analysis of interview and survey data
indicated that principals and teacher leaders do not readily connect teacher leadership with
improving student learning. Additionally, the principals interviewed for this study did not
identify specific knowledge or skills required by teacher leaders to improve student learning.
Further research is needed on the connection between the knowledge, skills and dispositions of
teacher leaders and student learning so that principals can identify and recruit quality leaders in
their organization.
Conclusion
Education is changing and schools must continue to innovate. Implementing system-wide
changes such as personalized learning will cultivate exceptional thinkers and prepare them for an
evolving future. With globalization, schools, cultures and societies are being reshaped and our
most successful education systems are investing in teacher leaders (Harris, 2013). Collaborative
leadership is necessary to facilitate change in complex organizations, and personalized learning
opens the door for innovative teaching to meet the needs of all students, thereby improving
learning. This collaboration between principals and teacher leaders is necessary to ensure
system-wide change, and innovation always remains focused on student learning.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

107

References
Ackerman, R., & Mackenzie, S. V. (2006). Uncovering teacher leadership. Educational
Leadership, 63(8), 66-70.
American International School (2014). WASC self-study report. Retrieved from
http://wasc.sas.edu.sg/
American International School (2016). Annual report. Retrieved from
https://issuu.com/sasnf/docs/annual_report_2015-16_fa_2_lr_
Angelle, P. S. (2007). Teachers as leaders: Collaborative leadership for learning communities.
Middle School Journal, 38(3), 54-61.
Ash, R. C., & Persall, J. M. (2000). The principal as chief learning officer: Developing teacher
leaders. NASSP bulletin, 84(616), 15-22.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.
Bennett, N., & Anderson, L. (Eds.). (2003). Rethinking educational leadership: Challenging the
conventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Berry, B., Byrd, A., & Wieder, A. (2013). Teacherpreneurs: Innovative teachers who lead but
don't leave. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. 4th
ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bray, B., & McClaskey, K. (2012). Personalization vs differentiation vs individualization.
Dostopno na: http://education. ky. gov/school/innov/Documents/BB-KM-
Personalizedlearningchart-2012. pdf (pridobljeno 12. 10. 2013).
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

108

Carter, K. (2017). Five dispositions for personalization. Educational Leadership, 74(6), 75-78.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Day, C., Leithwood, K., & Sammons, P. (2008). What we have learned, what we need to know
more about. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 83-96.
doi:10.1080/13632430701800102
De Freitas, S., & Yapp, C. (Eds.). (2005). Personalizing learning in the 21st century. London,
United Kingdom: A & C Black.
Boyd-Dimock, V., & McGree, K. (1995). Leading change from the classroom: Teachers as
leaders. Issues About Change, 4(4).
Education, A. (2010). Making a difference: Meeting diverse learning needs with differentiated
instruction. Edmonton, AB: Author. Retrieved from
https://education.alberta.ca/media/384968/makingadifference_2010.pdf
Fairman, J. C., & Mackenzie, S. V. (2015). How teacher leaders influence others and understand
their leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 18(1), 61-87.
Goodwin, B. (2017). Personalization and failing forward. Educational Leadership, 74(6), 80-81.
Gronn, P. (2003). The new work of educational leaders: Changing leadership practice in an era
of school reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Gronn, P. (2008). The future of distributed leadership. Journal of Educational Administration,
46(2), 141-158.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

109

transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-352.
Halverson, R., Barnicle, A., Hackett, S., Rawat, T., Rutledge, J., Kallio, J., ... & Mertes, J.
(2015). Personalization in practice: Observations from the field (No. 2015-8). WCER
Working Paper.
Halverson, R., Kelley, C., & Shaw, J. (2014). A CALL for improved school leadership. The Phi
Delta Kappan, 95(6), 57-60. doi:10.1177/003172171409500612
Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: Heresy, fantasy or
possibility? School Leadership & Management, 23(3), 313-324.
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed school leadership: Developing tomorrow's leaders. Abingdon,
United Kingdom: Routledge.
Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2004). Improving schools through teacher leadership. United Kingdom:
McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., & Hopkins, D. (2007). Distributed leadership
and organizational change: Reviewing the evidence. Journal of Educational Change, 8(337).
doi:10.1007/s10833-007-9048-4
Harrison, C., & Killion, J. (2007). Ten roles for teacher leaders. Educational leadership, 65(1),
74.
Henson, R. K. (2001). Teacher self-efficacy: Substantive implications and measurement
dilemmas. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York.
Horn, M. B., & Fisher, J. F. (2017). New faces of blended learning. Educational Leadership,
74(6), 59-63.
Kallick, B., & Zmuda, A. (2017). Orchestrating the move to student-driven learning. Educational

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

110

Leadership, 74(6), 53-57.
Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2009). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop
as leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2012). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting
extraordinary things done in organizations (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lai, E., & Cheung, D. (2015). Enacting teacher leadership: The role of teachers in bringing about
change. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(5), 673-692.
Lieberman, A. (2011). Laureates speak: Can teachers really be leaders? Kappa Delta Pi
Record, 47(sup1), 16-18.
Leithwood, K. (2012). The Ontario leadership framework 2012. Retrieved from the Institute for
Education Leadership website: http://iel. immix.
ca/storage/6/1345688978/Final_Research_Report_-_EN. pdf.
Leithwood, K. (2016). Department-head leadership for school improvement. Leadership
and Policy in Schools, 15(2), 117-140. doi:10.1080/15700763.2015.1044538
Leithwood, K., & Azah, V. N. (2016). Characteristics of effective leadership networks. Journal
of Educational Administration, 54(4), 409-433.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2007). Leadership and student
learning outcomes. London, United Kingdom: DCSF.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful
leadership. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 27-42.
doi:10.1080/13632430701800060

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

111

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of different sources of leadership on student
engagement in school. In Riley, K., & Seashore-Louis, K., (eds.), Leadership for change
and school reform: International perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times.
London, United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K. (2011). Linking leadership to student learning. Retrieved
from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Levin, B. B., & Schrum, L. (2017). Every teacher a leader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Magoulas, G. D., & Chen, S. Y. (2006). Advances in web-based education: Personalized
learning environments. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Maxwell, J. A. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2015). Qualitative research: Designing, implementing and publishing a study. In
V. Wang (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Scholarly Publishing and Research Methods (pp.
125-140). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-7409-7.ch007
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership: Improvement through empowerment? An

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

112

overview of the literature. Educational Management & Administration, 31(4), 437-448.
Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2002). Teachers' beliefs and behaviors: What really matters? The
Journal of Classroom Interaction, 50(1), 3-15.
Neumerski, C. M. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about
principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here?
Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310-347. doi:10.1177/0013161X12456700
Printy, S. M., Marks, H. M., & Bowers, A. J. (2009). Integrated leadership: How principals and
teachers share transformational and instructional influence. Journal of School Leadership,
19(5), 504.
Poekert, P. E. (2012) Teacher leadership and professional development: Examining links
between two concepts central to school improvement. Professional Development in
Education, 38(2), 169-188. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2012.657824
Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability for learning: How teachers and school leaders can take
charge. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Reeves, D. (2009). Model teachers. Educational Leadership,66(5), 85-86.
Reeves, D. B. (2008). Reframing teacher leadership to improve your school. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Rickabaugh, J. (2016). Tapping the power of personalized learning: A roadmap for school
leaders. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Riley, B. (2017). Personalization vs. how people learn. Educational Leadership, 74(6), 68-72.
Rogers, J. (2005). Aspiring to leadership: Identifying teacher-leaders. Medical Teacher, 27(7),
629-633.
Shatzer, R. H., Caldarella, P., Hallam, P. R., & Brown, B. L. (2014). Comparing the effects of

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

113

instructional and transformational leadership on student achievement: Implications for
practice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4), 445-459.
doi:10.1177/1741143213502192
Schrum, L., & Levin, B. (2013). Preparing future teacher leaders. Journal of Digital Learning in
Teacher Education, 29(3), 97-103.
Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002). Leadership and school results. In Second international
handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 561-612). Netherlands:
Springer.
Smylie, M. A., Conley, S., & Marks, H. M. (2002). Exploring new approaches to
teacher leadership for school improvement. Yearbook of the National Society for
the Study of Education,101(1), 162-188.
Smylie, M. A., & Eckert, J. (2017). Beyond superheroes and advocacy: The pathway of teacher
leadership development. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(4),
556-577. doi: 1741143217694893.
Sornson, R. (2016). Over-Tested and Under-Prepared : Using Competency Based Learning to
Transform Our Schools. New York, NY: Routledge.
Spencer, J. (2017). The Genius of design. Educational Leadership, 74(6), 16-21.
Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143-150. doi:
10.1080/00131720508984678
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice:
A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3-34.
Spillane, J. P., & Healey, K. (2010). Conceptualizing school leadership and management from a

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

114

distributed perspective: An exploration of some study operations and measures. The
Elementary School Journal, 111(2), 253-281.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). Let's celebrate personalization: But not too fast. Educational
Leadership, 74(6), 10-15.
United States Department of Education (2010). Education Technology Plan. Alexandria: VA
https://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The
roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458-495.
West-Burnham, J. (2010). Leadership for personalising learning. In DeFreitas, S., & Yapp, C.
(eds.), Personalizing Learning in the 21st Century. Stafford, United Kingdom: Network
Educational Press.
York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from
two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255-316.
Zmuda, A., Curtis, G., & Ullman, D. (2015). Learning personalized: The evolution of the
contemporary classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

115

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. This interview will be between 30
and 60 minutes. Throughout the interview, I will ask a series of questions about teacher
leadership in your school, specifically how you recruit and retain teacher leaders. The
information you share will be analyzed according to the research questions and some of what
you share may be quoted in the dissertation. You will remain anonymous and be identified by an
alias.
Additional information is available through this consent form, please read the consent
form and sign your name to indicate voluntary consent in the interview. I would like to record
this meeting so that I have an accurate account of your responses. Do you have any questions?
I will be taking notes during our meeting and would also appreciate your permission to
record this interview so that I am accurate in documenting this interview. Throughout the
interview, you have the opportunity to pass on any question you are not comfortable answering;
just say pass to indicate you are not willing to answer the question.
To start I will ask you questions about your current role.
1. Demographics
a. How would you describe your current role?
b. How long have you been in this role?
c. What are your major responsibilities?
d. How would you describe your leadership?

2. Transformational leadership is described by a focus to redefine an organization’s purpose
and inspire faculty to engage and commit to the moral purpose of education.
a. Think about a time when you led the faculty through a redefinition? How were you able
to engage the faculty to commit to the change?

i. Possible follow up - Why do you think you were successful or not successful?

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

116

b. What role did teacher leaders have in this change?

i. Possible follow up - You mentioned a mission or vision? How did you establish
this vision/mission?

3. Instructional leadership is indicated by strong direction by the principal on matters of
curriculum and instruction to improve schools. This framework is focused on the role of the
school principal in coordinating, controlling, and supervising instruction and developing
curriculum.
a. How do you lead curricular and instructional change in your role?
b. What role do teacher leaders have in this change?

4. Distributed leadership is often defined as a framework in which the principal builds
leadership capacity through collaboration with teacher leaders. In this framework, the
principal works with a team of teacher leaders to plan and implement instructional practices
to improve student achievement.
a. Can you share an example of when you have used distributed leadership in your role?

b. What are some examples you can share about collaborating with teacher leaders?

5. Teacher leadership is the process by which teachers improve teaching and learning practices
to improve student learning and achievement. It is not restricted to specific titles or positions
and may range from supporting day-to-day management of schools, to evaluating
instructional programs and facilitating professional learning communities.
a. How do teacher leaders contribute to teaching and learning at your school?
b. How do you identify teacher leaders in your current school?
i. Possible follow up - Do these teacher leaders take part in additional professional
development for leadership?

c. Are there specific skills or knowledge you are looking for in a teacher leader?
d. How does teacher turnover impact your cohort of teacher leaders?

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

117

e. How do you respond when teacher leaders leave the school?

6. (For schools which have identified personalized learning as a focus) Personalized learning
has recently been defined as a progressively student-driven model in which students deeply
engage in meaningful, authentic, and rigorous challenges to demonstrate desired outcomes.
a. Can you describe examples of student driven learning in your context?
b. Can you describe examples of engaging, meaningful, authentic and rigorous challenges to
demonstrate learning along a progression of competencies?

Is there anything else you would like to share about leadership or personalized learning?

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

118

Appendix B: Survey Protocol
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. The purpose of this study is to gather
data teacher leaders about your experience with leading change. The information you share will
be kept confidential; your name and IP address will not be recorded. The survey should take less
than 10 minutes to complete.
Demographic Information
1. Please choose from the following:
a. Female
b. Male
c. Unspecified
2. Please indicate the most recent level of education you have completed.
a. High School diploma
b. Technical degree
c. Bachelor degree
d. Master’s degree
e. Postgraduate degree
f. Doctor of Medicine (MD)
g. Juris Doctor (JD)
3. Please describe leadership role(s) you currently hold?
a. (space for comments)
4. What was the process for being identified for the role?
a. (space for comments)
5. Does your school provide professional learning in leadership as part of your role?

TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR PERSONALIZED LEARNING

119

If yes, describe below.
a. (space for comments)
6. What skills help you to lead your team?
a. (space for comments)
7. What skills do you need to develop to lead change with your team?
a. (space for comments)
8. As a teacher leader, are you part of a schoolwide leadership team? Yes/No
a. If yes - who is included in this team (principal, assistant principal, coach)
9. I have input in the school’s vision and mission
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree
10. I work collaboratively with the school principal to transform the direction of the
school.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study reviews three frameworks for school leadership to understand the role of teacher leaders in implementing instructional change. The three leadership systems include transformational leadership, instructional leadership, and distributed leadership. The purpose of this study was to identify the role of the teacher leader in facilitating system wide change such as personalized learning. The study examined how teacher leaders are identified and recruited, as well as how school systems sustain teacher leadership. Finally, the study explored the cultural imperatives of teacher leaders. Data was collected through interviews with international school principals and experts in teacher leadership and personalized learning. In total, ten principals and two experts were interviewed. This data was then coded for themes related to the research questions. Additional data was collected from teacher leaders at American International School through an online survey. Ninety-six teacher leaders replied to the survey and these responses were also analyzed and coded according to the research questions. Findings from the study indicate inconsistencies in how teacher leaders are identified and recruited, specifically as this relates to the knowledge, skills, and dispositions teacher leaders need to facilitate change. Principals, experts and teacher leaders agree that teacher leaders are important participants in the change process

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Principal leadership for diffusing innovation across an established, high-performing K-12 school system

PDF

Considerations for personalized professional learning at International Academy of South East Asia: a gap analysis

PDF

Harnessing Genius Hour school-wide: examining teachers' perceptions of the implementation of personalized inquiry across an international middle school

PDF

Building leadership capacity to support principal succession

PDF

How service-learning educators help students learn: master teachers’ perspectives

PDF

Answering the call for shared leadership - the missing conditions for successful implementation of English language teacher leadership: an evaluation study

PDF

Evaluation study: building teacher efficacy in K8 computer science integration

PDF

Influences on principals' leadership practice

PDF

The secondary school principal's role as instructional leader in teacher professional development

PDF

Examining approaches to implementing Responsive Classroom within international schools

PDF

Cultivating a growth mindset: an exploration of teacher beliefs and learning environments

PDF

The role of international school teacher leaders in building leadership capacity within their teams

PDF

Sustainable intervention for learning gaps in middle school mathematics: a gap analysis

PDF

Managing leadership transitions in an international school context

PDF

Future Ready Schools: how middle school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at mid-sized urban middle schools

PDF

A new era of leadership: preparing leaders for urban schools & the 21st century

PDF

Principal leadership succession: developing the next generation of leaders

PDF

Teachers' experiences implementing social and emotional learning in the elementary classroom

PDF

Promising practices: developing principal leadership succession

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Wood, Amanda Elizabeth (author)

Core Title Teacher leadership for personalized learning: An implementation study in an international school

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 11/13/2018

Defense Date 05/23/2018

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

Tag distributed leadership,instructional leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,personalized learning,Teacher Leadership,transformational leadership

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Chung, Ruth H. (committee member), Reeves, Douglas B. (committee member)

Creator Email amandamckinnonwood@gmail.com,woodae@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-106497

Unique identifier UC11675766

Identifier etd-WoodAmanda-6967.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-106497 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-WoodAmanda-6967.pdf

Dmrecord 106497

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Wood, Amanda Elizabeth

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