University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Understanding the factors that contribute to successful school reconstitution: A promising practice

(USC Thesis Other)

Understanding the factors that contribute to successful school reconstitution: A promising practice

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 1

Understanding the Factors that Contribute to Successful School Reconstitution:

A Promising Practice

by
Daniel Gettinger

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

August 2018

Copyright 2018 Daniel Gettinger
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 2

DEDICATION
To the students of reconstituted schools.

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Participating in USC’s EdD in Organizational Change in Leadership has been a
rewarding experience that has reshaped the way I approach organizational leadership. I
appreciate the guidance of my professors who have made the journey so valuable. I am
particularly thankful for the support provided by my dissertation chair, Dr. Eugenia Mora-Flores.
While the process of developing and carrying out a research study could be overwhelming, you
helped keep it manageable by providing ongoing encouragement, and strong, timely feedback to
strengthen my study. I also want to acknowledge the important role my committee members, Dr.
Maria Ott and Dr. Darline Robles played in focusing my study. Your guidance early in the
process refocused my research and was instrumental in unearthing key findings regarding
organizational leadership.
I also want to thank the teachers and administrators who participated in my study. I am
in awe of your work and the positive impact you have had on student achievement. Thank you
for providing me with your time. It was an honor to learn from you.
Finally, I want to thank my parents Matthew and Marcia. You taught me the importance
of education and have provided ongoing love and encouragement every step of the way.

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................3
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................4
LIST OF TABLES ..........................................................................................................................6
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................7
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................8
Introduction to Problem of Practice ................................................................................................9
Organizational Context and Mission ..............................................................................................9
Importance of Addressing the Problem ........................................................................................ 10
Purpose of the Project and Questions ........................................................................................... 11
Organizational Performance Status ............................................................................................... 11
Organizational Performance Goal ................................................................................................. 13
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal ...................................................................... 14
Review of the Literature ............................................................................................................... 15
Identifying Quality Teachers ............................................................................................ 15
Social Costs ....................................................................................................................... 17
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences .............................................................. 19
Knowledge Influences ...................................................................................................... 19
Factual ................................................................................................................... 20
Procedural ............................................................................................................. 21
Motivation Influences ....................................................................................................... 23
Utility Value.......................................................................................................... 23
Teacher’s Utility Value ......................................................................................... 23
Self-Efficacy Theory ............................................................................................. 24
Teacher’s Self-Efficacy ........................................................................................ 24
Organizational Influences ................................................................................................. 26
Investing in Professional Development ................................................................ 27
Creating a Culture of Collaboration ...................................................................... 27
An Ongoing Commitment..................................................................................... 28
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 5

Interactive Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................... 29
Data Collection and Instrumentation ............................................................................................ 34
Interviews .......................................................................................................................... 34
Documents and Artifacts................................................................................................... 36
Findings......................................................................................................................................... 36
Knowledge ........................................................................................................................ 37
Motivation ......................................................................................................................... 40
Utility Value.......................................................................................................... 41
Self-Efficacy ......................................................................................................... 41
Organization ...................................................................................................................... 42
Commitment to an Instructional Strategy ............................................................. 43
Investing in Professional Development ................................................................ 44
Establishing a Culture of Collaboration ................................................................ 46
Supporting Teachers ............................................................................................. 47
Solutions and Recommendations .................................................................................................. 48
Knowledge Recommendations ......................................................................................... 49
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 49
Declarative Knowledge Solutions, or Description of Needs or Assets ................ 50
Procedural Knowledge Solutions, or Description of Needs or Assets.................. 51
Motivation Recommendations .......................................................................................... 51
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 51
Value ..................................................................................................................... 53
Self-Efficacy ......................................................................................................... 54
Organization Recommendations ....................................................................................... 54
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 54
Cultural Models .................................................................................................... 57
Cultural Settings.................................................................................................... 57
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 59
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria for Interviews ......................... 61
Appendix B: Protocols .................................................................................................................. 63
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness .............................................................................. 66
Appendix D: Ethics ....................................................................................................................... 67
Appendix E: Implementation and Evaluation Plan ....................................................................... 69
References ..................................................................................................................................... 79

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 6

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Organizational Performance Goals................................................................................. 14
Table 2 Goals and Knowledge Influences .................................................................................... 22
Table 3 Goals and Motivation Influences ..................................................................................... 26
Table 4 Goals and Organization Influences ................................................................................. 29
Table 5 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ............................................ 50
Table 6 Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ............................................. 53
Table 7 Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ......................................... 56
Table E.1 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ....................... 70
Table E.2 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing ...................................................... 71
Table E.3 Required Drivers to Support New Reviewers’ Critical Behaviors ............................... 71
Table E.4 Components of Learning for the Program. .................................................................. 74
Table E.5 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program. .................................................... 75

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 7

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. 2015 Smarter Balanced Assessment Results ................................................................. 12
Figure 2. Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 31

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 8

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this project was to study the successful strategies utilized by teachers and
administrators at a reconstituted middle school. The primary finding is that school leadership
committed to an instructional focus, used the rehiring process to identify teachers willing to buy-
in to the instructional vision, and instituted ongoing support and accountability structures.
School leadership built a strong, focused culture that resulted in sustainable change at the school.
The study used the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model to identify organizational assets in
the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organization. The study utilized qualitative interviews
to identify findings and recommendations. Teachers and administrators reported the school used
cooperative learning in all subject areas to engage students, build social skills, and develop
student’s academic vocabulary. Cooperative learning implementation was supported through
professional development, regular feedback from school administration, and peer collaboration.
While teachers and administrators from the focus organization attribute implementation of
cooperative learning strategies as critical to its success, other reconstituted schools may have
different needs that are better addressed through other strategies. Therefore, it is recommended
that leaders of reconstituted schools focus not on the cooperative learning, but rather, the process
the focus school used to effectively implement the strategy and increase student achievement.
Keywords: Reconstitution; cooperative learning

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 9

Introduction to Problem of Practice
School Reconstitutions can have a negative impact on student achievement (Hamilton,
Heiling & Pazey, 2014; Hess, 2003; Rice & Croninger, 2005; Rice & Malen, 2003; Rice &
Malen, 2010; Trujillo, 2015). Of the nearly 1,100 schools studied by Birman, Aladjem, and
Orland (2010), only 24% were able to significantly improve their achievement in one year, and
only 12 sustained the improvement in future years. A reconstituted school is one in which all or
most of the school’s staff is replaced because of failure to make adequate yearly progress
(Hamilton et al., 2014). The assumption behind reconstitution is that replacing incumbent staff
with a more capable and committed group of educators will increase student achievement (Rice
& Croninger, 2005). However, while some reconstitutions have been successful, many
reconstitutions have a negative impact on student achievement (Rice & Malen, 2010). For
example, none of the several dozen Texas high schools examined by Hamilton et al., (2014)
demonstrated significant academic improvements post reconstitution. Marsh, Strunk, and Bush
(2013) found reconstituted schools tend to have trouble accessing an adequate supply of quality
staff, undermining the basic premise of the strategy. The process also places enormous stress on
school personnel, which inhibit them from establishing trust and collaboration (Rice & Malen,
2003). This is a problem because there is not enough known in regards to what makes a
reconstitution succeed or fail. Examining the promising practices at reconstituted schools that
have been successful at increasing student achievement could increase the effectiveness of the
strategy in future implementations.
Organizational Context and Mission
King Middle School (pseudonym), located in a large California school district, serves
approximately 900 students in grades six through eight. Approximately 90% of its students are
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 10

Hispanic or Latino and nearly 95% of its students are classified by the state as economically
disadvantaged. King Middle School’s mission is to create a personalized environment that
promotes college and career readiness and success using 21
st
century skills. As of June 2016, the
school employs thirty-six teachers, two administrators, and office/support staff. In 2011, King
Middle School was reconstituted to improve academic achievement at the school. All teachers
and administrators were required to re-interview for their positions, and by the start of the 2012
school year, 80% of the original staff had been replaced. Following reconstitution, the school
employed 41 teachers. The teachers had an average of 10 years of teaching experience,
compared to an average of 15 years experience prior to reconstitution.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
It is important to examine King Middle School’s performance in relation to their
performance goal of increasing student achievement to gain insight into promising practices that
may help school leaders avoid some of the common pitfalls of reconstitution. Rice and Malen
(2003) traced some of the shortcomings of reconstitutions to human costs including the task
demands placed on educators, the lack of staffing stability, and the psychological toll felt by
educators at reconstituted schools. Murphy (2008) argued that many of the problems with
reconstitution and similar reform strategies can be traced to the fact that limited empirical
evidence exists to guide educators, and that many of the theories underlying the strategies are
based in macro level theory of action about reform. Examining the practices of a successfully
reconstituted school at the micro level will begin to give policymakers greater insight into how to
overcome the high costs associated with reconstitutions and ensure successful implementation of
the strategy. Failure to study such promising practices is likely to lead to continued poor results
in future reconstitutions.
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 11

Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to study the organization’s performance related to a larger
problem of practice. The analysis will focus on the assets in the areas of knowledge and skill,
motivation, and organizational resources. While a complete study would focus on all
stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis is King
Middle School certificated staff members. As such, the questions that will guide the promising
practice study are the following:
1. What were the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that helped King
Middle School meet its goal of increasing their schools API score by nearly 100
points?
2. What strategies did King Middle School certificated staff employ post-reconstitution
that contributed to the school’s nearly 100-point API score increase over two years,
and selection as a “school to watch” by the State of California?
3. What solutions and recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources may be appropriate for other schools undertaking a
reconstitution?
Organizational Performance Status
When it was reconstituted in 2011, King Middle School had an Academic Performance
Index (API) score of 693. Academic Performance Index scores were based on a formula whose
primary input was scores on the California Standards Test (CST), which was administered once
per year by each public school in California. The state target for all schools was an API of 800.
In 2013 King Middle School achieved an API score of 786—a nearly 100-point increase over
two years. By comparison, Strunk et al. (2016) found students in reconstituted schools increase
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 12

their English Language Arts performance by an average 14% of a standard deviation in the first
two years following reconstitution, but the gains diminish over time. In addition, the researchers
found an insignificant effect on math achievement.
While reconstituted schools typically lack significant gains in math, and sustained gains
in English Language Arts (Strunk et al., 2016), King Middle School has demonstrated
sustainable gains in both English Language Arts and math. After 2013, California suspended
API as a measure of school performance because of a change in state standards and the rollout of
the Smarter Balanced Assessments, which would be used to measure mastery of the new
standards. In 2015, the first year in which the new assessment results were reported by
California, King Middle School outperformed its district averages in both math and English
Language Arts in every grade level. The comparison of King Middle School’s to the district
averages are presented in the figure 1.

Figure 1. 2015 Smarter Balanced Assessment Results
In addition to outperforming the district averages, King Middle School was selected in
2015 as one of seven middle schools from across California as a “school to watch.” Selections
2440
2460
2480
2500
2520
2540
7th Grade ELA 8th Grade ELA 6th Grade
Math
7th Grade
Math
8th Grade
Math
King Middle School District Average
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 13

were made by a panel of middle school experts based on growth in standardized test scores, as
well as a self-study process and school narrative submitted by the school. King Middle School
sustained its improvements in 2016, again scoring above the district average in every grade level
and content area on the Smarter Balanced exams. Based on a combination of standardized test
score growth, and recognition of high achievement by outside educators, King Middle School
constitutes a promising practice in successful reconstitution implementation.
Organizational Performance Goal
King Middle School’s organizational performance goal was to raise their API score to the
state target of 800 by June 2014. This goal was established by the school’s administrative team,
with feedback from teachers, parents, and students. While API was suspended as an
achievement measure, King Middle School had nearly achieved their three-year goal in only two
years post-reconstitution. In 2016, 42% of students at King Middle School met or exceeded
standards in English Language Arts, and 34% of students at King Middle School met or
exceeded standards in mathematics, exceeding district averages. King Middle School’s
consistent and significant growth in academic achievement since reconstitution in 2011
constitutes a promising practice. Table 1 below shows how the school’s organizational
performance goals was supported by additional stakeholder goals.

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 14

Table 1
Organizational Mission
King Middle School’s mission is to create a personalized environment that promotes college and
career readiness and success using 21
st
century skills.
Organizational Performance Goal
In June 2014, King Middle School raised their API score to 800 API.
Stakeholder 1 Goal Stakeholder 2 Goal Stakeholder 3 Goal
King Middle School
Certificated Staff

By June 2014, all teachers at
King Middle School were able
to utilize cooperative learning
strategies in 75 percent of their
lessons.
King Middle School Students

By June 2014, 96 percent of
students achieved 90 percent
or better attendee.
King Middle School Parents

By June 2014, 75 percent of
King Middle School parents
attended at least one of the
following events: Back to
School Night, Parent
Conferences, or Open House.

Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal

While the joint efforts of all stakeholders contributed to the progress made towards the
overall organizational achievement goal, reconstitutions are primarily focused on the impact of a
change in a school’s certificated staff (administration, teachers, and counselors). Therefore, the
stakeholders of focus for this study will be King Middle School certificated staff members. The
stakeholders’ goal, supported by the administrative team and out of classroom support staff, was
that by June 2014, 100% of King Middle School teachers would implement cooperative learning
strategies in 75% of their lessons. King Middle School believes that much of its improvement
since 2011 can be attributed to the initial implementation of cooperative learning strategies, and
that greater adoption school wide will continue to lead to additional student achievement gains.

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 15

Review of the Literature
Reconstituted schools and the challenges they face have emerged as a developing area of
research. The research discussed in this literature review highlights the challenges reconstituted
schools have in finding qualified staff immediately following a reconstitution (Peck & Reitzug,
2014; Marsh et al., 2012), and that even under standard hiring conditions, low performing
schools tend to struggle with finding experience teachers to fill vacancies (Jacob, 2007). The
social costs imposed on school personnel are also discussed. Understanding the challenges many
reconstituted schools face will help provide context to the effective strategies employed by King
Middle School.
Identifying Quality Teachers
Several researchers have found the current school reform initiatives to be inconsistent
with the goal of school improvement. Elmore (2003) showed that failing schools are labeled as
“failing” in the face of substantial increases in student achievement. Rather than categorize
schools as “failing,” he argued that we should instead consider whether a school is improving or
not. Elmore explained that many successful schools have the same issues as failing schools, but
do not receive the same type of attention because the social and cultural capital of the parents at
these schools overcomes the poor quality of teaching and learning (p. 6). This draws into
question whether the existing staff itself at low performing schools is the primary problem, or
whether outside factors such as a lack of social and cultural capital may be the primary culprit.
Furthermore, Peck and Reitzug (2014) found that while there may be some ineffective teachers
at schools labeled as failing, large-scale dismissals of staff often result in the replacement of
many quality educators as well. Likewise, Marsh, et al., (2012) explained experienced teachers
are often replaced by first year and non-certificated teachers during reconstitutions. This
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 16

research suggests that not only do reconstituted schools have trouble finding experienced
educators to replace the previous staff, but that the previous staff might not have been the
problem in the first place. Furthermore, the process of reconstitution may exacerbate staffing
issues low-performing school already face.
Even under standard hiring conditions, high needs schools often find it difficult to recruit
effective teachers. Urban districts find it difficult to hire teachers, particularly in subjects such as
secondary math and science, as well as bilingual and special education, and the teachers they do
hire tend to be less experienced than teachers in suburban districts (Jacob, 2007). Levin and
Quinn (2003) found that because many large urban districts wait until July or August to make job
offers to new teachers, they often lose 31%-58% of their applicants to other districts who hire
earlier. This is due to a combination of “flawed and highly bureaucratic hiring systems,”
including policies that allow exiting teachers to provide late notification of their desire to leave,
uncertainty over funding of teaching positions, and “perverse incentives for principals to hide
their vacancies” to avoid receiving potentially low quality teachers transferring from another
school in the district (p. 19). Likewise, Loeb, Kalogrides & Beteille (2012) found that higher
performing schools are better able to attract more effective teachers than lower performing
schools. Because low performing schools already have difficulty recruiting and hiring effective
teachers, the reconstitution process, which creates a higher than usual number of vacancies,
intensifies the staffing problems. As a result, reconstituted schools often find themselves filling
their vacancies with inexperienced and/or uncertified teachers.
Research demonstrates that inexperienced and uncertified teachers are not as effective as
their more experienced peers. Teachers with at least five years of experience are, on average,
more effective than less experienced teachers (Rice & Croninger, 2005). In a 2005 study,
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 17

Darling-Hammond found a positive correlation between teaching experience and student
achievement, but that the connection between teaching experience and student achievement
levels off after approximately five years of experience. Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin &
Heilig (2005) demonstrate that uncertified teachers had negative effects on student achievement.
Because reconstituted schools often rely on inexperienced and uncertified teachers to fill their
abundance of vacancies, this research suggests the process is unlikely to result in increased
student achievement.
Social Costs
Research by Malen, Croninger, Muncey, and Redmond-Jones (2002) highlighted that
administrators and teachers in reconstituted schools often feel “’swamped,’ ‘inundated,’ and
‘overwhelmed’ by all that had to be done to figure out and carry out the day to day operations of
schools” (p. 124), and that in the first two years after reconstitution, staff departure rates are
high. The evidence demonstrates that the reconstitution process places enormous stress on
school personnel, which inhibit them from establishing trust and collaboration (Rice & Malen,
2003). This is important to understand because the high social costs imposed by the
reconstitution process may overwhelm the administration and faculty and thereby undermine
their efforts to transform schools to meet students’ learning needs.
Researchers have found that the teachers and staff at schools in consideration for
reconstitution are adversely impacted from an emotional perspective by the process. Malen et
al., (2002) explained the reconstitution process, in which all faculty members at a school must
reapply to remain at the school is often viewed as “disrespectful, humiliating, and inhumane” (p.
120), by teachers, and has led even strong teachers to seek jobs in other schools and districts.
Finnigan and Gross (2007) found that in the probationary period before the final determination
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 18

on whether to reconstitute is made, teachers report feeling demoralized, and are unmotivated to
improve student performance. A spokesperson for Philadelphia Schools argued reconstitution is
something that “sets schools and teachers in such a tizzy that you have to wonder whether there
is a less painful way to accomplish the same goal” (Hendrie, 2001, p. 383). This body of case
study research shows a clear pattern in which staff at schools being considered for reconstitution
feel disrespected to the point that even the best teachers often decide not to reapply to stay with
the school. This can increase the number of staff new to the school following reconstitution,
which can lead to trouble developing effective collaboration.
Staff at reconstituted schools, who do not have a professional history together, often have
trouble quickly developing a collaborative culture. Rice and Malen (2003) found that the
process of reconstitution creates such massive changes that basic operational considerations tend
to be prioritized over trust and collaboration. Peck, C., and Reitzug (2014) argue that a key
feature for successful school reform efforts is a “culture of continuous improvement,
collaboration, and job embedded learning” (p. 21), but that the process of reconstitution creates
such a taxing psychological toll on administrators and teachers that it is difficult to quickly
establish such a culture. Because staff at reconstituted schools are dealing with a bevy of
demands, research indicates they often feel overwhelmed and tend not to prioritize collaboration,
potentially harming student achievement.
Research from the organizational change and school reform literature demonstrates
smaller-scale efforts which account for existing culture may be more effective than attempting to
implement entirely new systems. Cuban (1990) argues that successful school reform has
generally been based on first-order changes, which make improvements to existing structures,
rather than second-order changes, which fundamentally change the organizations themselves. In
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 19

their study of change at institutions of higher education, Kezar and Eckel (2002) found that
leaders must carefully consider the unique culture at their institution prior to enacting change.
Peck and Reitzug (2014) claimed the more punitive aspects of school reform, such as
reconstitution, run counter to decades of human relations theory, in which existing culture should
be considered. They demonstrated that the most effective reforms tended to build on existing
school structures, which contradicted the theory of reconstitution whose premise relies on the
complete rebuild of a school’s culture. The process of rebuilding a school’s culture may increase
the demands on staff, potentially undermining efforts to increase student achievement.
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Following its reconstitution in 2011, King Middle School prioritized cooperative learning
in its plan for instructional improvement. Specifically, it set a goal that by June 2014, all
teachers at the school would be using cooperative learning strategies in 75% of their lessons.
Attainment of this goal was dependent on the teachers possessing the knowledge and skills
necessary to achieve their goals. Clark and Estes (2008) presented a conceptual framework for
identifying the gap between an organization or stakeholder’s performance goal and their actual
performance. The framework suggests exploring performance issues by identifying knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences (Clark and Estes, 2008). Because implementation of
cooperative learning was the school’s primary instructional initiative, it will be the primary focus
for this micro oriented study
Knowledge Influences
Krathwohl (2012) described four knowledge types that can influence achievement of a
performance goal: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge, such
as understanding specific terms or specific details are the basic elements necessary to understand
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 20

or solve problems within a discipline (Krathwohl, 2012). Krathwohl described conceptual
knowledge as “the basic elements that students must know to be acquainted with a discipline or
solve problems in it” (p. 214). Procedural knowledge is an understanding of how to accomplish
a task, such as knowledge of subject-specific skills, algorithms, techniques, and determining
when to use these procedures (Krathwohl, 2012). Metacognitive knowledge is the ability to be
highly reflective through thinking about thinking (Baker, 2009). The knowledge influences most
pertinent to King Middle School’s goal of all teachers utilizing cooperative learning strategies in
75% of lessons by June 2014 were factual and procedural. These knowledge types and their
influences on King Middle School’s achievement of its goal will be described in the sections
below.
Factual. To effectively utilize cooperative learning strategies, teachers at King Middle
School had to understand the fundamentals of cooperative learning. Specifically, they were able
to differentiate cooperative learning from group work. Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (2007)
explained that cooperative learning contains positive interdependence and individual
accountability. That is, students must not just be working in groups, but that successful
achievement of the task should require that all group members contribute, and that everyone in
the group is held accountable for his or her contributions.
Teachers also were able to understand the benefits of cooperative learning. Students in
classrooms that utilize cooperative learning structures tend to be more engaged, and are exposed
to a greater diversity of viewpoints and opinions (Herrmann, 2013). Cooperative learning can
also lead to superior individual student achievement, better social skills, higher self-esteem, and
increased metacognitive thought (Felder & Brent, 2007).
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 21

Procedural. In addition to understanding cooperative learning and its benefits, teachers
at King Middle School had the knowledge and skills to successfully implement cooperative
learning in their classrooms. Krathwohl (2012) explained that knowing when to apply a
technique is necessary for a procedure to be carried out correctly. Starting in 2011, King Middle
School contracted with a company that provides professional development to organizations in
cooperative learning. All teachers received five days of training in which they learned over
thirty cooperative learning structures, including step by step directions for each structure, and
were provided a cheat-sheet for how to choose the best cooperative learning structure for a
particular learning objective. For example, teachers learned the differences between a structure
called RoundRobin, in which students take turns, in groups of four, responding to an open-ended
question, and RallyCoach, a structure more applicable to questions with one correct response.
Teachers were taught how to choose the best cooperative learning structure for particular
learning objectives. King Middle School contracted with this same company to provide
coaching to teachers following the training. The coaching, which took place in the classrooms
during instructional time, was designed to ensure teachers were following the correct steps for
each structure, and were making good choices regarding when to use a cooperative learning
technique.
New learning is most likely to transfer to performance when employees have
opportunities to practice, and receive feedback and peer support (Grossman & Salas, 2011).
King Middle School’s professional development plan in which extensive follow-up support was
provided to teachers ensured these conditions were met. In addition, Felder and Brent (2007)
found that while the benefits of cooperative learning are supported by research, implementation
can be difficult as both students and teachers get used to the new techniques. They highlighted
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 22

the importance of teachers learning strategies to group students strategically. They also
suggested utilizing structures that promote positive interdependence, individual accountability,
and teamwork skills. These factors were stressed to King Middle School’s teachers in their
professional development.
Table 2 shows King Middle School’s mission, organizational goal, stakeholder goal, and
related knowledge influences.
Table 2
Goals and Knowledge Influences

Organizational Mission
King Middle School’s mission is to create a personalized environment that promotes college
and career readiness and success using 21
st
century skills.

Organizational Global Goal
In June 2014, King Middle School raised their API score to 800 API.

Stakeholder Goal
By June 2014, all teachers at King Middle School were able to utilize cooperative learning
strategies in 75% of their lessons.

Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type

Knowledge Influence
Assessment

Teachers understand the benefits
of cooperative learning and can
explain the difference between
cooperative learning and group
work

Declarative (factual) Teachers interviewed and asked
to explain the benefits of
cooperative learning and explain
the differences between group
work and cooperative learning.
Teachers know the steps for at
least 5 different cooperative
learning structures

Procedural Teachers describe the steps for 5
cooperative learning structures.
Teachers are able to choose the
best cooperative learning structure
for a learning objective.
Procedural Lesson plans are reviewed to
ensure correct alignment with
the stated learning objective and
cooperative learning structure(s)
used.
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 23

Motivation Influences
Even if teachers have the knowledge necessary to implement cooperative learning, they
must also be motivated to do so. According to Clark and Estes (2008), there are three facets of
motivated performance: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Eccles (2006) suggested
that whether somebody completes a task can be analyzed by considering whether that person
believes they can complete the task and whether they want to complete the task. In the case of
cooperative learning, teachers are likely to be motivated to embed cooperative learning into their
lessons if they see value in using the structures, and believe they can effectively do so.
Utility Value. Utility value is the importance one places on achieving a task and how
well that task aligns with the personal goals (Eccles, 2006). Eccles (2006) explained that if a
person does not see value in a task, a motivation problem is likely to arise. This motivation gap
would occur in Clark and Estes (2008) active choice index in which pursuit of a goal is essential
for attainment of that goal.
Teacher’s Utility Value. Helping teachers understand the value in cooperative learning
could help increase their active choice in using the strategies. Herrmann (2013) explained that
cooperative learning increased student participation in class. Hermann (2013) surveyed
approximately 170 students about their in-class participation before and after their instructors
used cooperative learning, and while overall student satisfaction with cooperative learning varied
depending on the instructor, increases in participation and in-class engagement were found to be
statistically significant. Shraw and Lehman (2009) found that students who are more engaged
are likely to have a deeper level of learning than those who are passive learners. Cooperative
learning, which can increase engagement may therefore lead to a deeper level of learning.
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 24

Abrami et al. (2004) found that cooperative learning may promote increased student
achievement and the development of social and interpersonal skills. They reported that teachers
new to cooperative learning are more likely to use the structures to build social skills as opposed
to academic skills. Teachers who initially adopt cooperative learning for the purposes of social
skills, will reap the academic benefits as well. In addition, Johnson et al. (2007), explained that
cooperative learning creates new learning opportunities that do not exist otherwise. For
example, cooperative learning can facilitate discussions in which students develop a deep
conceptual understanding of the material, and hold each other accountable for the learning and
provide each other with feedback. Teachers who understand the benefits of cooperative learning
are likely to place a higher utility value on the use of the structures, and therefore are more likely
to try them as opposed to a teacher who does not see marginal benefit compared to standard
teaching techniques.
Self-Efficacy Theory. Eccles (2006) explained that placing value on a task is not
sufficient to ensure motivation. He states that feeling it is within one’s power to complete the
task is also an indicator of motivation. Pajares (2006) defines self-efficacy as the belief a person
has in his or her ability to successfully complete task. He states that self-efficacy is derived from
four sources: mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasions, and physiological
reactions.
Teacher’s Self-Efficacy. Using a survey of over 1,000 teachers, Abrami et al. (2004)
found that teacher’s belief in whether they have the skills to implement cooperative learning has
been found to have even higher predictive value in whether teacher’s will use the strategies than
value. King Middle School’s professional development approach was designed to help teachers
develop confidence in their use of cooperative learning structures. In addition to receiving
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 25

training and coaching on the structures, King Middle School facilitated a series of peer
observations, in which teachers had opportunities to see their colleagues implement cooperative
learning strategies with their students. Pajares (2006) states learning from models can affect
self-efficacy beliefs. By observing their peers, teachers at King Middle School could see
cooperative learning used in classrooms with their own students. Thus, their belief in their own
ability to implement the structures may have been increased.
Teachers were also encouraged to start by selecting one cooperative learning structure to
focus on, before attempting to master additional structures. Cognitive load theory suggests that
humans have limited working memory and that to retain knowledge, it may be necessary to
chunk information (Kirschner, Kirschner & Paas, 2006). By avoiding information overload,
teachers were more likely to experience initial success with the structure of their choosing,
leading to increased self-efficacy beliefs about their ability to implement additional cooperative
learning structures. Furthermore, Watson (2006) demonstrated that professional development
that develops high initial self-efficacy can have carry over effects in which self-efficacy is
maintained years later.
Table 3 shows King Middle School’s mission, organizational goal, stakeholder goal, and
related motivation influences.

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 26

Table 3
Goals and Motivation Influences

Organizational Influences
Organizational influences play an important role in the effective implementation of
cooperative learning. Clark and Estes (2008) explained that even if a stakeholder has both the
knowledge and motivation to achieve a goal, organizational barriers can prevent achievement of
that goal. These organizational influences include organizational systems, resources, and culture
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Regarding cooperative learning, researchers have identified the
importance of organizations providing teachers with professional development, creating a culture
that values collaboration, and ensuring an ongoing commitment to the initiative as essential for
successful implementation (Abrami, Poulsen & Chambers, 2004; Felder & Brent, 2007).
Organizational Mission
King Middle School’s mission is to create a personalized environment that promotes college and
career readiness and success using 21
st
century skills.

Organizational Global Goal
In June 2014, King Middle School raised their API score to 800 API.

Stakeholder Goal
By June 2014, all teachers at King Middle School were able to utilize cooperative learning
strategies in 75% of their lessons.

Motivation Influences

Motivational Influence Assessment

Utility value: Teachers need to see the value in
utilizing cooperative learning strategies.
Interview questions such as “Please describe
the impact cooperative learning has had in
your classroom.”

Self-Efficacy: Teachers need to believe they can
effectively implement cooperative learning
strategies.
Interview question such as: “Do you feel
capable of effectively implementing
cooperative learning structures in your
lessons?”
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 27

Investing in Professional Development. Investing in high quality professional
development for teachers is critical for successful implementation of cooperative learning.
Felder & Brent (2007) found that imperfect implementation of cooperative learning can result in
student resistance to the strategies and dysfunctional teams. To combat this suboptimal outcome,
organizations can invest in providing teachers with professional development on cooperative
learning. Specifically, teachers should be able to explain the purpose of cooperative learning to
students, understand how to form productive teams, and have a toolbox of cooperative learning
structures and strategies to promote positive interdependence (Felder & Brent, 2007). In
addition, the professional development should be of high quality as Ishler, Johnson, and Johnson
(1998) identified perceived quality of professional development as a primary indicator of
whether teachers choose to utilize cooperative learning structures. However, it must be
acknowledged that there are costs associated with professional development. If utilizing a third-
party provider, a fee may be associated with the training. Even if using internal expertise, there
is an opportunity cost to focusing on cooperative learning. Time spent on cooperative learning is
time not spent analyzing student work and data, learning alternative instructional strategies, or
collaborating on lesson planning. However, as Clark and Estes (2008) indicate, adequate
organizational resources must be devoted for achievement of a goal.
Creating a Culture of Collaboration. Providing professional development is not
sufficient for successful implementation of cooperative learning. Organizations should also
work to develop a culture of collaboration and encourage teachers to work together through
implementation. Abrami et al. (2004), suggested that organizations should consider creating
communities of practitioners to support cooperative learning implementation. Specifically, the
researchers recommended that teachers be exposed to peers who have experienced success with
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 28

cooperative learning. Ishler et al. (1998) also identify peer encouragement and support as a
factor associated with cooperative learning success.
Professional learning communities may be well suited for supporting cooperative
learning. Professional learning communities are groups of staff members that examine their
practice in a reflective, collaborative manner with the aim of promoting professional growth
(Stoll et al., 2006). Hord (2004) found successful professional learning communities promote
group and individual learning, collaboration, reflective professional inquiry, collective
responsibility, and shared values and vision. Stoll et al. (2006), argue that for a professional
learning community to be successful, organizations much provide teachers with both the time
and space to engage in the work.
An Ongoing Commitment. An ongoing commitment to cooperative learning is critical
for its wide-scale adoption by staff. Abrami et al. (2004) explain that follow-up training may be
necessary for sustained implementation. For learning from professional development to truly be
internalized, employees not only need to receive feedback and peer support, but the chance to
practice their new skills and receive feedback (Grossman & Salas, 2011). The implication from
the literature is that simply providing the resources for a one-off training on cooperative learning
is not likely to be effective. Rather, the organization should ensure resources exist and systems
are established to provide ongoing professional development, feedback, and the time and space
for teachers to collaborate on cooperative learning structures.
Table 4 shows King Middle School’s mission, organizational goal, stakeholder goal, and
related organizational influences.

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 29

Table 4
Goals and Organization Influences

Interactive Conceptual Framework

Maxwell (2013) describes a conceptual framework as “the system of concepts,
assumptions, expectations, beliefs and theories that supports and informs” the research. The
conceptual framework, which is informed by the literature, the researcher’s personal experiences
and background, and thought experiments, generates the problem statement and research
questions for the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The conceptual framework also guides the
research process and methodology including data collection, analysis, and interpretation study
Organizational Mission
King Middle School’s mission is to create a personalized environment that promotes college and
career readiness and success using 21
st
century skills.

Organizational Global Goal
In June 2014, King Middle School raised their API score to 800 API.

Stakeholder Goal
By June 2014, all teachers at King Middle School were able to utilize cooperative learning
strategies in 75% of their lessons.

Organization Influences

Organization Influence Assessment

Organizational leadership demonstrates a
commitment to cooperative learning.

Review of school budgets and meeting
agendas.
Organizational leadership invests in professional
development to support implementation of
cooperative learning.

Review of school professional development
plan and budgets.

Organizational leadership establishes a culture of
collaboration when implementing cooperative
learning.

Interviews with school administration and
teachers
Organizational leadership provides support to
teachers who are new to cooperative learning.

Interviews with school administration and
teachers
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 30

(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The conceptual framework for this study draws on Clark and Estes
(2008) model which examines the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
contribute to the achievement, or lack thereof, of an organizational goal. While this paper will
examine the potential knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers, it is necessary to
remember they do not work in isolation, but instead interact with each other.
It is also important to acknowledge the author’s personal experiences as it relates to the
topic. The author started his career as a teacher in the first year post-reconstitution at a high
school in a large, urban school district. This reconstitution was the first attempted by district.
The next year, the author transferred to another high school. This school was about to embark on
the second reconstitution attempted by the district. Results at both reconstituted high schools the
author worked at are mixed post-reconstitution and cannot be used as promising practice models.
The author has never worked at King Middle School; however, his experiences and observations
about successful and less successful reconstitution practices are likely to have impacted the
direction of this paper. Specifically, the organizational culture, which needs to be rebuilt post
reconstitution can greatly impact a stakeholder’s knowledge and motivation in regard to a
stakeholder goal. Figure 2 serves to clarify the relationship between reconstitution, the
organizational goal, and the primary stakeholder goal.

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 31

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework

Figure 2 demonstrates how the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences are
not independent, but work in conjunction to lead to attainment of the stakeholder goal. Within a
teacher’s sphere of influence is the factual and procedural knowledge related to cooperative
King Middle School
Cultural Settings and Cultural Models
(Establish a culture of collaboration
and provide instructional supports to
teachers who are new to cooperative
learning)

By June 2014, all teachers at King
Middle School were able to utilize
cooperative learning strategies in 75%
of their lessons.

Reconstitution
Organizational
Context
Stakeholder
Knowledge
and Motivation
Stakeholder
Goal

Organizational
Goal
In June 2014, King Middle
School raised their API
score to 800 API.
Reconstitution
King Middle School
Cultural Settings and Cultural Models
(Establish a culture of collaboration
and provide instructional supports to
teachers who are new to cooperative
learning)

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 32

learning. That is, once they understand cooperative learning and its value, know the procedures
necessary to implement cooperative learning, and feel it is within their power to successfully
implement the strategies, they are more likely to use it within their lessons. However,
knowledge and motivation influences are not sufficient for the stakeholder goal to be achieved.
Organizational conditions including a culture of collaboration and support for teachers also
needed to be present for achievement of the stakeholder goal. Figure 2 also demonstrates via a
dashed arrow that achievement of the stakeholder goal was a key factor contributing to the
organizational goal and indicates that the reconstitution process itself encapsulates the school
culture.
Starting from the outside, the blue oval symbolizes the reconstitution process. A
byproduct of reconstitution is that much of a school’s existing culture is altered, with the hope
being a more dedicated staff will spur increased student achievement (Rice & Croninger, 2005).
The process of replacing most of the staff is a major influencer on the school’s culture as the new
staff must work to build culture from the ground up.
Nested within the reconstitution process is the organizational context, indicated in figure
2 by a purple oval. Regardless of the stakeholder goal, cultural settings and models are likely to
influence the stakeholder’s ability to achieve that goal. In the case of King Middle School,
teachers new to the school were expected to implement cooperative learning structures, but
without organizational support such as a culture of collaboration, and professional development
on cooperative learning, such efforts were unlikely to have resulted in increased student
achievement.
Indicated by an orange oval, and influenced by both King Middle School’s cultural
models and settings, as well as the broader reconstitution process is teacher’s knowledge and
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 33

motivational influences that impact achievement of the organizational goal. For teachers to
utilize cooperative learning strategies in 75% of their lessons, teachers needed to first understand
what cooperative learning was, and to believe they could successfully implement the strategies.
Figure 2 embeds these knowledge and motivation influences within the cultural settings and
models because without being trained and receiving follow-up support and feedback on
implementation of cooperative learning, teachers would be unlikely to utilize the structures
regularly in their classrooms.
Figure 2 also demonstrates the impact of these influences on the stakeholder and
organizational goal. Teachers who receive organizational support, understand what cooperative
learning is, and believe it is within their power to effectively implement cooperative learning
strategies are more likely to utilize the strategies, resulting in the achievement of the stakeholder
goal. However, it is also important to remember that the stakeholder goal was simply a strategy
the organization set to help it achieve its broader organizational goal of raising the school’s API
score to 800 by June 2014. This study will focus on the school’s implementation of cooperative
learning and the organizational influences that created the conditions for effective execution of
cooperative learning at King Middle School to better understand promising practices at a
successful reconstitution. However, cooperative learning is unlikely to be the only means to a
successful reconstitution. The link between the stakeholder goal and organizational goal in
figure 2 is indicated by a dashed line to acknowledge that cooperative learning was simply the
focus of King Middle School, and not necessarily the only strategy the school could have chosen
to employ.

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 34

Data Collection and Instrumentation
A qualitative analysis was conducted to study King Middle School’s promising
reconstitution in the areas of knowledge, motivation and organizational resources. Staff
members’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources will be studied by using
interviews and document analysis. While data demonstrates that King Middle School has made
significant improvements since its reconstitution, macro achievement data does not provide
insight into how those improvements were made. Qualitative research, which is inductive in
nature, has an emergent design, and provides a holistic account (Creswell, 2014) was well suited
to studying King Middle School’s promising practices as the stakeholders involved in the work
possessed significant insight into why academic achievement increased. Qualitative research is
focused on explaining and interpretation (McEwan & McEwan, 2003), which makes it better
suited than quantitative analysis for this study. Interviews and documents and artifacts were the
primary types of data collected and analyzed for this study. Ethical considerations for the
qualitative research are discussed in Appendix D.
Interviews
Qualitative face-to-face interviews allow participants to provide historical information
(Creswell, 2014). Because King Middle School’s reconstitution occurred in 2011, it was
necessary to interview stakeholders regarding their experiences at the school at that time. In
addition, schools often experience significant staff turnover, making it necessary to not only rely
on current King Middle School staff members for insight, but also those who were at the school
early in the reconstitution and have since moved on to other opportunities. Qualitative
interviews offer the advantage that the researcher acts as the primary instrument, and can gain
additional understanding through subtle non-verbal cues, ask for immediate clarification when
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 35

necessary, and explore unanticipated responses through follow-up questions (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Interviews were conducted with King Middle School teachers and administrators at the
time of the reconstitution. These employees were able to provide insight regarding the strategies
utilized to achieve the organization and stakeholder goals. Interviews were conducted at the
current work site of those being interviewed, as some no longer work at King Middle School.
Appendix A outlines the sampling criteria for the interviews.
A semi-structured interview approach was utilized. A semi-structured approach, as
discussed by Patton (2002), allows for a standardized interview format to be utilized early in the
interview. In the case of unexpected responses, the semi-structured approach provides the
researcher flexibility to ask follow-up questions and probe deeper. In addition, the semi-
structured interview benefits from a more conversational tone than the pure structured protocol,
which can make those being interviewed feel more comfortable and provide more open
responses (Patton, 2002).
Krueger and Casey (2009) suggest that successful interviews tend to begin with easier
questions, contain open-ended questions, and logically sequence the questions to maximize the
impact of key questions. The interview protocol, outlined in greater detail in appendix B, was
designed to allow the researcher to establish rapport with the person being interviewed, before
delving into the key questions. The key questions were aligned with the study’s conceptual
framework, which focuses on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
allowed King Middle School to achieve its stakeholder goal of all teachers utilizing cooperative
learning strategies in at least 75% of their lessons.

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 36

Documents and Artifacts
Qualitative documents were examined both to provide additional meaning, and to verify
the insights gained through interviews. Because participants were asked to recall events that
occurred years in the past, it was important to triangulate using multiple data sources (Creswell,
2014). Documents examined included King Middle School’s professional development plans,
and staff meeting agendas. Appendix C provides greater detail on how the researcher will ensure
the credibility and trustworthiness of the study.
Findings
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with six teachers and the school’s principal
and assistant principal at the time of the reconstitution. Both the principal and assistant principal
had worked at other schools prior to being assigned to King Middle School the year before the
reconstitution. Teachers interviewed included two math teachers, including the department
chair, the ELA department chair, a science teacher, a social studies teacher, and the special-
education department chair. After conducting interviews with teachers and administrators who
worked at King Middle School both prior to and after reconstitution, it is evident that the
assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences contributed to the successful
reconstitution. All teachers and administrators reported that cooperative learning was, and to this
day, remains the focus instructional strategy at the school.
Interviews also revealed the important role school leadership played in developing a
culture of trust and eliciting buy-in at the school. Cooperative learning was chosen as an
instructional focus to address deficiencies in academic vocabulary, student engagement, and
student connectedness. However, decisions made by school administration to provide
professional development, and then hold all teachers accountable for implementation in a
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 37

supportive manner facilitated by establishing structures for teacher collaboration contributed to
teachers taking ownership over instruction, and led to lasting, sustainable student achievement
gains. School leadership utilized the hiring process and staff development days prior to school
beginning to establish a clear vision for student-centered learning, and provide training,
coaching, and collaboration structures to ensure teachers had the knowledge and motivation
necessary to effectively implement cooperative learning in their classrooms. The findings
presented will be organized by knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences.
Pseudonyms will be used to protect the identities of interview participants.
Knowledge
Following the school’s reconstitution in 2011, the newly hired and rehired King Middle
School teachers received five days of cooperative learning training. Teachers who were
interviewed praised the training for providing them with the knowledge regarding how to carry
out a variety of cooperative learning structures and choose the best cooperative learning structure
for a given lesson objective. They also report learning about cooperative learning fundamentals
such as the differences between group work and cooperative learning. Louisa, a math teacher
who joined the King Middle School team immediately after the reconstitution reported that it
was very clear from the beginning that King Middle School would be focused on student
discourse. She explained that during the five days of professional development, “Student
discourse was the main primary focus and it was just very clear. We want to hear students talking
about what they're learning. Very simple. Not complex. How are you going to do that?” Both
administrators and all six teachers interviewed shared that it was clear from the beginning that
the school would be focused on cooperative learning, and all teachers were expected to utilize
cooperative learning structures in their classrooms. Four of the six teachers described the initial
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 38

cooperative learning training as critical to developing a toolbox of strategies. History teacher
Sergio said: “We learned how to group students and also the strategies…some were good for
teaching things like facts, and others were more for team-building…the trainer made it clear we
didn’t need to use all of the strategies, but should focus on the ones that work for the way we
already teach.” Two teachers had previous experience with cooperative learning, but still found
value in the training, explaining that it was a good refresher, and helped establish staff
camaraderie and get all teachers on the same page regarding the school’s instructional focus.
When asked to describe the steps for cooperative learning structures, all six teachers were
able to do so. Structures described by teachers interviewed included RoundRobin, a structure in
which each student in a team of four takes a turn sharing; RallyCoach, which pairs two students
who take turns coaching each other to correctly solve procedural problems; and Numbered
Heads Together in which students work on a question individually before coming to consensus
with their teammates. All six teachers, and both administrators explained that the training was
chunked to avoid cognitive overload, with opportunities to both learn about the strategies, and
practice them during the training. Assistant Principal Aurora Vasquez said: “It could have been
overwhelming, but the way the training worked, teachers learned just a few structures each day,
and then the next day, those structures were used to learn the new structures.” Math teacher
Louisa reported: “The training was just really clear. Every time we learned something new, we
got the theory, and then tried it like we were students. It wasn’t just once either. Every strategy,
we practiced three or four times that day to make sure we really understood.” Each day of
professional development focused on approximately five strategies, with opportunities for review
of previous learning built in to each subsequent day.
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 39

Five of the six teachers and both administrators were also able to describe the
fundamental theory behind cooperative learning, and how it differs from traditional group work.
Maria, an English Teacher described group work as “unstructured.” She said group work is
giving students a task, with no assurances that all students participate in the task. She contrasted
the unstructured nature of group work with cooperative learning, which she mentioned includes
“some accountability” created by providing structure, which gives students an equal amount of
time to share and creates “positive interdependence so they're all depending on each other in
their groups in order for the team to succeed.” Sergio, a history teacher said he had previously
utilized “typical…group work assignment[s],” but after the cooperative learning PD learned it
was important to engage all students by establishing structures that prevented students from
“opting out,” and tied group success to every student participating. Special-education teacher
Jannette, remembered the training reviewing these differences, but said she forgot the specifics.
The belief that all students should be fully engaged and held accountable for learning was
reflected in all interviews. Principal Freddy Hernandez explained that while the teachers at King
Middle School were able to choose which cooperative learning strategies best served their needs
and content, the understanding that all students should be engaged in discourse was not an
option.
The professional development also provided teachers with the knowledge needed to
choose the best cooperative learning structure for a lesson objective. When asked which
strategies they used to reinforce procedural skills, all teachers interviewed were able to quickly
list several structures and provide an explanation for why that structure would be appropriate.
Louisa, the math teacher, reported that to build procedural fluency, she often used a structure
called Hand and Brain, “where one student is doing all the writing and the other person is telling
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 40

them what to write. So, the person that’s talking is the brain and the person that’s writing is the
hand.” However, for developing a stronger conceptual understanding of the material, Louisa
said she relies more on structures such as Silent Debate, where students engage in a silent,
written debate on an open-ended question. Science teacher Rachel, described the importance of
teachers understanding the outcome they are looking for when choosing a structure: “Is this just,
I want them to have a base knowledge? And so it's okay for them just to answer questions on
their whiteboard and then as a group verbally share it out? Or is it something where they're
working on a skill, like context clues, and they need to have the paper in front of them and really
be dissecting and then having somebody coach them along in the process?” During the
professional development, teachers were also provided a job aid that showed highlighted the best
structures to use for different objectives. This tool, along with the training, and follow-up
coaching and support helped teachers get comfortable choosing appropriate structures for their
lessons.
Motivation
In addition to demonstrating knowledge about cooperative learning, teachers who were
interviewed expressed motivation to implement the structures in their classrooms. Teachers saw
value in utilizing cooperative learning (utility value) and they expressed confidence in their
ability to effectively implement the structures (self-efficacy). All teachers reported that the
initial professional development was engaging, and four of the six teachers stated administration
established a supportive culture at the school to help them feel comfortable taking risks when
trying structures for the first time. The sections below highlight the impact utility value and self-
efficacy had on teacher’s motivation to utilize cooperative learning structures.
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 41

Utility Value. Eccles (2006) defines utility value as the importance a person places on
achieving a task and the degree that task aligns with personal goals. All teachers interviewed
cited cooperative learning as having a positive impact on learning in their classrooms. Both
administrators explained cooperative learning was critical to improving student achievement
schoolwide. Math teacher Louisa said cooperative learning had a “huge, huge, huge impact,” in
her classroom and it helped her be “very, very, very strategic and purposeful in how you're
putting the four kids together or even in pairs” to meet the unique needs of all learners. English
teacher Maria reported that her students had been more successful since she began implementing
cooperative learning, and the school had 100-point API growth in the first year of cooperative
learning. She explained cooperative learning particularly helped her reach lower achieving
students because they were forced to actively participate and had opportunities to receive
structured coaching by more advanced students. Manuel, a math teacher reported: “If it was just
me direct teaching there’s no way that as a class they would get this far.” All teachers expressed
a similar sentiment that cooperative learning helped them engage all students, from the lowest
skilled to the highest skilled, and that this increased engagement was a primary factor in the
gains made by students in their classrooms, and throughout the school.
Self-Efficacy. Self-efficacy is the belief a person has in his or her ability to successfully
complete a task (Pajares, 2006). Five of the six teacher interviewed reported they had confidence
to successfully implement the structures in their classrooms despite only two of the six teachers
interviewed having previously been trained in cooperative learning. Louisa described initial
trepidation with cooperative learning that she overcame with the support of administration.
Louisa reported that during her initial interview with Assistant Principal Aurora Vasquez, she
said, “Aurora, I'm a little bit afraid to come do this reconstituted school because you've been very
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 42

clear that the teachers are going to have to do Kagan [cooperative learning] structures in their
classroom every single day. I'm not sure I can do that." According to Louisa, Aurora responded,
"You'll be supported. We'll help you do that." Louisa reported that because school
administration provided high quality training, opportunities to collaborate with colleagues, and
frequent feedback that was positive, she began to gain confidence in her abilities to effectively
implement cooperative learning. In addition to the frequent feedback, history teacher Sergio
shared school leaders modeled cooperative learning strategies during staff professional
development. He explained that by seeing the strategies in action, and experiencing them from
the student perspective, he felt more comfortable trying them himself. Five teachers cited the
frequent training and feedback as helping build their confidence to use the structures, and four of
the six teachers interviewed mentioned frequent modeling of the strategies as helpful in
developing greater comfort with cooperative learning. Janette, the special-education teacher
interviewed, mentioned that she “never felt confident” personally using cooperative learning
strategies, but it helped that all of her colleagues were using the structures. She shared that her
students sometimes knew the structures better than she did.
Organization
Prior to conducting research, assumed organizational influences included school
leadership demonstrating a commitment to cooperative learning, investing in professional
development to support cooperative learning implementation, establishing a culture of teacher
collaboration, and providing support to teachers new to cooperative learning. Interviews with
both teachers and school administration validated all these influences. School leadership
committed to cooperative learning and established schoolwide systems to ensure its success.
Through interviews it was also revealed that gaining teacher buy-in was critical to the school’s
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 43

early success. The process by which school leaders earned teacher support is described within
the context of a commitment to cooperative learning.
Commitment to an Instructional Focus. School leadership demonstrated a strong
commitment to cooperative learning—their chosen instructional focus. Tasked with
transforming a struggling school, Principal Freddy Hernandez, was brought to King Middle
School the year before the reconstitution and remained on board after the reconstitution. He
described the process of committing to cooperative learning as one that was inclusive and
“brought everyone together” to determine “What models worked, what didn't work, [and] what
was innovative. Through conversations with teachers, parents, and district officials, King
Middle School determined cooperative learning would address a problem of low student
engagement that existed at the school prior to the reconstitution. Principal Hernandez explained
once the decision was made to implement cooperative learning, there was a laser focus on it. He
said: “We really focused on a few things, but there was going to be consistency in every single
classroom and that’s where we agreed as teachers and administrators that we’re gonna use these
as a priority.”
Assistant Principal Aurora Vasquez, who has since be promoted to principal of King
Middle School, said that the school committed to cooperative learning because cooperative
learning addressed numerous needs at the school. She said, “It tackled our social skills…It
tackled building community within a classroom. It tackled engagement. And then it also
tackled…the use of language within a classroom.” The 6 teachers interviewed reported a
condition upon hiring was a willingness to utilize cooperative learning, and understood they
would be held accountable for implementation. This was echoed by both administrators who
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 44

explained that teachers who were not willing to use cooperative learning were not hired
following the reconstitution.
Both Mr. Hernandez and Ms. Vasquez described the frequent classroom observations
they conducted focused solely on cooperative learning. Ms. Vasquez explained that every day,
she and Mr. Hernandez would visit every classroom. If a few days went by and a particular
teacher had not utilized a cooperative learning structure during any visits, administration would
speak to the teacher and ask when he/she would be utilizing a structure, and return to observe it
in action. By investing so much of their own time in observing cooperative learning, Mr.
Hernandez and Ms. Vasquez sent a strong message to the staff that they were committed to
cooperative learning and it would not simply be an educational trend soon forgotten.
Ms. Vasquez, who is now Principal at King Middle School, and has overseen the school’s
sustained success also reported that the focus has not changed much since 2011. She said, “This
is my eight year here [and] we haven’t really added a lot of new things to the plate for teachers.”
She said that any additional instructional focus areas, such as thinking more strategically about
assessments and grading practices have been compatible with cooperative learning, and that
teachers saw them as logical next steps for the school to begin working on. Every teacher
interviewed was asked: “What instructional strategies did the school choose to focus on after
reconstitution,” and every teacher mentioned cooperative learning in their response. This
demonstrates there was a clear schoolwide commitment to cooperative learning, which appears
to continue today.
Investing in Professional Development. All teachers and administrators reported five
days of cooperative learning professional development was provided to teachers prior to the start
of the 2011 school year. Mr. Hernandez said that although Ms. Vasquez had previously been
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 45

trained in cooperative learning and she may have been able to train the teachers herself, the
administrative team decided to contract with a company that specializes in cooperative learning
training. He said, “We wanted the professionals to come in and we wanted to do it right. We
wanted to do it with fidelity…We wanted the whole theory, the whole practice. We invested
heavily into that but the key is we were only going to focus on a few things, and we were gonna
expect the teachers to implement it and then do it right.” Four of the teachers and both
administrators also reported that cooperative learning strategies were modeled during faculty
meetings throughout the year. Principal Hernandez said: “We also modeled a lot of [cooperative
learning] during our PD, so when we did PD we modeled the practices that we wanted to see in
the classroom.” Science teacher Rachel found this modeling helpful, stating: “Since
[administration] implemented so many of [the structures] at the professional developments that
we'd done, the whole school PDs, it really helped. Because then we've experienced it as a
student, as a learner...I feel like it helped me, 'cause then I had a picture of what it should look
like and so I'm not just reading it on a page but I really can visualize what it's looking like.”
King Middle School also invested in professional coaching through the third-party
vendor, which occurred 1-2 times per semester. During these times, a professional cooperative
learning coach would enter teacher classrooms and observed a cooperative learning structure
chosen by the teacher. The coach would provide the teachers with real-time feedback, and
model strategies. During their prep periods, teachers would join the coaching sessions and
observe their colleagues try the structures, and debrief what was observed with the coach. All of
the teachers appeared to find value in the coaching. Math teacher Louisa said, “The coaching
was amazing and I think we did that a few times in the year. It was just not scary at all. It was
like ‘oh, you did that so good.’” Teachers appreciated the direct feedback they received from the
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 46

coach, as well as the opportunity to observe their peers try structures with students similar (or in
some cases the same) as their own. Special-education teacher Janette said the training helped her
overcome her initial feeling that cooperative learning would not work with students with
disabilities. She said that when she saw her own students engaged in discussion in other classes,
she understood that cooperative learning could work.
Establishing a Culture of Collaboration. After teachers were initially trained in
cooperative learning, school administration created structures to allow teachers to collaborate.
Four teachers and both administrators described the importance of collaboration in ensuring the
strategies were effective. Mr. Hernandez said: “We created structures in place so that [teachers]
would come together in a structured environment and start to really look at planning their lessons
and looking at the type of instruction they were providing and was it differentiated and did all the
kids in that room, were they able to reach the standard and understand the standard based on the
strategies that the teacher was incorporating…I think just giving them a sense of ownership
around the content and the strategies and letting them run with it.” Ms. Vasquez also described
the importance of providing teachers with structured time for collaboration explaining that
teachers needed time to work with their colleagues to discuss how to use cooperative learning to
support their content area. She said the school provided teachers in similar content areas with
common planning periods so they would have time to collaborate and have instructional
conversations. School leadership leveraged existing district structures to provide time for this
collaboration. Every middle school in the district has one hour per week after school dedicated
to common planning for teachers. In addition, the district allocates fourteen 1.5 hour
professional development sessions after school per year, and up to thirty after school staff
meetings. Nearly all of this time was dedicated to cooperative learning.
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 47

Teachers reported taking advantage of the time to collaborate with their colleagues.
English teacher Maria said, “We are constantly sharing ideas as to what structures we could use.
It also really helps team wise because even working with the math teacher I work with, she'll
have said to me, "Have you taught this structure yet? I'm gonna do this." And so we sort of are
aware of what each other has done in our own classes, which has definitely increased the
strength of them in the classroom 'cause then I can say to them, ‘You did this in math,
remember? You did this in math.’ And the students already know it. So it definitely has helped
with our planning. Also, this is a common language and it helps us to be able to help each other
problem solve when we're having a difficult lesson or the students aren't getting it, is that we can
suggest little things to each other.”
Supporting Teachers. Grossman and Salas (2011) found that for professional learning
to internalize, employees should be supported by having opportunities to practice the new skills
and receive feedback. Only 33% of teachers interviewed had previously been trained in
cooperative learning. Despite being new to cooperative learning, four teachers interviewed
overwhelmingly felt supported by school leadership. All teachers described frequent classroom
visitations by school administration, and four teachers shared these visits felt more supportive
than evaluative. Science teacher Rachel said Ms. Vasquez often volunteered to model strategies
for her in her own classroom. Math teacher Maria said that administration was so overwhelming
positive and encouraging that teachers themselves began to request more feedback asking
administration, “Tell us where we need to grow, what can we do better?...Can you please give us
areas for growth in the future?” Mr. Hernandez and Ms. Vasquez explained that while they held
all teachers accountable for trying the structures, they preferred for teachers to provide each
other with actionable feedback whenever possible. By establishing structures that gave teachers
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 48

the time and place to have conversations regarding cooperative learning, and to observe each
other trying the structures, teachers helped each other improve. Mr. Hernandez said, “Sure I
could go in and tell someone everything they are doing wrong, but it is so much more powerful
when it comes from another teacher.”
Solutions and Recommendations
The role school leadership played in changing the culture at King Middle School was
critical to its success. Interviews with King Middle School teachers and administrators indicate
its reconstitution was successful due to successful implementation of an instructional strategy
(cooperative learning) that was utilized schoolwide. That said, the implementation strategies
King Middle School utilized for cooperative learning, are not necessarily restricted to
cooperative learning, but can be used as a roadmap for successful implementation of any
instructional strategy chosen by a reconstituted school. The primary takeaway is not that all
reconstituted schools should utilize cooperative learning, but instead, that leaders of reconstituted
schools should work with stakeholders to develop a clear vision for instruction, and provide the
training, support, and follow-up necessary for teachers to be successful. Appendix E provides
more guidance for reconstituted schools by outlining an integrated implementation and
evaluation plan based on Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World Kirkpatrick Model, as
and the implementation strategies utilized by King Middle School.
King Middle School leaders established buy-in to cooperative learning by strategically
utilizing the hiring process to select teachers excited to try cooperative learning and establishing
a collective why around cooperative learning through five days of initial training. The training,
which was chunked in manageable pieces and engaged participants helped teachers develop the
knowledge and motivation necessary to be successful with cooperative learning. Administration
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 49

then established collaboration structures to help teachers work together with colleagues to
implement their new learning. Administration also provided ongoing coaching and feedback to
teachers, to help them continue to grow. Cooperative learning was allowed to flourish at King
Middle School, as school leadership committed to it for years, before adding any new
instructional foci. The knowledge, motivation, and organizational recommendations indicated in
the sections below provide a roadmap for successful implementation based on King Middle
School’s model. Recommendations regarding sustainability will also be provided.
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. The knowledge influences in Table 5 represent the assumed knowledge
influences and whether they were validated based on the most frequently mentioned knowledge
influences to achieving the stakeholders’ goal during interviews and supported by the literature
review, including Clark and Estes (2008), who suggest that declarative knowledge about
something is often necessary to know before applying it to classify or identify, as in the case of
understanding the benefits of cooperative learning. As such, as indicated in Table 5, these
influences were validated and have a high priority for achieving the stakeholders’ goal. Table 5
also shows the recommendations for these influences based on theoretical principles.

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 50

Table 5
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*
Validated
Yes or
No
(Y, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers
understand the
benefits of
cooperative
learning and can
explain the
difference
between
cooperative
learning and
group work. (D)
Y Y Help individuals
identify and
understand
important points
(Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Provide a pamphlet that
outlines the benefits of
cooperative learning and
highlights the differences
between cooperative
learning and group work.
Teachers know
the steps for at
least 5 different
cooperative
learning
structures. (P)
Y Y Present information
in manageable parts
(Mayer, 2011).

Provide a job aid on the
steps of cooperative
learning structures in
chunks, and allow teachers
to master a structure
through practice and
feedback before moving
on to another structure.
Teachers are able
to choose the best
cooperative
learning structure
for a learning
objective. (P)
Y Y To develop
mastery, individuals
must acquire
component skills,
practice integrating
them, and know
when to apply what
they have learned
(Schraw &
McCrudden, 2008).
Provide time for teachers
to collaborate on lesson
planning by working
together to select the best
cooperative learning
structure for their learning
objectives.

*Indicate knowledge type for each influence listed using these abbreviations: (D)eclarative;
(P)rocedural; (M)etacognitive
Declarative knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Declarative
knowledge is knowledge about developing factual and conceptual knowledge (Krathwohl,
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 51

2012). The data showed that King Middle School teachers contained the declarative knowledge
to explain the benefits of cooperative learning and explain the differences between cooperative
learning and group work. According to Schraw and McCrudden (2006), it is important to help
individuals identify important points. A pamphlet that summarizes the benefits of cooperative
learning and highlights the differences between cooperative learning and group work will help
teachers develop this declarative knowledge.
Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (2007) identify the inclusion of positive interdependence
and individual accountability as key differences between cooperative learning and traditional
group work. Students in a cooperative learning classroom not only work together, but every
student in each group is held accountable for providing contributions, and group success is
dependent on every member contributing. Understanding these differences is critical for
cooperative learning to be successful. As such, a well designed pamphlet that clearly and
concisely highlights the differences between cooperative learning and group work will assist
teachers new to cooperative learning.
Procedural knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Procedural
knowledge is knowledge about how to do something (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). King
Middle School teachers know the steps for at least five different cooperative learning
structures. Mayer (2011) explains it is important to present information in manageable parts. To
break the information into manageable parts, it is recommended that job aids be created for each
cooperative learning structure, and that teachers be provided the time to master a structure
through practice and feedback before moving on to another structure.
King Middle School teachers also demonstrated an ability to choose the best cooperative
learning structure for their learning objectives. Schraw and McCrudden (2008) note that to
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 52

develop mastery, individuals must acquire component skills, practice integrating them, and know
when to apply what they have learned. To assist teachers with knowing how to apply what they
learn, it is recommended that teachers be provided time to collaborate on lesson planning by
working together to select the best cooperative learning structures for their learning objectives.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. The motivation influences in Table 6 represent the complete list of
assumed motivation influences and whether they were validated based on the most frequently
mentioned motivation influences to achieving the stakeholders’ goal during interviews and
supported by the literature review and the review of motivation theory. According to Clark and
Estes (2008), there are three components of motivated performance: active choice, persistence,
and mental effort. Choice refers to actually starting a task. Persistence is continuing with a task,
despite potential challenges. Mental effort is the process of applying knowledge to solve a new
program or task. For cooperative learning to be successful, teachers need to see value in utilizing
the structures and believe they can effectively implement the strategies. As such, as indicated in
Table 6, the motivational influences were validated with a high priority for achieving the
stakeholders’ goal. Table 6 also shows the recommendations for these influences based on
theoretical principles.

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 53

Table 6
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Motivation
Influence:
Cause, Need, or
Asset*

Validated
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers need
see the value in
utilizing
cooperative
learning
strategies.
(Utility Value)
Y Y Learning and
motivation are
enhanced if the
learner values the
task (Eccles,
2006).
Include rationales about the
importance and utility value
of the task prior to
professional development.
Teachers believe
they can
effectively
implement
cooperative
learning
strategies. (Self
Efficacy)
Y Y Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
learners have
positive
expectancies for
success (Pajares,
2006).
Provide instructional support
and coaching early on, build
in multiple opportunities for
practice and gradually
remove supports as teachers
gain confidence with
cooperative learning.

Value. Teachers need to see the value in utilizing cooperative learning strategies. Eccles
(2006) explains learning and motivation are enhanced if the learner values the task. This
suggests it is important to explain the theory and benefits behind cooperative learning to
teachers. Therefore, the recommendation is to provide teachers with the rationale for utilizing
cooperative learning prior to engaging in professional development.
Eccles (2006) describes the potential for a motivation gap if a person does not see value
in the task they are asked to complete. Sharing research that highlights the positive impact of
cooperative learning can help teachers place more value on implementing cooperative
learning. For example, cooperative learning has been found to increase student participation in
class (Hermann, 2013). Cooperative learning may also help students develop stronger social and
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 54

interpersonal skills (Abrami, 2004). From a theoretical perspective, ensuring teachers
understand the value of cooperative learning makes it more likely they will work to implement
the strategies in their classrooms.
Self-Efficacy. Teachers need to believe they can effectively implement cooperative
learning strategies. Pajares (2006) found that learning and motivation are enhanced when
learners believe they can be successful. This suggests it is important to provide early support
and coaching to teachers who are learning cooperative learning strategies. This will ensure they
have the confidence to try the strategies in their classrooms. Therefore the recommendation is to
provide this support through coaching and multiple opportunities for practice, prior to removing
scaffolds as teachers gain more confidence with cooperative learning.
Clark and Estes (2008) write about the importance of individuals believing that can be
successful as a key component to motivation. Abrami (2004) found that teachers who believe
they can successfully implement cooperative learning is predictive of whether teachers will
actually utilize the strategies. Professional development that instills strong initial self-efficacy
can have positive s effects years later (Watson, 2006). Avoiding information overload by
chunking information during professional development can help participants feel more
successful (Kirschner, Kirschner & Paas, 2006). From a theoretical perspective, designing
professional development to promote high levels of initial self-efficacy by scaffolding the
learning and providing early support will make it more likely teachers will implement the
strategies in their classrooms.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. The organization influences in Table 7 represent the complete list of
assumed organization influences and whether they were validated based on the most frequently
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 55

mentioned organization influences to achieving the stakeholders’ goal during interviews and
supported by the literature review and the review of organization and culture theory. Clark and
Estes (2008) suggest that organization and stakeholder goals are often not achieved due to a lack
of resources, most often time and money, and stakeholder goals that are not aligned with the
organization’s mission and goals. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) propose two constructs
about culture – cultural models or the observable beliefs and values shared by individuals in
groups, and cultural models, or the settings and activities in which performance occurs. Thus,
both resources and processes and cultural models and settings must align throughout the
organization’s structure to achieve the mission and goals. As such, as indicated in Table 7 the
organizational influences were validated and are a high priority for achieving the organizational
goal. Table 7 also shows the recommendations for these influences based on theoretical
principles.

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 56

Table 7
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

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

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Organizational
leadership
demonstrates a
commitment to
cooperative
learning (Cultural
Settings).
Y Y Organizational
effectiveness
increases when
leaders identify,
articulate, focus the
organization’s effort
on and reinforce the
organization’s vision;
they lead from the
why (Waters,
Marzano & McNulty,
2003).
Leaders of
reconstituted schools
should help their
organization carefully
choose instructional
initiatives.
Organizational
leadership invests in
professional
development to
support
implementation of
cooperative
learning (Cultural
Settings).
Y Y
Building the capacity
of an organization is
crucial in improving
the institution and its
accountability
systems (Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004).
Leaders of
reconstituted schools
should build teacher
capacity by investing
in focused professional
development for
teachers.
Organizational
leadership
establishes a culture
of collaboration
when implementing
cooperative
learning (Cultural
Models).
Y Y Organizational
effectiveness
increases when
leaders facilitate
creative and
collaborative problem
solving (Fidishun
2000; Schein, 2004).
Instructional leaders
should provide time
and resources for
collaboration around
instructional strategies.
Organizational
leadership provides
support to teachers
who are new to
cooperative
learning (Cultural
Settings).
Y Y Organizational
effectiveness
increases when
leaders insure that
employees have the
resources needed to
achieve the
organization’s goals
When implementing a
new instructional
initiative, school
leaders should provide
coaching and feedback
following the initial
training.
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 57

(Waters, Marzano &
McNulty, 2003).

Cultural models. King Middle School leadership established a culture of collaboration
when implementing cooperative learning. Fidishun (2000) and Schein (2004) found
organizational effectiveness increases when leaders facilitate creative and collaborative problem
solving. This suggests instructional leaders at reconstituted schools should provide time and
resources for collaboration around instructional strategies.
Abrami et al. (2004) found that schools that created communities of practitioners to
support each other in cooperative learning implementation were the most successful. Likewise,
Ishler et al. (1998) found peer encouragement was associated with more effective cooperative
learning. To facilitate collaboration Stoll et al. (2006) explained it is important for teachers to be
provided both the time and space to collaborate. Therefore, the recommendation is for school
administration to provide teachers with the resources, including time, necessary to collaborate
around instructional priorities.
Cultural settings. King Middle School leadership demonstrated a strong commitment to
cooperative learning, including providing support to teachers who were new to cooperative
learning through professional development, coaching, and feedback. Hentschke & Wohlstetter
(2004) identify the importance of building organizational capacity. Waters, Marzano and
McNulty (2003) explained organizational effectiveness increases when leaders insure that
employees have the resources needed to achieve the organization’s goals. Therefore it is
recommended that leaders of reconstituted schools should build teacher capacity by providing
professional development to teachers and holding teachers accountable for implementation
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 58

following the training. High quality professional development includes providing teachers with
feedback and coaching in implementation.
A lack of quality professional development can result in instructional strategies that are
not effective. Felder and Brent (2007) found that flawed implementation of cooperative learning
could result in student and staff resistance. The authors recommend that teachers be properly
trained and supported in correct implementation of the structures. Leaders of reconstituted
schools should apply these principles to investing in high quality professional development and
providing coaching and feedback in the strategies to their teachers.
Sustainability
Maintaining student achievement gains is a challenge for many schools, including those
that are reconstituted. Given the important role school leadership played in King Middle
School’s reconstitution, it is recommended that reconstituted schools plan for sustainability.
Although Mr. Hernandez left King Middle School, Ms. Vasquez the assistant principal took over
and honored the existing culture of the school by continuing to focus on cooperative learning.
Not only did King Middle School maintain continuity with leadership, by the time Mr.
Hernandez moved on, a strong culture was established in which teachers were already bought-in
to the instructional vision of the school. At that point, nearly any leader could have come in, and
teachers would have likely continued on with cooperative learning. During his time as principal,
Mr. Hernandez worked to build the capacity of teachers as instructional leaders. Teachers began
holding themselves accountable for implementing the agreed upon instructional strategies, and
via the department and staff meeting structures, held themselves accountable for continued
improvements. It is important for leaders of reconstituted schools to develop teacher leadership
so that academic gains do not recede with the departure of any one staff member.
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 59

Conclusion
This study sought to study the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that
helped King Middle School increase student achievement following its reconstitution. While
many reconstitutions are not successful (Hamilton, Heiling & Pazey, 2014; Hess, 2003; Rice &
Croninger, 2005; Rice & Malen, 2003; Rice & Malen, 2010; Trujillo, 2015), the promising
strategies employed by King Middle School teachers and administrators can be used to guide
school and district leaders who may be considering attempting a reconstitution in the future.
King Middle School chose to focus on cooperative learning to help increase student
achievement. The school made this choice because it felt cooperative learning would address
issues with student engagement, academic language, and social skills. But each school is
different. Other reconstituted schools may have different needs that are better addressed through
strategies other than cooperative learning. Therefore, it is recommended that leaders of
reconstituted schools focus not on King Middle School’s use of cooperative learning, but rather,
the process it used to effectively implement the strategy. School administration ensured all
teachers hired to re-staff the school were open to learning and using cooperative learning
strategies. Extensive training was provided to teachers, focusing not only on the procedural
elements of cooperative learning, but also on the theory which helped teachers see the value in
utilizing the strategies in their classrooms. Following initial training, administration provided
coaching and feedback to teachers, holding everyone accountable for trying the structures and
engaging in continuous improvement. Additional support was provided by establishing
structures for teachers to collaborate and provide each other with feedback on cooperative
learning. This process of committing to an instructional strategy based on student need,
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 60

establishing stakeholder buy-in, providing training, support, and accountability was the real
driver to King Middle School’s success.
This study was an initial foray into a promising practice at one reconstituted school.
Additional research is necessary to determine whether the strategies and knowledge, motivation,
and organizational assets utilized by King Middle School are generalizable to the broader
population of reconstituted schools. Researchers may also wish to study additional stakeholder
groups such as students, parents, and district leadership to gain a more complete picture of the
factors that lead to a successful reconstitution. Given the large role school leadership played in
King Middle School’s success, future research may also focus on whether it may be less costly,
yet equally effective to only change school leadership instead of the majority of teachers at
struggling schools.

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 61

Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria
for Interviews

Participating Stakeholders
Participants for the study must have worked at King Middle School from 2011 through
2014, and need to be able to speak to the efforts that influenced King Middle School’s academic
achievement. Instructional leadership, such as administrators, and department chairs were
deemed likely to have strong insight into the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that helped King Middle School achieve its stakeholder and global goals. An effort
was also made to study teachers from a variety of subject areas to gather a diverse set of
viewpoints.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1: Employment. All stakeholders interviewed must have been employed at
King Middle School from at least 2011-2014. An attempt was made to include teachers who
were employed at King Middle School prior to 2011, and remained employed at the school post-
reconstitution in a focus group to gain deeper insight into the changes that occurred at the school.
Criterion 2: Instructional Leadership. Members of King Middle School’s instructional
leadership team were interviewed because they are the staff members who were likely to have
the most insight into instructional initiatives the school engaged in, and professional
development provided to teachers. The school’s principal and assistant principal were
interviewed, as were department chairs. The administrative team and department chairs were
able to explain why cooperative learning was selected as a focus instructional strategy for the
school, and the successes and struggles experienced during initial implementation.
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 62

Criterion 3: Variety of Subject Areas. To triangulate responses, teachers from a variety
of subject areas were also be interviewed. Creswell (2014) explains that converging multiple
sources of data adds validity to a study and can help a researcher establish broader themes.
Studying teachers from a variety of subject areas will help establish validity by ensuring a
particular group of teacher’s experiences are not projected onto others. In speaking with a
diverse array of teachers, the researcher hoped to gain insight into their perception of
organizational supports provided during cooperative learning implementation.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale. Interview participants were
selected purposefully based on the three criteria previously indicated. The school’s principal was
interviewed, as he was the school’s instructional leader in the period immediately following
reconstitution. In addition, the school’s assistant principal played an important role in supporting
the school’s instructional initiatives.
Interviews with department chairs were also conducted. King Middle School likely had
between six and ten department chairs at the time of reconstitution. While attempts were made
to include these individuals in the interviews, some department chairs no longer work at the
school, and were unable to be reached.
That said, the researcher was able to recruit participants for the study. The researcher
works as an administrator within King Middle School’s district, and is familiar with district
policies and procedures regarding research, and the most convenient time for school staff
members to participate in interviews or focus groups. The researcher coordinated site visits and
interviews with the current principal at King Middle School, of whom the researcher already has
a working relationship, to ensure staff members were available for interviews.

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 63

Appendix B: Protocols
Interview Protocol.
1. Please describe your current role at King Middle School, as well as the role you were in
in 2011 when the school was reconstituted.
2. How did you come to work at King Middle School?
3. Where you working at King Middle School before reconstitution? (If yes: Please describe
what King Middle School was like prior to reconstitution, if no: What drew you to King
Middle School)
4. Do you know why the school was reconstituted? Did you know teachers or
administrators at the school before coming to King?
5. How would you describe the culture at King Middle School after reconstitution? What
did school leadership and faculty do to foster that culture?
6. What instructional strategies did the school focus on after reconstitution?
7. How did the school decide to focus on these strategies?
8. How did cooperative learning help King Middle School achieve its goal?
9. What type of professional development was implemented at King Middle School to
support cooperative learning?
10. What aspects of professional development were most helpful to you in implementing
cooperative learning?
11. What are some of the similarities and differences between cooperative learning and group
work?
12. Did you utilize cooperative learning prior to professional development?
13. How did cooperative learning change the way you approached your whole group lessons?
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 64

14. When did you begin using cooperative learning strategies, and why did you choose to do
so?
15. After initially being trained in cooperative learning, what challenges, if any, did you face
in implementing the structures in your lessons?
16. Which cooperative learning structures do you typically use for reinforcing procedural
skills, and why do you use those structures?
17. Which cooperative learning structures do you typically use for reinforcing a conceptual
understanding of course material, and why do you use those structures?
18. Can you describe the impact cooperative learning has had on student achievement in your
school/classroom?
19. What did school leadership do to help teachers feel confident in their ability to implement
cooperative learning structures?
20. What impact has cooperative learning had on teacher collaboration at King Middle
School?
21. What resources or support do you need from school administration to be successful in
implementing cooperative learning? Do you have opportunities to provide input
regarding necessary resources and support?
22. What role did school administration play in establishing school culture?
23. How do staff members collaborate regarding cooperative learning initiatives?
24. Did you ever observe your colleagues implement cooperative learning strategies in their
classroom? (If so: Can you describe the impact observing other teachers had on your
ability to implement the strategies yourself).
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 65

25. Have you received feedback from colleagues regarding your implementation of
cooperative learning strategies? From your administrator? Others?
26. Is there anything else I should know about strategies used to increase academic
achievement at King Middle School’s after its reconstitution?
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 66

Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness

Because participants relied on their memory of past experiences, it was important to verify
their responses. Independently interviewing each participant, and conducting multiple interviews
with the primary stakeholder group helped ensure validity. Document analysis, as described in
the documents and artifacts section was also used to verify interview responses. For example,
when teachers state in interviews that they received significant professional development in
cooperative learning strategies, the researcher looked to verify this information by examining
agendas and sign-in sheets from past professional developments. Bogdan and Biklen (2007)
suggest that when conducting research in school settings, it is often the principal of the school
who can provide access. The researcher worked to develop a rapport with the principal so that
she felt comfortable providing access to these documents and artifacts, which are typically kept
in either the school’s main office or principal’s office.
Also important to the credibility and trustworthiness of the study was asking truly neutral
questions. Patton (2002) explains that while establishing rapport with the person being
questioned is important, it is essential that the person being interviewed not feel a response will
be favored or disfavored. The scripted questions, which made up the bulk of the interviews are
listed in appendix B.

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 67

Appendix D: Ethics

The nature of qualitative research can pose a variety of ethical dilemmas. Considerations
regarding the relationship of the researcher and participants, informed consent, confidentiality,
and data collection and storage must all be accounted for (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
All research participants in this study were provided informed consent forms. Informed
consent ensured that research participants understood that their participation was voluntary, were
made aware of any potential risks to their well-being, and were informed that they could choose
to stop participating at any time in the study without penalty (Glesne, 2011). In addition,
research participants were informed about the purpose of the study, and asked permission to
record interviews. Responses will remain confidential, and participants’ names and other
identifying information were not be used in the written report. Audio recordings will be locked,
and accessible only to the principal researcher.
The principal researcher in this study is a principal in the same school district as the
school being studied, but has never worked at the specific research site. The researcher does not
have, nor has ever had any supervisory responsibilities regarding the research site or the
interview and focus group participants. Despite the lack of relationship with the site or
participants, the nature of the relationship, in which the researcher works for the same broader
organization may be confusing to participants. Therefore, the researcher clearly explained that
while he works for the same school district, this research is being conducted in his capacity as a
doctoral student, and not on behalf of the school district. In addition, participants were reminded
that their responses will not be shared with their employer or supervisor.
Prior to the commencement of the study, the researcher submitted a proposal to the
University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). Glesne (2011) explains
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 68

that IRBs ensure research subjects have sufficient information about the study to provide
informed consent, can withdraw from the study at any time, eliminate unnecessary risk, ensure
the benefits of the study outweigh the costs, and ensure the study is being conducted by a
qualified researcher. The researcher adhered to all IRB policies and procedures to ensure the
well-being of participants in the study.
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 69

Appendix E: Implementation and Evaluation Plan

Implementation and Evaluation Framework
This implementation and evaluation plan is based on the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), which itself is based on the Kirkpatrick Four Level Model of
Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). The New World Kirkpatrick Model recommends
creating an evaluation plan by starting with the goals of the organization and working backwards
to develop an implementation and evaluation plan to help the organization meet those goals. The
New World Kirkpatrick Model recommends a sequence of three actions: 1) Developing solutions
that assess work behaviors, 2) Identifying indicators learning occurred during implementation,
and 3) Capturing indicators that members within the organization are satisfied with
implementation strategies. This model of developing an implementation and evaluation plan
ensures solutions are connected with organizational goals (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
King Middle School’s organizational goal was to raise their API score to the state target
of 800 by June 2014. To help it achieve this goal, King Middle School decided to focus on
cooperative learning and set a stakeholder goal of all teachers implementing cooperative learning
strategies in 75% of their lessons by June 2014. This project examined the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational assets that allowed King Middle School to achieve its goals.
Recommendations for other reconstituted schools are based on the promising practices employed
by King Middle School.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators

Table E.1 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics and methods for both external and internal outcomes for King Middle
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 70

School. If the internal outcomes are met as expected as a result of the training and organizational
support for cooperative learning, then the external outcomes should also be realized. The
internal outcome is consistent with the stakeholder goal of teachers implementing cooperative
learning structures in 75% of their lessons. The external outcomes are the impact cooperative
learning had on schoolwide academic achievement.

Table E.1

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Recognition by the State as
a “School to Watch”
1a. Standardized Test Scores Result of “School to Watch” application.
Internal Outcomes
2. Improved student test
scores
1b. Standardized test scores Review annual standardized test score report.
3. Teachers will implement
cooperative learning
structures in at least 75% of
their lessons
2a. Percentage of teachers
observed implementing
cooperative learning
structures.
During classroom observations, school
administrators will track cooperative learning
implementation utilizing a standardized
classroom observation tool.

2b. Percentage of lesson
plans that indicate use of a
cooperative learning structure
School administrators will review teacher
lesson plans on a weekly basis.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus are certificated staff members at King
Middle School. The first critical behavior is that teachers must try cooperative learning structures
in their classrooms. The second critical behavior is that they correctly utilize the cooperative
learning structures. The specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of these outcome
behaviors appear in E.2.

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 71

Table E.2

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing
Critical
Behavior
Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Teachers utilize
cooperative learning
structures in their
lessons.
Classroom
observations by
school
administrators.

School administrators will observe each
teacher to monitor implementation of
cooperative learning
Each teacher should
be observed a
minimum of one
time per week.
2. Teachers correctly
utilize cooperative
learning structures
Effective ratings in
cooperative learning
rubrics.
School administrators will utilize
cooperative learning rubric to provide
teachers with actionable feedback
following each classroom observation.
Each teacher should
be observed a
minimum of one
time per week.

Required drivers. Teachers need to both utilize cooperative learning structures in their
lessons and utilize those structures correctly in their lessons. Required drivers to support the
critical behaviors include methods of reinforcing, encouraging, and rewarding. Table E.3 shows
the recommended drivers to support critical behaviors of teachers.
Table E.3
Required Drivers to Support New Reviewers’ Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing

Job aid providing the steps for cooperative learning structures. Ongoing 1, 2
Modeling of cooperative learning structures during professional
development and staff meetings.
Ongoing 1, 2
Provide professional development to new staff members who
may not have received the initial training.
Yearly 1, 2
Encouraging

Collaboration and peer modeling during department meetings. Ongoing 1, 2
Feedback and coaching from administration and effective peers. Ongoing 1, 2
Rewarding

Praise of teachers who effectively utilized cooperative learning
structures during staff meetings.
Ongoing 2
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 72

Tracking of cooperative learning implementation in weekly
newsletter (e.g. This week 70% of teachers were observed
utilizing cooperative learning structures during classroom
observations)
Weekly 1

Monitoring

Administration visits classrooms to check for teachers attempting
to use cooperative learning strategies.
Weekly 1
Administration visits classrooms and assesses the effectiveness
of cooperative learning implementation
Weekly 2

Organizational support. To support the stakeholders critical behaviors, and ensure the
drivers are implemented on a continuous basis, it is important that school administration be
committed to the instructional strategy and elicit buy-in from teachers. After providing high
quality professional development, school administration must hold teachers accountable for
implementation by visiting classrooms and providing actionable feedback to teachers. Teachers
should have time to collaborate with their colleagues, and observe their peers implement
cooperative learning structures. The strategies should also be modeled in ongoing professional
development and staff meetings.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following completion of the recommended solutions, particularly
teachers receiving cooperative learning training, teachers should be able to:
1. Explain the differences between cooperative learning and group work, (D)
2. Recite the steps for at least five cooperative learning structures, (P)
3. Follow the steps to choose the best cooperative learning structure for a particular
learning objective, (P)
4. Value the positive impact cooperative learning can have on student achievement,
(Value)
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 73

Program. The learning goals listed in the previous section, were achieved with an in-
depth professional development program that consisted of five days of training, as well as
follow-up coaching. During the initial five days of training, teachers were taught the
fundamentals of cooperative learning and how it differed from group work. For example,
teachers were taught that effective cooperative learning structures require individual
accountability, simultaneous engagement, and positive interdependence. Teachers were also
taught how to effectively group students and establish rapport within cooperative groups.
Teachers were taught a variety of cooperative learning structures, as well as how to choose the
best structure for a particular learning objective.
Following the initial training, teachers received follow-up coaching. In addition to
feedback from school administration and their peers, teachers received coaching from a third-
party coach. This coach, visited each teacher and provided real-time feedback to the teacher’s on
a structure of their choosing. Teachers also had an opportunity to observe their colleagues
during these coaching sessions. The combination of initial training, feedback, and an
opportunity to observe colleagues helped support achievement of the stakeholder goals.
Components of learning. It is important to evaluate learning throughout the training
program. Evaluation should capture the effectiveness of declarative and procedural
knowledge. Because motivation impacts whether teachers will apply the learning, it is also
important to assess the value teachers place on the training, as well as their confidence that they
can effectively apply the knowledge and skills being taught. As such, Table E.4 lists the
evaluation methods and timing for these components of learning.

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 74

Table E.4
Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Knowledge checks using multiple choice and short
response.
At the end of each day of initial
training.
Knowledge checks through discussions, utilizing
cooperative learning structures such as “Timed-Pair-
Share” and other individual/group activities.
Periodically during the in person
workshop and documented via
observation notes.

Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Observations of teachers utilizing cooperative learning
structures in their classrooms.
Weekly following the trainings.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment survey asking
participants about their level of proficiency before and
after the training. .
At the end of the five-day
training.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

Instructor’s observation of participants’ statements and
actions demonstrating that they see the benefit of what
they are being asked to do on the job.
During the workshop.
Discussions of the value of what they are being asked to
do on the job.
During the workshop.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item. After the five day training.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”

Survey items using scaled items Following each day of training
Discussions following practice and feedback.

During the workshop, faculty, and
department meetings.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item. After the course.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

Discussions following practice and feedback.

During the workshop.
Create an individual action plan.

During the workshop.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item. After the course.

Level 1: Reaction
Participant’s reaction to the training will be measured in the areas of engagement,
relevance, and customer satisfaction. These factors do not necessarily ensure participants leave
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 75

the training capable to achieve all of the learning outcomes, but are important indicators of
motivation. E.5 shows the methods and tools used for measurement, as well as the timing.
Table E.5
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement

Attendance sign-in sheets During the workshops
Observation by the instructor During the workshops
Workshop evaluation Immediately following the workshops
Participation in coaching
sessions
Once per semester
Relevance

Group discussions During the workshops
Workshop evaluation Immediately following the workshops
Self-reflection Following the introduction of each new cooperative learning
structure
Customer Satisfaction

Group discussions During the workshops
Workshop evaluation Immediately following the workshops.
Coaching evaluation Immediately following coaching

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. During the workshop, the
instructor will conduct periodic observations to ensure participant engagement, relevance, and
satisfaction. In addition, level 1 elements of engagement, relevance, and satisfaction will be
gauged through a participant survey such as the one indicated below. A similar survey will be
distributed to participants following coaching.
Level 2 will be also be assessed during the trainings, as well as via the participant survey
immediately following the workshops. Survey items will include assessments of declarative
knowledge, procedural skills, confidence, and commitment.

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 76

Sample Participant Survey.
Thank you for participating in the cooperative learning workshops. Please provide your
feedback regarding the workshops by completing the following survey.

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
1. I enjoyed the cooperative learning workshop
(Level 1: Customer Satisfaction)
1 2 3 4
2. I found the workshop relevant to my work
(Level 1: Relevance)
1 2 3 4
3. I found the workshop engaging (Level 1:
Engagement)
1 2 3 4
4. I plan to implement cooperative learning
strategies in my classroom (Level 2:
Commitment)
1 2 3 4
5. I am confident I can successfully utilize
cooperative learning strategies in my classroom
(Level 2: Confidence)
1 2 3 4
6. Please explain the differences between cooperative learning and traditional group work.
(Level 2: Declarative Knowledge)

7. Please describe the steps for at least one cooperative learning structure. (Level 2: Procedural
Knowledge)

Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately six weeks
after the implementation of the training, and then again at at the end of each semester, school
administration will administer a follow-up survey. This survey will again measure Level 1 and
Level 2 elements such as satisfaction, relevance, confidence, and knowledge level. It will also
evaluate level 3 and level 4 by measuring whether participants are utilizing the cooperative
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 77

learning strategies, and whether they are having a positive impact on student achievement. The
blended evaluation tool is a sample survey that could be administered.
Blended Evaluation Tool.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to this survey, which will provide us with
feedback on cooperative learning implementation. All responses are anonymous and will be
used to develop stronger ongoing support and follow-up professional development.

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
1. I enjoyed the cooperative learning workshop
(Level 1: Customer Satisfaction)
1 2 3 4
2. I found the workshop relevant to my work
(Level 1: Relevance)
1 2 3 4
3. I found the workshop engaging (Level 1:
Engagement)
1 2 3 4
4. Following the training, I planned to implement
cooperative learning strategies in my classroom
(Level 2: Commitment)
1 2 3 4
5. I am confident I can successfully utilize
cooperative learning strategies in my classroom
(Level 2: Confidence)
1 2 3 4
6. Administration visits my classroom to observe
cooperative learning strategies (Level 3:
Monitoring)
1 2 3 4
7. I have received praise for attempting
cooperative learning structures (Level 3:
Rewarding)
1 2 3 4
8. I have received actionable feedback from
administration regarding cooperative learning
(Level 3: Encouraging)
1 2 3 4
9. I utilize the job aids that describe the steps for
cooperative learning structures (Level 3:
Reinforcing)
1 2 3 4
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 78

10. Cooperative learning has positively impacted
student achievement in my classroom (Level 4)
1 2 3 4
11. Please provide an example of how cooperative learning has positively impacted student
achievement in your classroom (Level 4).

12. What additional support do you need to be successful with cooperative learning?

Data Analysis and Reporting
Administration will email teachers a weekly data newsletter that tracks measures of
student achievement, such as test scores and class grades, as well as data pertaining to
cooperative learning implementation. This data will include results from administration’s
classroom visits, such as the percentage of teachers observed utilizing cooperative learning
strategies. Overtime, data will be displayed utilizing graphical tools such as line graphs that can
show demonstrate change over time.
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model was used create a plan, including implementation and
evaluation for cooperative learning implementation. The framework utilizes a backward
planning model by starting with the end goal and working backwards to help the organization
reach that goal. This framework ensures that learning results in actual change. In addition, by
requiring an organization to consider how it will measure and evaluate success before
implementing the plan, it introduces a key lever of accountability and monitoring to make
success more likely.

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 79

References
Abrami, P. C., Poulsen, C., & Chambers, B. (2004). Teacher motivation to implement an
educational innovation: Factors differentiating users and non-users of cooperative
learning. Educational Psychology, 24, 201-216.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metocognition/.
Berry, K. S., & Herrington, C. D. (2011). States and their struggles with NCLB: Does the Obama
blueprint get it right?. Peabody Journal of Education, 86(3), 272-290.
Birman, B. F., Aladjem, D. K., & Orland, M. (2010, May). Studying turnaround
schools. Presentation at the American Educational Research Association Confer- ence;
Denver, CO.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Fieldwork. In Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics
instruction by expert and novice teachers. American educational research journal, 26(4),
473-498.
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.
Cuban, L. (1990). A fundamental puzzle of school reform. Schools as collaborative cultures:
Creating the future now, 71-77.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement.Education policy
analysis archives, 8, 1.
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 80

Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Heilig, J. V. (2005). Does Teacher
Preparation Matter? Evidence about Teacher Certification, Teach for America, and
Teacher Effectiveness. education policy analysis archives, 13(42), n42.
De la Torre, M., Allensworth, E., Jagesic, S., Sebastian, J., Salmonowicz, M., Meyers, C., &
Gerdeman, R. D. (2013). Turning around Low-Performing Schools in Chicago: Research
Report. Consortium on Chicago School Research. 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, IL
60637.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Elmore, R. F. (2003). Doing the right thing, knowing the right thing to do: Low-performing
schools and performance-based accountability. National Governors Association Policy
Education Advisors Institute. Los Angeles, CA.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2007). Cooperative learning. In Active learning: Models from the
analytical sciences, ACS Symposium Series (Vol. 970, pp. 34-53).
Fidishun, D. (2000, April). Andragogy and technology: Integrating adult learning theory as we
teach with technology. In Proceedings of the 2000 Mid-South Instructional Technology
Conference.
Finnigan, K. S., & Gross, B. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher
motivation? Lessons from Chicago’s low-performing schools. American Educational
Research Journal, 44(3), 594-630.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56.
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 81

Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15, 103–120.
Hamilton, M. P., Heilig, J. V., & Pazey, B. L. (2014). A nostrum of school reform? Turning
around reconstituted urban Texas high schools. Urban Education, 49(2), 182-215.
Hendrie, C. (2001). A mixed record for reconstitution flashes a yellow light for districts. The
Jossey-Bass Reader on School Reform, 382.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. R. I. S. C. I. L. L. A. (2004). Cracking the code of
accountability. University of Southern California Urban Education, 17-19.
Herrmann, K. J. (2013). The impact of cooperative learning on student engagement: Results
from an intervention. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14, 175-187.
Hess, G. A. (2003). Reconstitution—Three Years Later Monitoring the Effect of Sanctions on
Chicago High Schools. Education and Urban Society, 35(3), 300-327.
Hord, S. (2004). Professional learning communities: An overview. In S. Hord (ed), Learning
together, leading together: Changing schools through professional learning communities.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Ishler, A. L., Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1998). Long-term effectiveness of a
statewide staff development program on cooperative learning. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 14, 273–281.
Jacob, B. A. (2007). The challenges of staffing urban schools with effective teachers. The Future
of Children, 17(1), 129-153.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in
postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 15–29.
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 82

Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in
higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435–460.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training
evaluation. Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41, 212–218.
Levin, J., & Quinn, M. (2003). Missed Opportunities: How We Keep High-Quality Teachers out
of Urban Classrooms.
Loeb, S., Kalogrides, D., & Béteille, T. (2012). Effective schools: Teacher hiring, assignment,
development, and retention. Education, 7(3), 269-304.
Marsh, J. A., Strunk, K. O., & Bush, S. (2013). Portfolio district reform meets school turnaround:
Early implementation findings from the Los Angeles Public School Choice Initiative.
Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4), 498-527. Chicago
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Malen, B., Croninger, R., Redmond, D., & Muncey, D. (1999). Uncovering the potential
contradictions in reconstitution reforms.
Malen, B., Croninger, R., Muncey, D., & Redmond-Jones, D. (2002). Reconstituting
schools:“Testing” the “theory of action”. Educational evaluation and policy
analysis, 24(2), 113-132.
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 83

McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, J. (2008). Turning around failing schools: Policy insights from the corporate,
government, and nonprofit sectors. Educational Policy.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Interviewing. In Qualitative research & evaluation methods
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Peck, C., & Reitzug, U. C. (2014). School Turnaround Fever The Paradoxes of a Historical
Practice Promoted as a New Reform. Urban Education, 49(1), 8-38.
Rice, J. K., & Croninger, R. G. (2005). Resource generation, reallocation, or depletion: An
analysis of the impact of reconstitution on school capacity. Leadership and policy in
schools, 4(2), 73-103.
Rice, J. K., & Malen, B. (2003). The human costs of education reform: The case of school
reconstitution. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(5), 635-666.
Rice, J. K., & Malen, B. (2010). School Reconstitution as an Education Reform Strategy.
Shraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). Interest. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/interest/.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning
communities: A review of the literature. Journal of educational change, 7(4), 221-258.
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL RECONSTITUTION 84

Strunk, K. O., Marsh, J. A., Hashim, A. K., & Bush-Mecenas, S. (2016). Innovation and a Return
to the Status Quo: A Mixed-Methods Study of School Reconstitution. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(3), 549-577.
Trujillo, T. (2015). Review of Dramatic Action, Dramatic Improvement.University of California,
Berkeley.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Mid-continent
Research for Education and Learning.
Watson, G. (2006). Technology professional development: Long-term effects on teacher self-
efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 151.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this project was to study the successful strategies utilized by teachers and administrators at a reconstituted middle school. The primary finding is that school leadership committed to an instructional focus, used the rehiring process to identify teachers willing to buy- in to the instructional vision, and instituted ongoing support and accountability structures. School leadership built a strong, focused culture that resulted in sustainable change at the school. The study used the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model to identify organizational assets in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organization. The study utilized qualitative interviews to identify findings and recommendations. Teachers and administrators reported the school used cooperative learning in all subject areas to engage students, build social skills, and develop student’s academic vocabulary. Cooperative learning implementation was supported through professional development, regular feedback from school administration, and peer collaboration. While teachers and administrators from the focus organization attribute implementation of cooperative learning strategies as critical to its success, other reconstituted schools may have different needs that are better addressed through other strategies. Therefore, it is recommended that leaders of reconstituted schools focus not on the cooperative learning, but rather, the process the focus school used to effectively implement the strategy and increase student achievement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study

PDF

Building data use capacity through school leaders: an evaluation study

PDF

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

PDF

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

PDF

An evaluation study of... What do teachers know about gifted students?

PDF

The successful implementation of diversity and inclusion efforts: a study of promising practice

PDF

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

PDF

Building capacity in homeroom teachers to support English language learners

PDF

Maximizing English learners' success in higher education with differentiated instruction

PDF

Evaluating the implementation of 21st century skills and learning

PDF

School connectedness and teacher reflective practices

PDF

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

PDF

The knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that shape a special education teacher’s ability to provide effective specialized academic instruction

PDF

A methodology for transforming the student experience in higher education: a promising practice study

PDF

Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Increasing family engagement at Lily Elementary School: An evaluation model

PDF

Practices supporting newcomer students

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Gettinger, Daniel Alexander (author)

Core Title Understanding the factors that contribute to successful school reconstitution: A promising practice

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 07/13/2018

Defense Date 05/03/2018

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

Tag cooperative learning,OAI-PMH Harvest,reconstitution

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee chair), Ott, Maria (committee member), Robles, Darline (committee member)

Creator Email danielgettinger@gmail.com,dgetting@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-16851

Unique identifier UC11671518

Identifier etd-GettingerD-6384.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-16851 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GettingerD-6384.pdf

Dmrecord 16851

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Gettinger, Daniel Alexander

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